The Flying Spaghetti Monster (Is Your God)

One of the puzzlements of the age is how the proponents of "intelligent design" jumped the queue and established their view as a viable scientific alternative to biological evolution for America's classrooms. My experience with Darwin involved one history of science course at Williams, the theme of which was evolution. I am thus reasonably well aware of the competing challenges to Darwin, and the questions left unanswered. Yet in an entire semester of work my sophomore year, when I was feverishly trying to fill my science requirements and yet avoid actual science, in a course devoted to a healthy skepticism of doctrinaire Darwinian theory, never once did Intelligent Design come into play. And for good reason: Why should it? What is its scientific basis? It seems like a cute end-run around the wall of separation, but I sure as hell don't want future generations to be learning it alongside biology in their high schools. (And don't get me started about nimrods who go around saying "but evolution is just a theory!" apparently utterly ignorant of the differences between scientific theory and, say, Diane Chambers' theory of picking winning football teams by which mascot is better.)

In any case, you can imagine my amusement when I came across the Flying Spaghetti Monster, thanks to my colleague Roland Spickermann. Here is an excerpt from this brilliant theological treatise:

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.

And here's the thing: Why not? If we can accept that we must teach something alongside evolution (rather than take the much less inane approach of teaching about the controversies within biological science regarding evolutionary processes) and that the something of which we speak must be tied to some concept of intelligent design, then why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? From a scientific vantage point it makes just as much sense, and while the theology might be out there, let us keep in mind that most ardent fundamentalists are usually willing to consign Catholics, who believe in Christ, to hell, so "out there" among the intelligent design crowd might not be too far out at all.

I'd like to posit that sanity should prevail, and that none of this nonsense ought to get past the first level of scrutiny. But if that is the case, why are we yet again fighting the Scopes case?