Intelligent Design

What is the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually mocking?

Spread the love

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Creation of Adam

Creation of Adam

Any questions on what exactly is being mocked?

Hint: The answer is not the science of design detection.

Any questions on how we define Intelligent Design here and elsewhere?

Hint: Look on the sidebar under Definition of Intelligent Design.  It’s been there, unchanged, for years.  I should know as I put it there years ago.  This definition of Intelligent Design was worked out in a collaborative effort by all the usual suspects – fellows of the Discovery Institute.

36 Replies to “What is the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually mocking?

  1. 1
    DarelRex says:

    The “Flying Spaghetti Monster” people are obviously on a campaign against the major, organized religions. To the extent that they pretend they are battling ID, it is simply because almost all ID proponents are members of a major religion, and because ID is where the intellectual action is. So attacking ID is an unavoidable expediency in their anti-religious quest.

    If ID was endorsed only by a small minority of the population consisting almost entirely of individuals who don’t believe in any moralistic religion, then the FSM people would be ambivalent toward ID, or maybe even friendly to it.

  2. 2
    crandaddy says:

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a lazy, pathetic attempt at mockery made by folks who lack the intellectual capacity to critically engage the ID approach to design science. This is what you do when you don’t like something and either can’t or don’t want to bother critically evaluating it: You smear it.

  3. 3
    crandaddy says:

    I’d like to add that although the FSM replaces God in the picture, I don’t think it’s intended to be a direct and explicit mockery of the Judeo-Christian concept of God (though it does, conveniently enough, cater to the anti-theistic crowd *wink, wink*).

    The Darwinist types tend to get design epistemology ass-backwards: empirically-minded as they are, they tend to see it as proceeding inductively from observed “designers” to “designed” products. Since IDists tend to view design science as a fundamentally and irreducibly intentional project that relies on contrasting mind-first explanations against the foil of natural (non-intentional) processes, the ever-faithful opposition (unable or unwilling to think outside their little box) make the “logical” jump to assuming that “mind-first” must mean “God-first.”

  4. 4
    StephenB says:

    crandaddy @3. Very nice!

  5. 5

    This post seems to be in response to something specific, but I can’t figure it out. The Definition page was good, though. Thanks.

  6. 6
    IDquest says:

    Perhaps, we can repay the comment by suggesting these Darwinian Fundamentalists follow the “Blind and Mindless and Chance-choosing Spaghetti Monster” (aka natural selection).

  7. 7

    Okay, I think I get it now, just saw another comment on another thread.

    Could somebody with some artistic talent show the Flying Spaghetti Monster throwing some dice with the letters A T G C on it?

  8. 8
    Zakrzewski says:

    The problem is, the few Pastafarians I’ve met (family members, mostly) have, in fact, tried to use the Flying Spaghetti Monster to belittle ID. The argument is that if we must accept ID into the classroom alongside Darwinism, we must also accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Yes, we know that the FSM does not constitute an argument against ID. All it really does is poke fun at organized religion in similar style to the Church of the Sub-Genius. Try telling that to a Pastafarian.

  9. 9
    pmob1 says:

    I agree with the drift of IDquest-6 and Wallace-7: the FSM-ers mock themselves.

    Image conveys 2 points:
    1) It is just as probable that a randomly evolving FSM led to (complex) man, etc etc
    This statement appears to be testable and falsifiable.
    In fact ID attempts to characterize just such probabilities.
    2) This point is only implied here but is enforced in practice, i.e.
    Fanatical exclusion of intelligence as a formative biological force.
    This statement is not testable or falsifiable.

    Here is the self-mockery: The universe, including humans and their doings, are
    a series of grotesque birth defects, signifying nothing but their own hideousness.

    Of course, even Darwinists are uncomfortable with their “monstrous birth”
    identities. Thus, they usually contrive ways to sneak admirable intelligence
    back into the Natural.

    Dawkins and his Brights come to mind…

  10. 10
    tribune7 says:

    First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win
    –Mahatma Gandhi.

  11. 11
  12. 12
    tribune7 says:

    Of course it is highly possible that they might ignore you, ridicule you, fight you, and then you lose.

    Not really. If the ignoring fails, and the ridicule fails, the fighting will fail.

