The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

What’s the Matter with Evolution?

Highlighting the Problem

WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT EVOLUTION these days. Scientists seem to have embraced the subject as though it were the Second Coming of … well … science. But where has it got us? Are we to believe that just because we’re descended from a common ancestor shared with monkeys, dogs, or whatever, that we understand our situation on this earth any better than we would without Evolution to guide us? Is Evolution going to somehow make my life more satisfying? Can Evolution put food on my table? Will it save the earth from global warming?

The answer to all of the above is a big No. And why is that? Because Evolution is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Sure, scientists while away their days trying to devise this or that proof to show that Evolution is a credible idea, but as long as it’s just a theory, no one in the real world is going to take it seriously. So I’ve decided to do some debunking of my own to show the world that the big, bad scientists aren’t “all that,” as the kids like to say.

What is Evolution but the gradual change of species over a lengthy period of time as a result of various internal and external selective pressures? My grandfather, who is as old as dirt, has been through that. According to early lithographs, he was quite a looker in his day, but now, a century later, after years of hard drinking and working in the mines, he has no hair and looks like shit. Could Evolution just mean growing old? I posed this question to a scientist friend who explained that the change has to take place over many generations. You’d think the Evolutionists would have stated that right out front, and I admit that I stand corrected. But Evolution still sounds a lot like growing old to me, and I can’t help thinking that this is where the Evolutionary scientists first got their wacky ideas.

Having cleared up this common confusion, let us move on to the proposed selective force of Evolution—namely, Natural Selection. What on Earth is this supposed to mean? Is there unnatural selection? And who’s doing the selecting? Neither of these questions could be answered by my scientist friend, and so I have been forced to ditch my now former friend and perform my own research. What follows is, to the best of my ability, what I’ve been able to uncover regarding Evolution and Natural Selection.

A Closer Examination of Natural Selection

Apparently, there are not one but two forms of selection. They are Natural Selection and sexual selection. I’ll let you mull over the second “sexy” form of selection for a minute, at least until I’ve torn the first one to shreds.

According to the neo-Darwinists, most Evolutionary change is attributable to Natural Selection, meaning that individuals carrying genes that are better suited to their environment will leave more offspring than individuals carrying genes that make them less adaptive. Over time, these more adaptive traits will proliferate, altering the genetic composition of the overall population, since individuals with better “fitness”1 pass more of their genes into the next generation. It is this process, scientists will tell you, that produced the platypus, the penguin, and the poodle—leading us to conclude that scientists are definitely full of shit. If someone can explain to me the adaptive traits of the “duck-bill,” then they can certainly tell me why the platypus is the only mammal on the planet that has one? Are platypii (-pusses … who knows?) concerned with ingratiating themselves into local duck populations? Do they think that they’re funny? Why do they have a bill?

I’ll take it easy on the scientists regarding the platypus, because obviously it’s a tough one, but I’m sure there are several hundred scientists right now earning their tenure in a pointless search for the Evolutionary significance of this ridiculous creature. I’ll close on the platypus by stating an alternative theory that I’ve come up with: the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the platypus because, unlike scientists, He has a sense of humor. It’s an unlikely sign from God—and until someone can prove me wrong, that’s my theory.

I will next turn to more ordinary and boring examples of Natural Selection, which I will then proceed to slice to ribbons. Let us look at the fascinating case of bacteria. It is well known that antibiotics are used to cure various illnesses caused by bacteria, and it is equally well known that most bacteria (for example, staphylococci)2 eventually develop immunity to these antibiotics. Looking a little closer at the case of staphylococci, we find that, in 1929, Sir Alexander Fleming3 first observed the bacterium staphylococci to experience inhibition on an agar plate contaminated by a penicillium4 mold. Sir Alexander Fleming, or “F-Man” as the queen liked to call him, isolated the penicillium to make penicillin, which then went on to be known as a wonder drug for many diseases, mainly VD. But gradually penicillin in its natural form became useless. Scientists will tell you that the bacterium—which replicates faster than a chinchilla in a Cialis factory—eventually developed a strain of itself that was resistant to naturally formed penicillin, and that the process of Natural Selection caused this resistant strain to propagate in nature. This is an outright lie, which I will decimate momentarily.

