we don’t know because current scientific methods and religious sensitivities don’t allow this type of study. What if those praying are simply praying to the wrong God, or offending Him somehow? What if, by the wearing of a simple eye patch or Pirate bandanna, those praying might have their prayers answered by the FSM?
History is full of examples of supernatural events, and unless we are saying that we’re somehow more intelligent and educated, better equipped to understand unexplained events today than we were five hundred years ago, then we must accept the explanations given to these events by those who witnessed them. Witches, for example, existed in such quantity and caused so much trouble that it was necessary to hunt them down and burn them in the tens of thousands. Here it is, the twenty-first century, hundreds of years later, plenty of time for the population of witches to have grown exponentially, yet they are decidedly less of a problem now than they were half a millennia ago. I have never even seen a witch, let alone felt the need to burn one to death. We can conclude, then, that our forefathers, equipped with the knowledge that supernatural explanations were reasonable, rounded up all the witches in existence and took care of them.
The other possibility is that there are witches out there, hiding somewhere, plotting their revenge, liberally applying fireproofing compounds to themselves. And someday they may reappear and start causing trouble. And then what will our high and mighty scientists do? Throw calculators at them? Witches eat calculators. The scientific community will be helpless to defeat the threat of these witches, offering only “logical” and “reasoned” explanations for the horrible events the witches are magically inflicting on us.
We tend to exalt our rigid empirical methods and technological advances, almost as if we’re proud of what we’ve accomplished with them, but when the record clearly shows that supernatural, nonempirical science produces these kinds of results—the discovery of new lands, the elimination of demon-inducing illnesses, and the extinction of witches—it’s time to rethink our methods and return to what gave us real results.
Witch eating a calculator.
The biggest irony is that the arguments given against the inclusion of supernatural theories in the realm of accepted science actually show clearly that supernatural theories are legit fields of scientific study. No one is saying that empirical, natural-only science and supernatural science can’t live side by side. They can, and in fact, they must. Intelligent design may shun natural explanations for phenomena, but FSMism makes use of both the natural and the supernatural equally.
FSMISM
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
1. Al dente.
What’s the Matter with Evolution?
Highlighting the Problem
WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT EVOLUTION these days. Scientists seem to have embraced the subject as though it were the Second Coming of … well … science. But where has it got us? Are we to believe that just because we’re descended from a common ancestor shared with monkeys, dogs, or whatever, that we understand our situation on this earth any better than we would without Evolution to guide us? Is Evolution going to somehow make my life more satisfying? Can Evolution put food on my table? Will it save the earth from global warming?
The answer to all of the above is a big No. And why is that? Because Evolution is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Sure, scientists while away their days trying to devise this or that proof to show that Evolution is a credible idea, but as long as it’s just a theory, no one in the real world is going to take it seriously. So I’ve decided to do some debunking of my own to show the world that the big, bad scientists aren’t “all that,” as the kids like to say.
What is Evolution but the gradual change of species over a lengthy period of time as a result of various internal and external selective pressures? My grandfather, who is as old as dirt, has been through that. According to early lithographs, he was quite a looker in his day, but now, a century later, after years of hard drinking and working in the mines, he has no hair and looks like shit. Could Evolution just mean growing old? I posed this question to a scientist friend who explained that the change has to take place over many generations. You’d think the Evolutionists would have stated that right out front, and I admit that I stand corrected. But Evolution still sounds a lot like growing old to me, and I can’t help thinking that this is where the Evolutionary scientists first got their wacky ideas.
Having cleared up this common confusion, let us move on to the proposed selective force of Evolution—namely, Natural Selection. What on Earth is this supposed to mean? Is there unnatural selection? And who’s doing the selecting? Neither of these questions could be answered by my scientist friend, and so I have been forced to ditch my now former friend and perform my own research. What follows is, to the best of my ability, what I’ve been able to uncover regarding Evolution and Natural Selection.
A Closer Examination of Natural Selection
Apparently, there are not one but two forms of selection. They are Natural Selection and sexual selection. I’ll let you mull over the second “sexy” form of selection for a minute, at least until I’ve torn the first one to shreds.
According to the neo-Darwinists, most Evolutionary change is attributable to Natural Selection, meaning that individuals carrying genes that are better suited to their environment will leave more offspring than individuals carrying genes that make them less adaptive. Over time, these more adaptive traits will proliferate, altering the genetic composition of the overall population, since individuals with better “fitness”1 pass more of their genes into the next generation. It is this process, scientists will tell you, that produced the platypus, the penguin, and the poodle—leading us to conclude that scientists are definitely full of shit. If someone can explain to me the adaptive traits of the “duck-bill,” then they can certainly tell me why the platypus is the only mammal on the planet that has one? Are platypii (-pusses … who knows?) concerned with ingratiating themselves into local duck populations? Do they think that they’re funny? Why do they have a bill?
I’ll take it easy on the scientists regarding the platypus, because obviously it’s a tough one, but I’m sure there are several hundred scientists right now earning their tenure in a pointless search for the Evolutionary significance of this ridiculous creature. I’ll close on the platypus by stating an alternative theory that I’ve come up with: the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the platypus because, unlike scientists, He has a sense of humor. It’s an unlikely sign from God—and until someone can prove me wrong, that’s my theory.
I will next turn to more ordinary and boring examples of Natural Selection, which I will then proceed to slice to ribbons. Let us look at the fascinating case of bacteria. It is well known that antibiotics are used to cure various illnesses caused by bacteria, and it is equally well known that most bacteria (for example, staphylococci)2 eventually develop immunity to these antibiotics. Looking a little closer at the case of staphylococci, we find that, in 1929, Sir Alexander Fleming3 first observed the bacterium staphylococci to experience inhibition on an agar plate contaminated
