Flying Spaghetti Monsterism to be taught alongside Evolution & Intelligent Design in schools?

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

reposted from: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. 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.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

E O Wilson: Reach Across the Science - Religious divide! - Part 2

reposted from: Scientific American Magazine
my highlights / edits

by Maggie Wittlin

Scientists, Evangelicals Officialy Declare Bosom Buddyhood

In an age in which Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and, to a lesser extent, Daniel Dennett are the de facto representatives of science's take on religion (short version: "it sucks"), it's nice to see E.O. Wilson bridging the divide in the name of a more important issue--global climate change and our ongoing destruction of the world's ecosystems, or the so-called "sixth extinction" (desfor which humans are pretty much solely responsible.

That's right--the inventor of one of the world's most anti-mystical, materialist deconstructions of human nature ever (Sociobiology) has joined forces with the organization formerly headed by Ted Haggard.

I grew up among biblical literalists and have cousins who are southern baptists, and I know that however much I might disagree with my friends and family about the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, these folks are not the pointy-horned devils Dawkins et al. would have us believe they are.

More importantly, Wilson recognizes how powerful these folks are--depending on who you believe, one third of all Americans are evangelical Protestants.

I applaud Wilson for finding common ground in the name of a greater good, and am more than a little blown away by the fact that a bunch of scientists are going to contribute to an educational effort launched by the National Association of Evangelicals. (I've no doubt folks on both sides of the debate will think their team has sold out, and that's a shame.)

>> Scientists and Evangelicals Unite to Save the Planet

This morning, scientific and evangelical leaders announced a collaborative effort to protect our environment from anthropogenic threats.

"We dare to imagine a world in which science and religion cooperate, minimizing our differences about how Creation got started to work together to reverse its degradation," Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, said at the announcement in Washington, D.C.

The coalition released a statement signed by 28 prominent evangelicals and scientists—including biologist Edward O. Wilson and climatologist James Hansen—that calls for a "fundamental change in values, lifestyles, and public policies required to address these worsening problems before it is too late." The coalition sent the statement, titled an "Urgent Call to Action," to George W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, congressional leaders, and national evangelical and scientific organizations.

Members of the alliance announced they would meet with bipartisan congressional leaders, encouraging them to take on environmental issues. The coalition also said it would hold a joint summit on the environment and create outreach tools, including an 'environmental bible' and informational packets for pastors.

Carl Safina, president of the conservation organization Blue Ocean Institute, said he thought the new alliance would give both scientists and evangelicals more power to effect change.

"Without a direct connection to the science side and dialogue with the science side, [evangelical leaders] don't have the full, up-to-date information. And without them, the scientists don't have the ability to reach into communities and have an effective public voice," he said. "This makes me not only optimistic but very excited that we're doing something new and very constructive."

The Synthesizer

E.O. Wilson and his recently published book, The Creation, played an important role in spurring these talks between leaders of the scientific and evangelical communities.

"People like Ed Wilson had dreamed of this, but to see it happen must be very fulfilling for him," said professor of church formation and discipleship Cheryl Johns.

Click here to read a profile of E.O. Wilson from the November issue of Seed.

The announcement came after days of meetings in Georgia, where leaders of both communities presented their concerns about the environment.

Cheryl Johns, a professor of Christian Formation and Discipleship at the Church of God Theological Seminary, said that while the coalition is an "unlikely alliance," the two groups came together over their common environmental worries.

"The issues are of such magnitude that they became the shared, galvanizing passion," she said.

The particular evangelical leaders involved in the alliance have had a major influence on US policy in the past, Safina said. He said that while he has disagreed with the evangelicals in the past, he hopes that a direct line of communication between scientists and people of faith will lead to productive action to protect the environment. Johns agreed.

"We're hoping that it will become a facilitator for other collaborations," she said. "I think this is maybe a sign of what can be very common. I would hope so."

A Challenge to Science Bloggers

Now here is a challenge from "Just Science". During 5-11th February I plan to post at least one 'Pure Science' blog a day.

reposted from: http://www.justscience.net/?p=7#comment-21
my highlights / edits
January 14, 2007

On the internet you can find a blog dealing with pretty much any subject you fancy. There are some topics that receive the majority of bloggers’ attention: personal life, politics, pop culture, politics, politcs, sports and of course, politics. And you can find a fair number of blogs devoted to science as well. The science bloggers can be further classified into those who deal primarily with science, those who write about the interface of science and culture, and those who blog about the politicization of science.

