The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Bobby Henderson

researchers are required to submit their work for review by fellow scientists in their particular field—a process known as “peer review.” Such a system serves to weed out unacceptable theories, thus keeping science pure and permanently safe from controversy. But ask yourself this question: While “peer review” sounds like a good idea, is turning to one’s peers for their opinions not the wrong way to go? Is it not the same as a woman asking her boyfriend, “Do I look fat in this blouse/dress/parka?” Regardless of the item of clothing being worn, the answer is a resounding “no, you look great” in 99.99 percent of all test cases.² As a consequence, we argue that the highly secretive “peer review” system is unfairly hardwired to reinforce the limited viewpoints of scientists and their close friends.³

      NATIONWIDE POLL OF A CROSS SECTION OF “AVERAGE” HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY STUDENTS

      

      What is your opinion of Evolution?

“Cool”	7 percent
“Awesome”	8 percent
“Stupid”	14 percent
“Is that a new band?”	8 percent
Didn’t have a #2 pencil	62 percent
Asleep	1 percent

      If the scientists had their way, we wouldn’t be discussing ID at all today. In fact, you’d have to go all the way back to the Salem witch trials before you’d find such close-mindedness and raw hatred for other people’s views.⁴ But brave school board members—nearly all of whom have no scientific background and, in some cases, very little education—have declared the current system to be unfair. With the courage of witches, they have dared to step forward and redefine science, and we of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have decided to stand by them.

      And so we throw our hats into the ring:

      We have uncovered remarkable evidence suggesting that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is behind the theory of Intelligent Design, deftly manipulating the debate with His Noodly Appendage.

      If Not Him, Then Who?

      If we take the Intelligent Design proponents at their word—that ID is not religious in nature but simply a scientific alternative to Evolution—then the religious background of the proponents of ID should closely mirror that of the general public. However, when we look at the data, we do not see the expected result. Instead, we find that 95 percent of leading ID proponents are evangelical Christians, or ECs. Given that evangelical Christians do not even attain such high densities in the South, we estimate that there is a .001 percent chance of this nearly 1:1 ratio of IDs to ECs occurring naturally. Again, accepting the claim that ID is a science and not a religion, the only other inference we can draw is a supernatural one.

      ID proponents are extremely careful to state their arguments in secular language, avoiding calls by many to declare the identity of the designer. When one looks at ID it is clear that a creator must be present; however, the ID proponents are tight-lipped as to who that creator might be. If it’s a Christian God, why not mention it? You’d think this would be important enough to at least be stated somewhere. This leads us to determine that the designer is not a Christian God. But if that’s the case, then who is behind the controversy?

      Clearly, the FSM is behind it. Who else could influence such a uniformly religious group of people to subscribe to the non-Christian, nonreligious theory of ID? The FSM is notorious for just this type of mischievous intervention, and thus it can only be concluded that the FSM is behind the ID movement, which makes sense when you think about it.

      Irrefutable Proof

      Some of the greatest thinkers of all time have dedicated their lives to proving the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas gave it his best shot, and his writings have been confusing college freshmen ever since. Kurt Gödel used a proof that appears to have employed hieroglyphics; unfortunately, no one can read hieroglyphics anymore, so we don’t know if he was successful. Suffice it to say, no one has managed to prove the existence of God, and as a result, ID doesn’t seem to be provable either.

      Gödel’s proof of God: completely unreadable.

      And that’s what we find in the record. Since ID offers no hypotheses of its own, which is a requirement of science, it cannot be considered a scientific theory unless we can prove the existence of God.⁵ So it turns out that the scientific community has good reason to be skeptical of the theory of Intelligent Design. But ID proponents rightfully claim error or conspiracy on the part of scientists. And here’s the hitch: There is no conspiracy … but there is a consPiracy.

      The truth is that the FSM is hidden all around us. And He’s left clues like Italian-style bread crumbs to show us the path to His Eternal Noodliness. He’s in our language—every time someone tells you to use your “noodle” they’re unknowingly directing you to turn to Him for guidance. And whenever someone talks about a “consPiracy,” they’re just invoking the mischievous nature of Him and His Chosen People, the Pirates.

      But language alone isn’t undeniable proof for those skeptical scientists.⁶ We need cold, hard facts. To begin, we will look at how the Evolutionary scientists try to pick apart the work of ID scientists, men like Michael J. Behe, who argues in his seminal and frequently incoherent tome, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, the concept of irreducible complexity. Somewhere toward the beginning, Behe makes the following damning statement: “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”⁷ He then goes on to talk about “Evolutionary mechanisms” and “the emergence of some complex biochemical cellular systems” and other things that, let’s face it, sound like mumbo jumbo to laymen and high school biology students.⁸ But the point is that this is well-thought-out science, nearly irrefutable proof that Behe can talk like a scientist. While the Evolutionists respond with computer simulations demonstrating that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally, I would note that it is also possible for me to use my computer to lead an entire army of samurai warriors against the greatest generals of their day. Call it a wash.