The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Bobby Henderson

2. If we are to believe that height is a function of nutrition, as we’re told, then a smaller population with more food available per person should correlate to a taller height. This is not what we find.

       An American Viewpoint

      A Note from

      Ferris P. Longshanks: County Sheriff, School Governor, Concerned Citizen

      

      Honestly, fellow citizens, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. We’re not saying that Intelligent Design is any more valid than Evolution or any other half-baked theory of creation—all we’re interested in is giving people choices.

      Isn’t that what America is all about?

      

      Republican or Democrat

      McDonald’s or Burger King

      Coke or Pepsi

      

      And here’s another to consider …

      

      The Benevolent Lord Our Savior or

      Everlasting Damnation in Hellfire

      

      Whichever side you fall on doesn’t really matter, because we’re all Americans. Still, any real American supports his or her inalienable right to have choices—and lots of ’em. For what are people without choices? Communists! And despite this fact, there are those who would bar the public from having an open and honest discussion about Intelligent Design, a scientific concept that’s so clear and logical as to appeal to Baptist holy men and intellectually discerning Formula One fans alike.

      Sometimes I see the hypocrisy and just shake my head.

      Granted, these are controversial issues we’re dealing with, and well-reasoned people do disagree on whether life as we know it was created by a benevolent and all-knowing Creator (ID)—or through a random and heartless struggle for dominance, commonly known as survival of the fittest (Evolution).

      For the sake of clarity, allow me to use a simple analogy to explain these two very different versions of creation.

      Say you want to buy one of those new flatscreen TVs that are so popular these days. According to the opposing theories of ID and Evolution, you might acquire that TV in two very different ways:

      1. You could assume, quite fairly, that Intelligent Designers from Sony, Toshiba, and Sharp are actively producing new and affordable forty-two-inch, high-definition flatscreen TVs, which are then boxed and shipped to the nearest Wal-Mart or Circuit City for you to purchase. Or …

      2. You could wait several million years for a new flatscreen TV to evolve spontaneously from a “soup” composed of mud, DNA, and spare television parts. Once this happens, you might attempt to drag your new television out of a swamp and back to your house (or more likely, cave) before a stranger comes swinging out of a tree, kills you and your children, then inseminates your wife with his own seed.

      As you can see, both theories present potentially dramatic consequences for society. I’m not saying that one scenario is more valid than the other, but I will say that the Intelligent Design option is the first one. In the interest of fairness, I’ll also say that Evolution (or Natural Selection) is the one where your wife gets raped by a man who lives in a tree. Both theories present unique challenges.

      When considering the two, ask yourself which makes more sense in your life.

      Then ask yourself, Who’s making these arguments, anyway?

      ID proponents can boast of several scientists—brave men who are willing to be called upon by name—to represent their views. You’ve seen these pro-ID champions on your televisions (which, we can safely assume, were designed by engineers and bought from a store … further proof). You’ve observed them being viciously attacked by activist judges, the liberal media, and a certain Bobby Henderson. But where are the men of science who speak out in support of Evolution?

      A number of scientists have been cited in defense of Evolution, but if we examine the situation more closely we begin to see a disturbing pattern.

      Names like Darwin, Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Meyer—and many other scientists who 95 percent of the country have never heard of—are offered up as men who’ve supported Evolution. Yet you’ve never seen one of these so-called scientists publicly defending their theory. Why?

      Answer: Because they’re all dead.

      Hmm … coincidence? When the pro-Evolutionary movement has to resort to dead scientists (who are probably a little warm right now, if you get my drift), it makes one wonder how good an argument they actually have. What’s next … bringing back Aristotle (a homosexual) and Ptolemy (forgotten) to argue for a flat earth? Given the pro-Evolutionists’ track record, that can’t be too far away.

      Dead.

      As I’ve stated, we do see living judges trying to wield their laws in the face of this highly scientific discussion. However, I predict that the well-prepared ID scientists will soon have liberal activist judges quaking in their penny loafers. These judges are much better suited for sanctioning same-sex marriage, and most of them are old and easily confused. Ignore their words and proclamations, for they tire easily.

      The liberal media has also chimed in on the subject, only to be reminded that they’re just overpromoted weathermen with good hair, deep voices, and small penises. I don’t have conclusive evidence on this last point, but looking at news anchormen I’m pretty sure it’s true. Don’t worry about the media, they’ll lose interest as soon as forest fire season returns.

      Aside from dead scientists, activist judges, and the liberal media, one other man has arisen as a voice for the Evolutionists—if not necessarily to argue for Evolution, then at least to mock the ID movement. We know little about this man, who hails from the Pacific Northwest and calls himself “Bobby Henderson.”

      Far be it from me to cast stones, but there are disturbing rumors about him going around. I read on the Internet that he’s not even a scientist. Also, a very reliable source reports that he lied about his military record. I hear that he’s been divorced three times and sleeps in a crypt. Not all of these rumors are verified, but if we’re to let this lying divorcé, who may or may not be a shape-shifting night creature, take a lead on this important debate, I can only pray for the redemption of this country.

      In conclusion, I would like to return to my original argument: We the People need choices. We need as many choices as possible, and we can’t allow the leftist cabal of scientists, judges, Bobby Henderson, and the media to take these choices away from us. Write to your congressmen and demand that ID be taught in schools. Write to your religious leaders and demand that they write to your congressmen.

      If we don’t act now, I fear the day will come when judges and the media are free to operate with little regard for the tempering hand of public outrage. Laws will be passed and upheld, and only judges will be able to rule on them. The media will report the news without threat of legal action. To put it bluntly, the god-hating communists will have finally won.

      I wonder if they’ll appoint Bobby Henderson to be their dictator.

       Toward a New SuperScience

      WE ARE ENTERING INTO AN EXCITING TIME, when no longer will science be limited to natural explanations. Who is to say that there aren’t supernatural forces—magic, some might call it—at work, controlling