Alright, it's been a while again. Two weeks seems a good pace.
For those of you needing some background on this, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not my own. See:
http://www.venganza.org/ to understand the caress of his noodly appendage. Reading the original open letter is imperative to understanding the context of my thought, so
read it already! And even though I support the decision that the FSM was invented to lampoon, I think that there are some things here that certain advocates of intelligent design theories need to bear in mind. I've got a few things against the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well, so wait to throw rotten fruit and spaghetti sauce at me until I've gotten far enough to offend you more thoroughly.
So without further ado, here's a thesis. "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, being entirely consistent with intelligent design theory and making only very minor elaboration upon the later theory, ought to be granted only sufficient time to explain the concepts that distinguish it from the Intelligent Design theory, yet is deserving of receiving enough time to elaborate its truth claims." To support this, I am breaking out the truth claims of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as outlined in the open letter, and will then present the truth claims of intelligent design theory. I'll show the large overlap, and the full compatibility of ID with FSMism, along with a final suggestion about the presentation.
FSM truth claim #1) "the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel."
#2) the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
#3) We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.
#4) we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power.
#5) What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is.
#6) every time [a scientist] makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.
#7) We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this.
#8) He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
#9) it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia.
Now about Intelligent Design, which has a little larger body of literature. I'll boil the argument down. Admittedly, this boiling down does shake out a lot of people who have added their own personal touches to the argument, but hey, if those people want to write satricial letters of their own and get their own time, they are welcome to do so. This is looking at the core of the theory that is Intelligent Design, not all of the hangers-on which have tried to ride in on its coat-tails. Remember, only the core of the theory is to be taught in schools.
#1) We have experiences of the products of intelligent causes.
#2) Certain complex, specified states of affairs are most frequently caused by intelligent causes.
#3) Upon encountering states of affairs exhibiting these specified complex states of affairs, one has certain inductive evidence for the intelligent nature of the cause.
#4) The universe in fact exhibits such specified complex states of affairs.
Now about the harmony of the two positions. The Flying Spaghetti Monster seems to fit the bill as an intelligent cause, so he's still a viable candidate for creating the universe, given the tenets of intelligent design. Claim #2 seems to be self-contradicting, and therefore obviously false to even the most casual observer. If it is put in place by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is clearly not a coincidence. (I cannot advocate teaching this to kids anymore than teaching 2+2=5.) Claim #3) 4) and 7) can be investigated directly, whether they are true or not will be seen as soon as someone gets a few grand to do some research. Claim #6) can neither be verified or falsified by observation and presents a bit of a problem. At the best this is a guess, but guesses can be appropriate when one is being guided by faith. So while this shouldn't find its way into schools, there's nothing wrong with the claim itself. Claim #8) presents similar problems, and can be grouped together with #6). Finally the last claim, #9) is a normative ethical claim. Yet I still don't feel satisfied that I have a moral duty to behave respectfully toward Flying Spaghetti Monsters in general, or any one in particular. This may be his preference, but any evidence for this claim must come from him. Of course, respect for Flying Spaghetti Monsters might arise from natural law, but to see how well that flies with the courts, just ask Clarence Thomas.
So as I think we can see, these positions are not opposed to each other. However, there are a few real points being made by Mr Henderson (through the satiric method I believe). Firstly regarding the touch of the noodly appendage upon the scientists' measurements. I know that there are a lot of people who believe that a God systematically deceives us everytime we look at anything beyond a certain distance from our eyes or try to measure things about the world around us. I don't think they are much better off epistemically than global skeptics, and I'm about as inclined to listen to them as I am to listen to people who tell me that I'm not actually listening because I don't exist.
Secondly, regarding the lampoon of cum hoc ergo propter hoc (i.e. Correlation implies Causation). Intelligent Design really doesn't have to worry about this at all because there is no deductive conclusion presented, only the inductive conclusion that one has evidence for a proposition. I have the same kind of justification for the idea that if I put a loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger, I will die. I have lots of evidence because I've observed the correlation before, but I'm not claiming it's a deductive conclusion (after all, the gun could jam).
Finally as to presentation in the classroom. Having limned the truth claims that are held generally by all intelligent design theorists, then the various theories may be identified within that spectrum. My suggestion is something like this. "The nature of this intelligent entity is something that is not entirely understood from the evidence we've considered. Some people think that this cause is an impersonal, eternally existing inanimate object that we can't ask questions about. Others think that this cause can be explicable by virtue of being personal. That person could be God, or it could be some pasta (with meatballs). One of these possibilities might in fact be more plausible than the others, but that's up to you to figure out."
Nice and school sanitary. I'll leave it with a quote from Noam Chomsky.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
That's a rant.