If we look at bacteria that grow resistant to antibiotics, insects that grow resistant to DDT, or even HIV that grows resistant to antiviral drugs, we see a fascinating correlation between “Natural Selection” and “resistance.” But what are we really seeing here? I submit that they’re not changing their genetic makeup, they’re changing their minds. In short, they’re getting smarter. If I go to your house and you feed me a shit sandwich two days in a row, I’m having lunch at McDonald’s on the third day. It’s that simple. Don’t let the scientists, with their big phallic bacterial names, tell you anything different. They’re not as smart as they pretend to be, no matter how much they try to demean so-called lower life forms.

One other example of Natural Selection should just about put this puppy to bed. Scientists have pointed to “artificial selection” to show that humans, by providing their own specific set of selective forces, can mimic the forces of nature. We see this over and over again in the actions of “breeders,” who purportedly have wrought immense changes in plants and animals. We can look to the various breeds of dogs as an example, where claims are made that all dog species originated from one common source: the ancestral wolf. From this ferocious beast we are expected to believe that a diverse assortment of species was created by man himself—such four-legged brutes as the Chihuahua, the dachshund, the poodle, and the bulldog—all of which have been with us since time immemorial. This breeding “myth” appears to be a form of propaganda, possibly put forth by anti–Intelligent Design campaigners, although I’ll save any conversation about Intelligent Design for a later chapter. How can we believe such claims about “man’s best friend” when it is obvious to the common observer that every breed has been put on this planet to serve a purpose. I, for one, would point to the FSM as the creator of dogs, although there is valid evidence that God (if he is ever proven to exist) might have had a hand in their creation. After all, aren’t Alsatians meant to provide us with protection, maybe even from their own “forefathers,” the wolf?5 Weren’t poodles and Chihuahuas put on this earth to make us feel better about ourselves? There can be little doubt that an intelligent creator put all the species on earth to serve man. And Evolution wasn’t even properly invented until the late 1800s. Is that enough time to get a Labrador retriever from a dire wolf? I think not.

If you don’t buy this argument, consider this one last example, which in this case regards plant species. If we look at domestic cabbage, broccoli, kale, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts, are we to claim, even if they did originate from a common ancient wild cabbage, that selection, be it natural, artificial, whatever, could not have done better over the last few thousand years? The answer is written in the squinched-up face of every child with a brussels sprout in his or her mouth. Yet another strike against Evolution.

From Pirates to People

Any discussion of Evolution will eventually lead us to ourselves. Humans have been around for as long as we can remember, and yet the Evolutionists will tell you that we weren’t. They will tell you that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor some five million years ago, and that we “diverged” from that common ancestor and eventually invented the space shuttle while chimpanzees were only able to invent “the stick.” To support this thesis, scientists tell us that we share 95 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, and yet we share 99.9 percent of our DNA with Pirates.6 I ask you, who is the more likely common ancestor? And are the Pirates not the Chosen People of the FSM? Why do we spend so much time talking about something that didn’t happen, while the FSM is dangling His Noodly Appendage right in front of our faces?

Not in a million years …!

But I shall persevere just a little further, and I shall examine the human body—specifically, I will examine organs that have been deemed “vestigial,” or useless, as a result of losing their function over millennia of Evolution.

Wisdom Teeth

Fallacy: Emerging in adulthood, these teeth are thought to have served as extra grinding surfaces for early man, who, before the advent of proper dental care, would most likely have lost many of his teeth by his mid-twenties.7

Fact: It is common knowledge that our Pirate ancestors ate a diet much rougher and more manly than our diets today. Also, they tended to carry their knives set deep in the back of their mouths.8 It is logical, then, that they’d need extra teeth.

A more credible theory.

Male Nipples

Fallacy: Scientists believe that all humans had breasts—or “dugs”—back in the Stone Age.

