Competing theories for creation

Given that apparently there is some doubt about the theory of evolution, I feel it is wise to highlight a couple of alternatives that should be covered when the Kansas curriculum (and later probably the rest of the US states) is opened up to suggest different approaches to creation.

First up we have the sound and reasonable belief that the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. The author of the website explains in his open letter to the Kansas School Board:

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.

We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. […] a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artefact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artefact 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.

Read more about the reasonable request here

The second theory, that it is of the utmost importance that should be presented with equal seriousness to other competing interpretations, is that of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

The IPU’s great appeal is described in a brilliant and undeniable piece of theo-logic:

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can’t see her.

You can’t argue with that.

More here

So, along with Intelligent Design I hope to see these equally valid and scientific proposals on the Kansas syllabus next year.

Do you know any others that I should be aware of? Put a link in a reply!

3 thoughts on “Competing theories for creation”

  1. There was something I heard suggested a while back, but I can’t rember the link, or find it again for now…

    The basis of it was:

    Yes, there are many things that can’t be explained right now by evolutionary science. So we could explore the idea that some kind of Intelligent Designer put them into the human design for a reason.

    This leads us to wonder why the Designer chose to include those traits, and indeed what it could tell us about the nature of the Designer.

    One of those traits is male homosexuality. I gather it’s been conclusively proven that gay “aunties” can be useful in pack situations by helping with childrearing, but there’s no such cut and dried evolutionary explanation for male homosexuals.

    But there could be under Intelligent Design… if, for example, the Designer is himself gay.

    Equally, the female orgasm. Occurs in no other species, serves no obvious function (in evolutionary terms, that is!)

    But easily explained if the Intelligent Designer is actually female.

    If children are to be taught Intelligent Design, they should be taught to ask the above questions, and more…

  2. Which proves that God is a lesbian. I’d suspected as much.

    You know, I somehow doubt that’s the conclusion that the ID people want their students to reach…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.