  13. 13
    Clive Hayden says:

    Just like Scopes won, right? Evolution won the day in that trial, right? No, it didn’t, so by your estimation, evolution died. Since then, evolution has been basically irrelevant, right? It certainly would’ve appeared that way to an objective observer watching the Scopes trial, now wouldn’t it? I know this may not seem kind, but the ID movement is killing evolution.

  14. 14
    tribune7 says:

    how is the result of ignoring and ridiculing connected to the result of fighting? It doesn’t make logical sense

    Well, logic is not the strong point of the Darwinist but the quote comes from Gandhi and was in reference to his own experiences with regard to the independence of India.

    First the British ignored him. Then they ridiculed him. Then they threw him in jail for 7 years. Then he won.

    And it’s a common trend in successful movements, even Darwinism.

    But if you want to believe ID is dying feel free.

    Clive Hayden great point about the Scopes Trial.

  15. 15
    Platonist says:

    @ Number 16

    What say everyone? Do you think the ID movement is dieing? A friend of mine suggested the very same thing, that the ID Movement is in its death throes.

    For the record I sympathize with ID. I also think that id ID is going to make a recovery then people like Dr. Fuller will be essential in shaping things up.

  16. 16
    Platonist says:

    I’m actually somewhat confused about the state of the ID movement. Perhaps it really is dieing.

  17. 17
    tribune7 says:

    Dieing maybe. Dying, no.

    So pity the evos and their waning hope that nature casting dice can explain life and the universe.

  18. 18
    nullasalus says:


    The ID movement is ‘dying’ if you view it as, say, an attempt to get specific ID ideas taught in public schools. If you view it as the development of a broad variety of ideas about illustrating design or the activity of intelligence within/behind nature, then it’s only growing and diversifying. It’s a mistake to track the life of ID in terms of legal clashes or even concessions about inadequacies of ‘Darwinism’. (It will just be said that Darwinism ‘must be extended/revised’ if ever a concept is in doubt.)

  19. 19
    Platonist says:

    You both bring up interesting points. Don’t get me wrong I’m very pro-ID and I believe there is design in nature. Perhaps I was thinking of success in terms of taking on the scientific establishment.

  20. 20
    nullasalus says:

    I understand your concern, Platonist. In my view, the scientific establishment is a secondary concern and always has been. I see the real hope as getting people in general to understand just what is being discussed when it comes to ID, Darwinism, cosmology, etc – and to make up their own minds about whether the design apparent in nature (few deny that design IS apparent) is real.

    In my opinion, ID is doing fine. It has to do more – more books, more sites, more education, etc – but I can’t help but feel that many people now approach topics of natural science with an eye for and appreciation of design.

  21. 21
    tribune7 says:

    Perhaps I was thinking of success in terms of taking on the scientific establishment.

    I think there’s a saying that goes something like new ideas become accepted when the authorities with the old ideas die off.

    ID is doing fine.

  22. 22
    Atom says:

    Platonist, nullasalus:

    The way I see it, nullasalus is basically spot on. But I’d extend it even further.

    In my estimation ID is thriving as long as the research is being done and theories being fleshed out, even if very few believe them at the time. Let’s imagine that physics was still cast in Aristotelian terms and one lone man began discovering and formulating general mathematical laws of physics. (Let’s call this man Nisaac Iewton for kicks.) Even if everyone around him ridiculed him, ignored him, and disparaged his research, as long as he continued doing it then classical physics as a science would be thriving. Why? Because discoveries would be being made and theories fleshed out, for the benefit of later mankind. Stones rejected by one generation often become the capstone of future generations.

    It took one man to formulate much of Information Theory (Claude Shannon), one man to formalize the concept of a Turing Machine (Alan Turing), and a few men to formalize and research CSI/FSCI (Dembski, et al.)

    The science being developed will eventually benefit everyone, naysayers and workers alike.


  23. 23
    bFast says:

    Dave, Check this out:

    ‘Seems that greenhouse gasses are going to make us both too hot and too cold at the same time. Honest!

  24. 24
    Kallt says:


    Because discoveries would be being made and theories fleshed out, for the benefit of later mankind. Stones rejected by one generation often become the capstone of future generations.

