The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Pastafarians/Flying Spaghetti Monster meetup in the UK  (Read 4520 times)

Offline Cowhugger

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • That's straight from the pit of hell
    • View Profile
    • my home page
Attn all UK Pastafarians!!!

Have you been touched by his Noodly Appendage?

Are you concerned about Intelligent Design in the UK school curriculum?

Like to have a pint with like-minded people?

Or, are you merely looking for an excuse to dress like a pirate?

We are planning the first official UK Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster meetup in April or May in London or Brighton.  It should be a laugh. 

Any takers here?

Amanda :) [O8)]


 

Offline Gaia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Pastafarians/Flying Spaghetti Monster meetup in the UK
« Reply #1 on: 02/04/2007 21:48:18 »
ooooo, yes!!!
 

Offline science_guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
  • I'm right there... inside neilep's head!
    • View Profile
Pastafarians/Flying Spaghetti Monster meetup in the UK
« Reply #2 on: 03/04/2007 15:49:21 »
Is this serious or is it just making fun of religion?
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Pastafarians/Flying Spaghetti Monster meetup in the UK
« Reply #3 on: 03/04/2007 16:49:13 »
Is this serious or is it just making fun of religion?

No it's (in the words of Al Gore) super serial. I'm sure Richard Dawkins will be most proud!

http://www.venganza.org/
http://www.awfulgames.com/games/flyingspaghettimonster/
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Pastafarians/Flying Spaghetti Monster meetup in the UK
« Reply #4 on: 03/04/2007 17:36:56 »
Quote
Is this serious or is it just making fun of religion?
Science_guy:
No, it's not a serious religion, and yes, for sure it's making fun of religion... but with a serious aim. The founders of Pastafarianism (see the venganza link in Paul's post) are making a very serious point about the push from elements of the American religious right to teach Creationism/Intelligent Design as part of the school science curriculum, in an attempt to give their beliefs equal weight with evidence based real science.
The Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are attempting, in order to point out the absurdity of the scheme, to get their religion included too on the basis that there's as much supporting evidence for their "beliefs" as those of the ID proponents.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Pastafarians/Flying Spaghetti Monster meetup in the UK
« Reply #5 on: 03/04/2007 18:04:43 »
No, it's not a serious religion, and yes, for sure it's making fun of religion... but with a serious aim. The founders of Pastafarianism (see the venganza link in Paul's post) are making a very serious point about the push from elements of the American religious right to teach Creationism/Intelligent Design as part of the school science curriculum, in an attempt to give their beliefs equal weight with evidence based real science.
The Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are attempting, in order to point out the absurdity of the scheme, to get their religion included too on the basis that there's as much supporting evidence for their "beliefs" as those of the ID proponents.


Rosy, is quite correct. there is a major struggle going on in American schools to promote intelligent design, and many law suits. Currently the law suits are ending in favour of science, but there are many challenges ahead, elections of new school boards bring more controversy at one point schools in dover had to read out a disclaimer describing evolution as "a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things" and "the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things."

this was challenged by the teachers:

The letter from Dover science teachers has been made public and is reproduced below.


To: Dr. Richard Nilsen

From: Bertha Spahr
           Jennifer Miller
           Robert Linker
           Robert Eshbach
           Leslie Prall
           Brian Bahn
           David Taylor
           Vickie Davis

Date: January 6, 2005

Re: Reading Statement on Intelligent Design

We have individually reviewed the statement you presented yesterday for presentation to our students at the beginning of the Biology unit dealing with evolution. You have indicated that students may "opt-out" of this portion of the class and that they will be excused and monitored by an administrator. We respectfully exercise our right to "opt-out" of the statement portion of the class. We will relinquish the classroom to an administrator and we will monitor our own students. This request is based upon our considered opinion that reading the statement violates our responsibilities as professional educators as set forth in the Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators promulgated by the Professional Standards and Practices Commission and found at 22 Pa. Code section 235.1 et.seq. As noted in the introductory paragraph of the Code, section 235.2 (a): "Generally, the responsibility for professional conduct rests with the individual professional educator." Further, the Code provides in section 235.2 (b): "This chapter makes explicit the values of the education profession. When individuals become educators in this Commonwealth, they make a moral commitment to uphold these values."

Central to the teaching act and our ethical obligation is the solemn responsibility to teach the truth. Section 235.10 (2) guides our relationships with students and provides that "The professional educator may not Knowingly and intentionally misrepresent subject matter or curriculum."

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

I believe that if I as the classroom teacher read the required statement, my students will inevitably (and understandably) believe that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, perhaps on par with the theory of evolution. That is not true. To refer the students to "Of Pandas and People" as if it is a scientific resource breaches my ethical obligation to provide them with scientific knowledge that is supported by recognized scientific proof or theory.

Reading the statement places us in violation of the following ethical obligations. Section 235.3 of the Code requires Professional educators to develop "sound educational policy" and obligates us "to implement that policy." Section 235.3 (b) makes it explicit that "Professional educators recognize their primary responsibility to the student and the development of the student's potential. Central to that development is the professional educator's valuing the pursuit of truth; devotion to excellence; acquisition of knowledge; and democratic principles." The same section goes on to provide: "Educators encourage and support the use of resources that best serve the interests and needs of students. Within the context of professional experience, the educator and the student together explore the challenge and the dignity of the human experience." Section 235.4 (b) (2) provides: "Professional educators shall be prepared, and legally certified, in their areas of assignment. Educators may not be assigned or willingly accept assignments they are not certified to fulfill." Section 235.5(b) (8) provides: "Professional educators shall be open-minded, knowledgeable and use appropriate judgement and communication skills when responding to an issue within the educational environment." Section 235.4 (b) (10) provides: "Professional educators shall exert reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions which interfere with learning or are harmful to the student's health and safety."

for those interested or concerned, you may like to start reading about the subject, here are a few links:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/47366?&print=yes

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/PA/304_dover_teachers_refuse_to_read__1_7_2005.asp

ps, my earlier post


No it's (in the words of Al Gore) super serial. I'm sure Richard Dawkins will be most proud!



was somewhat tongue in cheek, and a reference to south park.

 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Pastafarians/Flying Spaghetti Monster meetup in the UK
« Reply #6 on: 03/04/2007 19:07:27 »
Let me know about the meet
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Pastafarians/Flying Spaghetti Monster meetup in the UK
« Reply #6 on: 03/04/2007 19:07:27 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length