Flying Spaghetti

I felt like doing a Google image search for Flying Spaghetti, looking for the Flying Spaghetti monster. I find this page: http://creationwiki.org/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Before I continue, I will say I consider my self somewhere between Atheist and Agnostic.

I found the table there rather amusing. I have absolutely no problems with the first column, for what I hope are obvious reasons. It says that “Evidence for evolution is not to be questioned”. Do they think we go in blindly with every piece of evidence? Evidence for evolution is in everywhere from DNA to fossils. Understanding of DNA, mutations and micro-evolution in bacteria did not develop overnight, and is able to be replicated.

Also they claim evolution has little supporting evidence as compared to Intelligent Design and Creationism. But the actual constructs of ID and Creationism would mean that any evidence is either bad or cannot falsify their prediction.

Evolutionary theory is constantly seeking to refine itself. Many of its proponents are not dogmatic and don’t expect to be able to get a complete theory. They seek to work from what we know now and work backwards, and go back as far as we can go. Where as Creationism, ID and Flying Spaghetti Monster start from a beginning, and work up to the modern day from there.

I also stumbled upon http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html from an advert link. First it claims that, mostly in regards to the Big Bang theory, “If matter and energy cannot be created, how did they originate?” Well the Big Bang theory doesn’t say all matter originated from nothing. It says it came from a single point. Physics also worked different at this point.

We are also told “There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of matter and energy.” Well that’s why it’s called ‘science’! Science should be able to have opposing theories, and science should be able to discuss these theories. Science is not an synonym for ‘the same’. We also get another ill-advised comment that “There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of life.”

It also talks about the scientific method and how evolutionary theory does not use it. This article seems to only focus on the very beginnings of life rather than anything else which science has been able to test, and observe. Experimentation does include finding fossils and exploration of DNA and mutations. Evolutionists are continuing to try to take steps further back in time, and hope to understand more. It is also true that this would never get us satisfied, as we would want to go a step further back.

Man, what a crazy ramble. I might add that I personally think that the Big Bang has been overrated and we are in danger of not allowing other plausible theories to develop in the scientific community. The Big Bang does have problems, which are too much for me to explain here. This reluctance for new theories is not good for science or evolutionary theory. (Reluctance though is nothing new.)

Hmm, maybe next time I will talk about the Citizen’s Electoral Council of Australia people that hang outside Uni telling us that climate change is a fraud and Al Gore is the modern day Hitler. (and wants to see everyone on the planet die/starve to death.)