Fact: Male nipples were used by Pirates as portable weather stations. With their nipples they were able to determine the direction of the trade winds and, depending on stiffness, how cold it was outside.

Goose Bumps

Fallacy: Evolutionary propaganda would have you believe that goose bumps are an atavistic, now useless response to distress—be it emotional or weather-related—that was once meant to raise the hair on our early forefathers, causing them to appear larger and scarier.

Fact: Goose bumps are a cleverly disguised feature that allowed for increased buoyancy once a Pirate hit cold water. By simply appearing, they raised the surface area, thus increasing buoyancy. This made Pirates float better—something that was very useful to our ancestors, as they were sometimes without boats. Naturally, goose bumps seem to be a vestigial reflex, but it’s really society that has changed.

Appendix

Fallacy: This is a remnant of an internal pouch used to ferment the hard-to-digest plant diets of our ancestors.

Fact: The appendix was a clever internal pouch utilized for hiding a Pirate’s gold. It is also the inspiration for the saying “cough it up,” which Pirates would demand of defeated Pirates once they’d boarded their ships.

Tailbone

Fallacy: Evolutionists claim that the tailbone, or coccyx, which has no documented use, is an unusual remnant of a larger bone growth that might once have formed an ancestral tail, homologous to the functional tails of other primates.

Fact: Humans with tails … are scientists high? Couldn’t the coccyx have served other purposes? I have carefully researched this issue, and have compared the coccyx to other unusual bone growths in animals—and the literature has led me to a single, overriding conclusion. Lots of animals have horns on their heads, and these aren’t thought to be the remnants of larger bone growth, probably because, unlike the coccyx, horns serve a purpose today. But what if the original purpose of the coccyx has simply been rendered useless by today’s culture? If you examine the coccyx closely you will see that this bony growth is very similar, when you think about it, to a horn, which is the structure used by many animals for fighting. I submit, then, that the coccyx is not a vestige of an ancestral tail but rather an effective, albeit strangely placed, defense and fighting mechanism.

I imagine that two opponents, fighting over women or choice cave real estate, would have run backward at each other—their asses outstretched, much the way elk fight with their horns. I have termed this ass-fighting. This makes sense, if you think about it, as it would leave their hands free to carry whatever they needed—most likely food or rocks.

As further evidence that the coccyx is a fighting feature, and that some knowledge of its use has survived culturally through the years, consider how quickly someone will run away from you if you run at them backward, ass first. I suggest that those who doubt this hypothesis put it to the test, and attempt to ram their ass into everyone they see for the next few days.9 I feel confident that most, if not all, of these targets will at the very least be afraid. I see no other explanation for why this would occur, other than that we know, subconsciously, that the coccyx is a weapon, not a vestigial tail.

One Other Vestigial Feature

Fallacy: The human genome provides evidence that we humans were not created ex nihilo,10 but instead had to evolve systematically, just like all the other animals. As evidence, scientists point to lots of nonfunctional DNA, including many inactive “pseudo genes” that were functional in some of our ancestors but aren’t today. One example that is often cited is the case of vitamin C synthesis. While all primates, including humans, carry the gene responsible for synthesizing vitamin C, that gene is inactive in all members of the primate family but one: man. Scientists point to this as evidence of our shared lineage, although I can’t figure out why.

Fact: Pirates, our ancestors, lived in the tropics and ate a lot of fruit.

Evolution Gets Sexy

Finally, I will address “sexual selection,” which I promised some time earlier. The basic concept behind sexual selection is that one gender of the species, usually the female, actively chooses members of the opposite sex to copulate with,11 based on certain criteria, thus placing a selective pressure on the species as a whole. Sexual selection explains the bright foliage of male birds, the impressive ritualistic duels among male rams, deer, elk, and other ungulates,12 and the high percentage of Hummers being driven by short, ugly men. In short, sexual selection depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, while Natural Selection is non-gender specific. In the interest of modernity, I move that Congress pass a bill outlawing this backward and sexist practice.

