FSM, IPU or ID? You decide…

by Frank Paynter on October 29, 2006

Recently the borders of the country of reason have been under siege by sectarian violence… pastafarians hurling plates of marinara at adherents of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (may her holy hooves never be shod)… Intelligent Designites hurling insults at Dawkinsians in a deft feint, an October surmise aimed at drawing attention away from their cruel assaults on human relations and social justice. While the ID folks confuse the kids with bizarre discussions predicated on heaven and hell and how many virgins a christian martyr can expect to prong if a muslim is allowed seventeen in paradise… while these weighty discussions continue in Universities across the land… and while University administrators lacking the balls god gave a banana slug (no offense UCSC) and fearful that christian fundamentalists may withhold substantial bequests and ever mindful that the size of the endowment trumps truth any day of the week, these chicken-shit academic second raters permit the bizarre intrusion of religion where honest intellectual effort had previously held sway and the insidious christian referendums aimed at throttling human rights and eroding human dignity are on the ballot in dozens of states.

The October Surmise…
It seems likely that if we can get people talking about the straw man issues of intelligent design, then we can deny reproductive choice, we can impose a death penalty nationwide, we can strangle the efforts to eliminate gender discrimination in the area of committed relationships, and most importantly we can hang onto the house and the senate for our oligarchic masters.

In an effort to help clarify matters, I’ve dug up some reasonably meaningful assertions from several sides of the conflict. There are those who suggest I leave well enough alone, those who suggest that if we don’t fight them here, the Brits will have to fight them in Northern Ireland, the Israelis will have to fight them in Tel Aviv.

The Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts” of the Pastafarians:

1. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don’t Believe In Me, That’s Okay. Really, I’m Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn’t About Them So Don’t Change The Subject.
2. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don’t Require Sacrifices, And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.
3. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey - Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We’re Talking About Fashion And I’m Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal and Fuchsia.
4. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off the TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.
5. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B*******.
6. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):

a. Ending Poverty
b. Curing Diseases
c. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable
I Might be a Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM the Creator.

7. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You’re Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can’t You Take A Hint?
8. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. If the Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear a CONDOM! Honestly, It’s A Piece of Rubber. If I Didn’t Want It To Feel Good When You Did It I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.

Chapter 2 of the Book of the Prophet April:

1. And the Invisible Pink Unicorn spoke unto me, and said, “Write this stuff down.”
2. Therefore did I search my pockets, and came up with a bunch of 3×5 index cards, and also a ballpoint pen.
3. Then did Her Equine Self touch the pen with Her marvellous horn, and lo! it turned pink! And I was much amazed, and began jotting down this account.
4. And I said unto the Principle of Unicornity, “If we’re going to be really appropriate, shouldn’t this be in invisible ink?”
5. Surely then was the Great One annoyed, and She spake, and said, “Do not be a wise-ass, my child, unless you want a hoof-print in your forehead. But, if you must know, when you post this to the Internet, which is the centre of My worship, then indeed shall the pinkness of the writing be invisible.”
6. Thus was I first afflicted by the terrible jokes of Her Invisible Pink Glory.
7. And the Unicorn spoke again, saying, “Write this. First, know that there is not merely one doom reserved for unbelievers, but a Very Big Number. Therefore am I shown to be greater than any other deity.
8. For who else can boast the Hell #655, wherein transgressors are punished by having to listen to the endless drivel of uncountable net.kooks?”
9. “Who else can boast Hell #333, where fundamentalists are continually sawn in half by stage magicians?”
10. “Oh, and note down that there is no Hell #666.
11. For that would be too easy.”
12. So did I write all that down, and the Invisible Unicorn said, “Come again next week.”
13. And the Holy Writings on the Sacred 3×5 Index Cards in the Blessed (Invisible) Pink Ink were put in the Very Devout Plastic File Box, where I left them, buried in the sands of A/sa/teague.

The most catholic and holy Bishop of Pittsburgh (invoking another esteemed hierarch, this one European and wearing a Red Hat) says,

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, wrote in an op ed piece in the July 7, 2005, New York Times: “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry may be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

God directs his creation toward its completion or perfection through what we call Divine Providence. This means that God has absolute sovereignty over all that he has made, and guides his creation according to the divine plan of his will. At the same time, both the evidence of the world that we discover by our human intellect and the testimony of Sacred Scripture show that for the unfolding of his plan God uses secondary causes, including the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, as well as the cooperation of our own human intellect and will.

I have first hand knowledge that it is NOT intelligent design that leads us to call Providence “Divine,” for if there had been intelligent design then the damn big-dig would have long ago been completed to everyone’s satisfaction and Logan would be the terminus of choice in that part of New England. But today, rather than fly into Logan, particularly if you are visiting the Cape, it is obvious that Providence, yes — Divine Providence — is a better choice.

Be that as it may, the Darwinians and the Dawkinsians also deserve to have their positions clarified here, but I just don’t have time for a reasonable bunch of people who don’t have a creed to shove down someone’s throat. Atheists? Agnostics? They’re all going to hell anyway.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

J. Alva Scruggs 10.30.06 at 10:28

The Creationists become easier to understand once you realize their objections to evolution don’t include objections to social darwinisim or the heritability of acquired social characteristics. Our crackpot royalists may quibble over this understanding, but fortunately their own ideology includes an explanation of how they came to quibble.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>