The Flying Spaghetti Monster

By MIKE ARGENTO

As the Dover Panda Trial meanders along, it’s time to consider the role of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the proceedings.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster hasn’t come up, per se, and so far, none of the witnesses have cited the Flying Spaghetti Monster in testimony, and nobody has suggested that, perhaps, the creators of intelligent design had been touched by its noodly appendage.

For the uninitiated, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a belief system derived by some guy from Oregon named Bobby, who has written school boards considering intelligent design and asked that equal time be given to what he calls Pastafarianism and its theory of creation.

“I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster,� he wrote. “I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country and, eventually, the world: one-third time for intelligent design, one-third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one-third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.�

Of course, there is more to Pastafarianism than creation. It also posits that global warming is caused by the dwindling number of pirates in the world. His Web site has a chart and everything. Also, the belief system includes an afterlife that features a stripper factory and a beer volcano. Pastafarians conclude their prayers with “ramen.�

Without getting into the relative merits of his belief system, Bobby had it all wrong.

Had Bobby been paying attention, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism fits right in with intelligent design. In fact, it would be entirely reasonable to conclude that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of all things, under the influence of intelligent design.

That is one of the conclusions you could have reached last week as one of the defenders of intelligent design, Michael Behe, one of the leaders of the intelligent design movement, spent a great deal of time trying to make that idea sound like a scientific theory.

He said, over and over again, that it is a scientific theory. But that’s only true if you accept his definition of a scientific theory — a definition that would also classify astrology as a science.

He specifically rejected the idea that intelligent design was a religious proposition — which it is.

Let’s examine that. On the one side, you have Behe saying it’s a scientific theory, but only if you change the definition of a scientific theory. On the other side, you have all of the evidence that intelligent design is nothing more than the warmed-over claims of creationists that have been around since the Rev. William Paley published “Natural Theology� in 1854. It employs the exact same idea — that things that look designed were designed — and dresses it in the language of science.

(A side note: I mean no disrespect to Paley and his work. Even though science has rejected many of his ideas, he is a graceful writer and his metaphysical notions about theology are interesting.)

This battle is really not about science at all. It’s about religion and freedom of religious belief.

The trial has established that pretty clearly. A small group of conservative Christians wish to use this notion, disguised as science, to introduce religion into public schools.

That sums it up.

That’s the issue.

And the intelligent design people are motivated by religion.
In a strange kind of twist, though, they find themselves having to run away from religion in court.

It became clear this week, during Behe’s testimony. His scientific ideas were, well, hard to follow. But the gist of it was, there are things scientists haven’t figured out so the cause must be they were designed by some intelligent designer.

He claims, like other intelligent design leaders, that Darwin’s theory of evolution, the idea that natural selection and mutation are responsible for the development of life as we know it on the planet, contains “gaps and problems.�

Scientists are the first to admit this. They’re the first to admit that there are a lot of things they don’t know. If they knew everything, as one said, they’d be able to retire.

Yet, Behe spends a lot of time pointing that out and very little pointing out any scientifically confirmed evidence of intelligent design.

Turning the tables, intelligent design isn’t just plagued by gaps and problems. It’s all gaps and problems. Behe claims natural selection can’t account for the development of complex biological structures. Yet it has, again and again. And when asked about that, he says, well, natural selection worked for some things, but not others.

One of his favorite biological systems is the immune system. He says scientists haven’t developed a case that the immune system arose through evolution. Under cross examination this week, he was shown 58 peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals describing aspects of the evolution of the immune system. He was shown eight books. He was shown immunology texts that include chapters describing the evolution of the immune system.

His response?

They’re not good enough.

So how many peer-reviewed papers has he produced on the topic?

None.

Science aside, he claimed that intelligent design doesn’t require any knowledge of the designer. Personally, he said, he believed the designer is God. He said his idea is merely things were designed because they look like they were designed, repeating over and over again, that his theory is “the purposeful arrangement of parts.�

But when the questions arise, who or what is the intelligent designer?

Could be God.

Could be space aliens.

Could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

That’s what these people want to teach ninth graders?

----
Mike Argento, whose column appears Mondays and Thursdays in Living and Sundays in Viewpoints, can be reached at 771-2046 or at mike@ydr.com. Read more Argento columns at ydr.com/mike.