Bobby Henderson - The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

8.See Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island.

9.Women are not advised to try this in the company of perverted men.

10.Nihilos were an early Roman snack food, an early predecessor to Doritos. Essentially, this term translates to “from Doritos.”

11.Bonk.

12.Rams, deer, elk, etc.

13.Also, George W. Bush bears a striking resemblance to a chimpanzee.

14.Henderson, 2005.

15.Luke 19:27.

16.Who managed to knock off Jesus, if you believe some people.

17.Which would be cool, but would probably also make you a little uncomfortable around other people.

A Note from

Peter J. Snodgrass, Ph.D.,

and the Imam Perez Jaffari

RE: UD in a

Not-So-Intelligent World

When confronted with the grim realities of war, famine, pestilence, diarrhea, and Celine Dion, it is not entirely surprising that one might be led to consider that our Creator, while all-powerful, might not have proven Himself to be completely infallible.

While there can be no doubt that the source of creation was indeed the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), and that He did leave mysterious and ambiguous clues to throw us off track, 1 we submit that the FSM was careless, cruel, drunk, or even high when he first laid down the template for life as we know it. How else to explain the extinction of 99.9 percent of all plant and animal species ever to exist on earth? How else to explain the release of not one, but two Deuce Bigalow films?

Without question, we are members of a small and limited minority of scientists and religious leaders who deign to question the Creator’s wisdom in allowing for life-threatening volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, twisters, and plastic surgery gone bad, but as the evidence accumulates, we can only posit one undeniable theory:

The FSM, our Creator, isn’t very bright.

Undoubtedly, this statement represents a subtle paradigm shift, especially when juxtaposed against the common perception of a benevolent, all-knowing Creator, but innumerable examples of questionable judgment do exist. Something is certainly rotten in Denmark when Ben Affleck is allowed to bed both J. Lo and that hottie from Alias, while Matt Damon is forced to date his own assistant. We cry foul!

So we hereby state our belief that the universe is a result of “UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN” (UD).

Casting social science aside, we can turn to the physical sciences to support our claims. 2 Why doesn’t the Benevolent and Noodly Master get to work and start eradicating mass poverty, cancer, global warming, and nuclear proliferation? Is He too busy trying to rekindle the low-carb diet craze?

While this treatise might not appear to meet the normal requirements of an academic paper, let it be said that such was not even our intention. This is a work composed by a scientist and a religious leader. If science and religion are to live side by side in mutual nonjudgment, there needs to be a new model for dialogue, one that takes into account the interests of both sides. Religious people don’t really “do” numbers. Scientists can’t get dates and don’t have a clue what real people think. By collecting and presenting a different kind of data, we aim to appeal to “Bible thumpers” and “brainiacs” alike. Just getting those epithets out on the table can make a difference.

In fact, we feel better already. Too many resources are being wasted in trying to prove intelligence in all we see around us. Wouldn’t it be better just to throw in the towel, call a spade a spade, and admit that our Creator is a dumbass?

Examples of Unintelligent Design

1. THE DODO. Portuguese sailors, who marveled at this bird’s trusting and docile nature, gave it the name dodo, meaning “simpleton.” Unfortunately, the dodo was unable to compete in a rapidly changing environment, 3 and the bird soon went the way of the Portuguese sailor.

2. THE PASSENGER PIGEON. Once the most populous bird in North America, the passenger pigeon’s demise can be traced back to the early 1900s and McDonald’s highly popular but short-lived “McPidgin Sandwich.”

3. THE IRISH ELK. Neither exclusively Irish nor an elk (it was really a large deer), the male of this species attracted mates based on the size of its antlers: the larger the antlers, the more attractive the male. As the selective pressures for a “nice rack” increased, the head of the male grew so overburdened that the males began to fall easy prey to the large predators 4 that were moving into northern Europe at the time. All the less impressive males just drank themselves to death.

4. THE LLAMA. The typical llama is unable to produce milk or eggs, and many people can’t even spell its name.

5. THE APPENDIX. Might once have had value but is now completely useless. 5 No one really knows why it remains, although some have been found to hold gold coins.

6. RELIGIOUS WARFARE. Someone has described religious warfare as “killing people over who has the best invisible friend.” We tend to agree.

7. DISCO. Scientists are still split on this dance craze, but the FSM doesn’t like it, so it goes on the list.

8. THE MACARENA. True fact: invented by a guy named Retardo.

9. JAR JAR BINKS. Hesa just stupid.

10. THE DUCK-BILLED PLATYPUS. Q. What creator combines a duck with a muskrat? A. Not an intelligent one.

Aboriginal children killed the dodo.

1.For instance, making Evolution seem plausible.

2.The Patel Paradox: Dr. S. Patel, Ph.D., notes that the Hubble constant reveals a universe that is expanding at a rate both measurable and significant. In spite of that fact, he still can’t find a parking space.

3.Possibly caused by an early aboriginal dot.com boom.

4.Sabre-toothed tigers, Germans, etc.

5.This includes its presence in book form.

The Controversy: Peer Review

PEOPLE ARE PLAYING POLITICS with science.

Supporters of Intelligent Design, or ID, have been targeting education officials and public policy makers in a blatant attempt to have their views taught to our nation’s students as “science.” Because 99 percent of the scientific community supports the theory of Evolution, ostensibly rejecting ID in the process, we find ID proponents arguing that their beliefs should be taken directly to the public—thus letting disorientated high school biology students decide the issue once and for all. 1

This contrasts significantly with conventional scientific methods, where researchers are required to submit their work for review by fellow scientists in their particular field—a process known as “peer review.” Such a system serves to weed out unacceptable theories, thus keeping science pure and permanently safe from controversy. But ask yourself this question: While “peer review” sounds like a good idea, is turning to one’s peers for their opinions not the wrong way to go? Is it not the same as a woman asking her boyfriend, “Do I look fat in this blouse/dress/parka?” Regardless of the item of clothing being worn, the answer is a resounding “no, you look great” in 99.99 percent of all test cases. 2 As a consequence, we argue that the highly secretive “peer review” system is unfairly hardwired to reinforce the limited viewpoints of scientists and their close friends. 3

NATIONWIDE POLL OF A CROSS SECTION OF “AVERAGE” HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY STUDENTS