There is also a strong anti-science presence on the internet – global warming denialists, creationists, the anti-vaccination movement – and many science bloggers end up spending a fair amount of time combating the misinformation spread by these groups. This comes at the expense of blogging about actual science, and sometimes it swallows all the content of the blog. Many of us are tired of the attention anti-science advocates manage to receive. We understand the importance of engaging them, and yet feel that the debates where anti-science is the topic of interest sucks much of the oxygen out of the science blogging community, in time and effort, which we could devote to commentary on genuine science.

While there is no immediate solution to the various anti-science movements (and ignoring them is hardly a viable long term option), we would like to propose a Week of Science, to begin on Monday, February 5, and end on Sunday, February 11. During that time each blogger should post about science only, with at least one post per day. Furthermore, issues which are favored by anti-scientific groups (creationism, global warming, etc.) should be either avoided, or discussed without reference to anti-scientific positions.

If you consider yourself a science blogger (whether you are a scientist, science writer, philosopher of science, or interested in the interface of science and politics) and would like to accept the challenge, you can find more details below.

Bloggers who self-identify as scientists and science writers should post on:

1. Published, peer-reviewed research and their own research.
2. Their expert opinion on actual scientific debates - think review articles.
3. Descriptions of natural phenomena (e.g., why slugs dissolve when you put salt on them, or what causes sun flares; scientific knowledge that has reached the level of fact)

Bloggers who claim to be philosophers of science (or have been accused of so much) should post on issues, ideas, and debates in philosophy of science that are not frequently used or dictated by anti-scientific groups. The demarcation problem, for example, should be avoided unless it\n can be discussed without reference to anti-science movements.

And bloggers who are not scientists – focusing mainly on public and policy debates on scientific issues – should post on issues that are legitimately controversial for scientific reasons. Topics that are controversial simply because of anti-science movements should be avoided.

The challenge has been issued. Do you accept?

The science of Daydreaming

The School of Economic Science made a big thing of 'circulating thoughts' (daydreaming) and trying to eliminate these thoughts, instead, focusing attention on one event. Now evolution and brain chemistry may have a scientific explanation for daydreaming.

reposted from: Scientific American
my highlights / edits

January 18, 2007 Escape from the Insipid: Our Brains May Be Wired for Daydreaming New study finds a default network of cortical regions, active when the brain is unoccupied, may generate the random thoughts of a wandering mind. By Nikhil Swaminathan

Some people seem to continually have their heads in the clouds. Perhaps they are pondering during their drive to work the next pickle 24 protagonist Jack Bauer will find himself in. Or maybe they are assessing while buttering toast the Indianapolis Colts' chances of finally making it to the Super Bowl. Or considering where they will dine that evening as they tap out an e-mail. The question is: What makes their minds veer from the task at hand?

Researchers at Dartmouth College may have the answer. They found that a default network of regions in the brain's cortex—a grouping known to be active when the mind is completely unoccupied—is firing away as a person is engaged in routine activities. Malia Mason, now a postdoctoral researcher of neurocognition at Harvard Medical School, trained subjects in verbal and spatial memory tasks that after four days of continual repetition became quite banal—perfect conditions for thinking about something unassociated with the work at hand. In fact, subjects reported more daydreaming when performing the rehearsed sequences rather then when the tasks were tweaked slightly to introduce a novel stimulus requiring a bit more focus.

On the fifth day, the subjects performed these activities while being surveyed by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). While the subjects were not performing any task, there was activation in several cortical regions, including parts of the medial prefrontal cortex (involved in executive functions), the premotor cortex (which coordinates body movements), and the cingulate (part of the limbic system that is implicated in memory and learning). When the subjects were asked to perform their well-rehearsed tasks, many of these areas were recruited once again, but when the job was slightly altered, the signals from these areas attenuated. This finding "suggests that the default network appears to be associated with the production of these thoughts," Mason says.

The research team speculates that when engaged in a mundane task, mind wandering allows people to remain properly aroused. Alternatively, they say, daydreams could be a conduit for uniting experiences from a person's past or present to their future. Or, the brain may just have evolved the ability to handle more than one function at once.

"In a sense, these thoughts reflect an amazing capacity on our part to multitask," Mason explains, expanding on the last possibility. "It's like we have a sense of what we can and what we cannot get away with. In other words, it is as if we have a sense of how much attentional resources we have "left over" and [then we] allocate these resources to working out some problem or anticipating what we have to do in the near future."

Jonathan Schooler, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia, says that Mason's study illustrates that daydreaming is really the default state of the brain. He cautions, however, that while he finds the evidence—published in this week's Science—compelling, the measurements are indirect. "They didn't actually examine activation of the default network specifically during times when individuals were reporting mind wandering versus not," he says. "That's an important additional line of research that needs to be done."

RELATED LINKS:

Informing the ADHD Debate

Strangely Familiar

The Truth and the Hype of Hypnosis

Television Addiction Is No Mere Metaphor