The Spaghedeity

While I have essentially decimated the theory of Evolution throughout these pages, it is important to state that a great deal of credible Evolutionary evidence does exist. No one can dispute the fossil record, which shows a clear and gradual transformation of species over time (albeit with frustrating gaps—and I ask you, Who could have put them there?). And there do indeed appear to be selective forces at work in the world, for instance when drunks walk out onto the road and are hit by cars.13

We are not saying that Evolution can’t exist, only that it is guided by His Noodly Appendage. And our Spaghedeity is extremely modest. For some reason, He went through a great deal of trouble to make us believe that Evolution is true—masking the prominent role of Pirates in our origins, making monkeys seem more important than they really are, generally keeping behind the scenes and out of the spotlight.

In spite of His low profile, though, let no one doubt that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not only a groundbreaking religion, but is also supported by hard science, making it probably the most unquestionably true theory ever put forth in the history of mankind. To make my point, I will turn to the modern-day problem of global warming.

Pirates, as you know, are His Chosen People. Yet their numbers have been shrinking ever since the 1800s. Consequently, we find that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct result of the shrinking number of Pirates. To illustrate this fact, I have included the well-known graph from a recent study (below).

As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between Pirates and global temperature. But of course not all correlations are causal. For example, take a look at this seeming correlation regarding ID proponents:

It would appear that the people behind ID have a lower intelligence quotient than the general population—and a significantly lower IQ than scientists, who overwhelmingly reject the idea of Intelligent Design.14

GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE vs. NUMBER OF PIRATES

I, for one, tend to believe this to be merely a strange coincidence, and that ID believers are not necessarily as retarded as the data would suggest. It is entirely likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster put this coincidence in place in order to confuse us further as to our true origins. We may never know.

FSM vs. Other Religions

A conversation about Intelligent Design proponents, no matter how brief and specious, inevitably leads us to a discussion about God and religion. It is important to state up front that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a peaceful religion—probably the most peaceful of them all. But can we prove that? In order to explore our proposition, let us look at religion and violence throughout history, particularly with regard to war and death.

SCATTER PLOT FOR BELIEF IN ID

Christianity appears to be the Rambo of religions, with the Crusades, the Inquisition, various bloody rebellions, the Conquistadors … the list seems nearly endless. Suffice it to say that when Jesus Christ stated, in his bewitching and Yoda-like manner, “But those enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me,”15 people took him pretty literally. The Jews16 and the Muslims haven’t done so well for themselves either, and are still duking it out. We even find Buddhists fighting in China. So, glossing over the evidence, we find that religion can be quite scary and violent. On the other hand, there’s absolutely no evidence of any deaths from FSMism, which seems to imply that it has the lowest death rate. And if that is true, then this is strong evidence that FSMism is the most peaceful religion.

Now take a look at how much criticism of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and the other religions there is. People can’t seem to decide on the simple things, like which holy book to follow, let alone whether any of it is true. There are arguments between friends and countries, tens of thousands of books on the various religions, all poking holes, jibbering about which god to worship (Hinduism), jabbering about which ancient prophet’s cousin to support (Islam). It’s a mess. And yet we find that exactly, count them, zero books have been written to poke holes in the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There isn’t even any academic criticism, only academic support—and academics love to argue about everything. All this we take as evidence that FSMism is probably true.

Finally, we find that the religions tend to put a lot of stock in “dogma,” which is a way of saying they are correct beyond all doubt. Even the most devout of the Pastafarians will scratch their heads and nervously readjust their eye patches at this idea. Dogma implies an absolute belief in something, and in order for people to have an absolute belief in anything, they’d basically have to be omniscient.17 We have a different approach: FSM believers reject dogma. Which is not to say that we don’t believe we’re right. Obviously, we do. We simply reserve the right to change our beliefs based on new evidence or greater understanding of old evidence. Our rejection of dogma is so strong that we leave open the possibility that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster at all. So, in a sense, you could say that we’re extremely open-minded—we could change our minds someday. All we ask is proof of His nonexistence.