    I think this is a very important point. In some ways it does not matter what the current situation is with ID, if the underlying assumptions are correct and the conclusions are solid and grounded in empirical facts gathered from scientific research then it will succeed, even if that takes several generations to happen.

    Facts always win out in the end.

  25. 25
    Gremlin says:

    Atom @ 26: What research is being done and what new ideas are being fleshed out in ID? I am familiar with the ID literature, and the ID research seems to consist of combing pro-evolution articles for perceived gaps.

  26. 26
    Atom says:

    Gremlin @ 29: Perceived gaps? Maybe you can share this ID research with me. Unless you’re talking about Denyse O’Leary’s satirical posts on various Darwinian fairy-tales…but that isn’t really research in the sense I’m speaking of.

    As we all know, Dr. Dembski has been extending information theory using the concept of CSI for a few years. Other have developed similar ideas, such as Abel and Trevors, with their FSCI. KD Kalinsky recently made public a paper applying the peer-reviewed method of measuring Functional Information to ID. Dr. Marks has been working with Dr. Dembski as well to formalize the concept of Active Information and its application to evolutionary algorithms.

    On the biological side, Dr. Behe’s EoE remains a profound literature survey on the limitations of undirected variation and selection, even with fast replicators.

    Dr. Axe, working with the Biologic Institute, has developed Stylus, a software environment using Chinese characters as a means of studying the emergence of hierarchical function in systems.

    A friend of mine is extendeding the concept of complexity classes to biology (and any loop based system such as gene regulation circuits.) Walter ReMine has extended and simplified Haldane’s Dilemma in population genetics, which Scott Minnich has done work on IC and the Bacterial Flagellum.

    Dr. Sanford has developed the model of Genetic Entropy relating to population genetics, Dr. Gonzalez has been doing work on the Privileged Planet Hypothesis, and Dr. Lee Spetner has developed his NREH (Non-random Evolutionary Hypothesis) over the past couple of decades.

    Thsi isn’t even taking into account the work done by YECs regarding things like Baraminology (which is simply a version of Polyphyletic Evolution) that could possibly considered basic ID research. (Some would disagree here, which is why I say it is up to the person considering the research if they want to include it or not.)

    So yeah, lots of ID research is being done at moment. (There is more, but I’m not 1) all-knowing and 2) can’t share private research I am privy to, without asking the researchers themselves.) If you consider all of this negative research trying to find “gaps” in Evolutionary theory, be my guest. To me it looks like lots of interesting questions being asked and research avenues explored, rather than forbidding such questions, like mainstream academia is currently doing.

    Oh well, we can do research on our own without your blessing. IDers have been and will continue to do so.

  27. 27
    critter says:

    This is an interesting discussion. Where is the ID research being published?

  28. 28
    tribune7 says:

    This is an interesting discussion. Where is the ID research being published?


    Everywhere where they don’t have to worry about getting fired or harassed.

  29. 29
    critter says:

    That’s not very specific.

  30. 30
    tribune7 says:

    But quite revealing.

  31. 31
    jerry says:


    You can say that ID research is being published in every evolutionary biology journal there is all the time. One of ID’s propositions is that there is no new information for novel complex capabilities that are the result of normal Darwinian processes. So any mapping of a genome or a partial genome would be a confirmation of this proposition. And this research is common.

    The research would not be identified as ID research or else it would not be published but the research is ID research even if the researchers say they are anti ID. They are just doing ID research without knowing it or saying it. It would be interesting to see what they would say if they are told they are supporting ID since this type of research is basic to evolutionary biology.

  32. 32
    critter says:

    That’s good to know.

  33. 33
    DaveScot says:

    “Gremlin” is not welcome on this thread unless he/she registers using a legitimate email address.

  34. 34
    TheYellowShark says:

    I posted this but it didn’t get through the filter.


    “What was the artwork on the cover of the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document?”

  35. 35
    pvoce says:

    Regardless of who they’re trying to mock, the picture is making me hungry!;)

  36. 36
    Dr. Time says:

    Where did the word “MOCKING” get life from the pictures?To me it looks as if nakedness is being rescued by best friends.Is this not a rescue from being exiled,just in time?

Leave a Reply