target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_05e68bd9-024c-54bf-a0c5-ec6bcffaf4f8">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 predators4 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.
FSM vs. ID, an Unlikely Alliance
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
What is your opinion of Evolution?
| “Cool” | 7 percent |
| “Awesome” | 8 percent |
| “Stupid” | 14 percent |
| “Is that a new band?” | 8 percent |
| Didn’t have a #2 pencil | 62 percent |
| Asleep | 1 percent |
If the scientists had their way, we wouldn’t be discussing ID at all today. In fact, you’d have to go all the way back to the Salem witch trials before you’d find such close-mindedness and raw hatred for other people’s views.4 But brave school board members—nearly all of whom have no scientific background and, in some cases, very little education—have declared the current system to be unfair. With the courage of witches, they have dared to step forward and redefine science, and we of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have decided to stand by them.
And so we throw our hats into the ring:
We have uncovered remarkable evidence suggesting that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is behind the theory of Intelligent Design, deftly manipulating the debate with His Noodly Appendage.
If Not Him, Then Who?
If we take the Intelligent Design proponents at their word—that ID is not religious in nature but simply a scientific alternative to Evolution—then the religious background of the proponents of ID should closely mirror that of the general public. However, when we look at the data, we do not see the expected result. Instead, we find that 95 percent of leading ID proponents are evangelical Christians, or ECs. Given that evangelical Christians do not even attain such high densities in the South, we estimate that there is a .001 percent chance of this nearly 1:1 ratio of IDs to ECs occurring naturally. Again, accepting the claim that ID is a science and not a religion, the only other inference we can draw is a supernatural one.
ID proponents are extremely careful to state their arguments in secular language, avoiding calls by many to declare the identity of the designer. When one looks at ID it is clear that a creator must be present; however, the ID proponents are tight-lipped as to who that creator might be. If it’s a Christian God, why not mention it? You’d think this would be important enough to at least be stated somewhere. This leads us to determine that the designer is not a Christian God. But if that’s the case, then who is behind the controversy?
Clearly, the FSM is behind it. Who else could influence such a uniformly religious group of people to subscribe to the non-Christian, nonreligious theory of ID? The FSM is notorious for just this type of mischievous intervention, and thus it can only be concluded that the FSM is behind the ID movement, which makes sense when you think about it.
Irrefutable Proof
Some
