I was planning a mildly amusing joke about “Pastaeidolia,” hoping that Phil would forgive me, after seeing this map of the Paris subway system (via Bioephemera).
|
I mean, the resemblance is unmistakable, no?
|
There’s no way that can simply be a coincidence.
But then I stumbled across the Flying Spaghetti Monster page at CreationWiki: The Encyclopedia of Creation Science. This is my new candidate for Funniest Page on the Internet. Marvel as they explain, with helpful charts and a compelling level of earnestness, why the FSM does not, in fact, deserve the same amount of respect as one should show to Creation Science.
| Flying Spaghetti Monster | Evolution | Intelligent Design | Creationism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intended as parody | Intended as science | Intended as science | Intended as a scientific model of intelligent design |
| Creator (the Flying Spaghetti Monster itself) assumed to exist and identified | Creator assumed not to exist | Creator (designer) inferred from the evidence but not identified | Creator assumed to exist and specifically identified |
| Evidence for evolution claimed to be planted by the creator | Evidence for evolution is not to be questioned | Evidence for evolution challenged with academic arguments | Evidence for evolution challenged with academic arguments |
| Creator makes things appear older than they are as a test of faith | Accepts uniformitarian ages | Generally accepts uniformitarian ages | Rejects uniformitarian ages as based on unprovable presuppositions |
| Has no genuine support in the scientific community | Has the support of the vast majority of scientists | Has the support of (at least) thousands of scientists | Has the support of (at least) thousands of scientists |
| Has no supporting evidence | Has supporting evidence that is highly contested | Has supporting evidence | Has supporting evidence |
Against professionals like that, we amateur humorists stand little chance.
I decided to read what they had to say on cosmology (i.e., things I know something or other about) and found their page on the creationist extension of GR:
http://creationwiki.org/Cosmological_relativity
It’s adorable. Has line elements and galactic rotation curves and everything. They even posted a paper on the arXiv (I just opened it up). It’s just so earnest. Aww.
Le’sigh the FSM wiki page has been vandalized, it’s not there anymore 🙁
Someone must’ve not gotten the funny :/
It’s there, there was just a capitalization issue in the link (I think). Click “search for this page title in other pages” or just click here:
http://creationwiki.org/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
🙂
Wow, that was fast. Too bad they don’t keep page histories…
You are absolutely right: this is the funniest site on the net.
You’re right, just a bad link. It’s still there.
Although the Talk page also brings the funny.
I like this bit on the sign up page…
“Note to Editors: All contributing editors must be creationists (i.e. those who believe the universe and life on earth were created by God). Non-creationists are prohibited from editing articles, except for spelling and grammar corrections. However, anyone is permitted to review articles using the discussion pages adjoining any specific article. Continued participation is reliant upon the careful observance of CreationWiki policies and administrative directives”
The image they use at the bottom of the page for “anticreation” is also wonderful. http://creationwiki.org/File:Dead_Darwin_Fish_large.png
An even funnier one:
http://creationwiki.org/Bible_vs._Qur%27an
Due to a number of key similarities and differences between these two texts, there are several epistemological views regarding their content.
* Bible as True, Qur’an as false when contradicting the Bible;
* Qur’an as True, Bible as false when contradicting the Qur’an;
* Bible and Qur’an as complementary messages to different cultures, and reflecting cultural differences;
I think they’re missing a fourth view…
Pingback: Handy Table Comparing FSM, Evo, ID, Creationism | Tangled Up in Blue Guy
As funny a I find this…..I hate for people to not know this is “for real”
From their site: (http://creationwiki.org/Northwest_Creation_Network)
The Northwest Creation Network is a nonprofit Christian ministry specialized in educational outreach in creation science apologetics. Our mission is to equip Christians to witness effectively with those who believe in evolution, and inform the general public of the scientific evidence which supports creation.
We inaugurated our missionary service in 1995 as developers of our creation science resource website. We now also serve as a hub of activity in the Northwest USA where we conduct seminars, organize the annual Seattle Creation Conference, and provides free website maintenance and hosting to Biblical creation organizations, speakers, and facilities. Learn more about the NWCN.
This is both hilirarious and frightening…
Lol, even their charts reek of their bias. The evidence for evolution is ‘highly contested’ but the evidence for creationism isn’t? Even if they claim they’re right, they could at least be honest enough to admit their ‘evidence’ isn’t accepted by anyone but themselves. Everyone already knows that anyways.
About the paper on arXiv, how cute. Richard Feynman’s term Cargo-cult Science is still the best term I’ve heard for describing these people.
Pingback: 11 May 2009 « blueollie
this just goes to show how versatile the wiki format is. you can take a total morass of baloney and turn it into a very well organized morass of baloney.
Actually, the image appears to be the general image for this creation wiki.
Maybe it’s been hacked:
http://creationwiki.org/favicon.ico
The pages are good for comic relief. Here are a few gems:
“It is unclear what the Sons of God were, but they are distinguished
from the daughters of men.”
“Angels are recorded on two occasions in Scripture as eating food,
therefore they have some ability to interact with the material world.”
“We really don’t know what angels can and cannot do, as we lack the
ability to capture and study them, and Scripture says little about them. ”
Interesting is that this blog can be traced back to a couple of fallen angels:
Barkayal, who “Taught the observers of the stars.”
Penemue, who “Taught the bitter and the sweet, the use of ink and paper.”
More gems:
” Evidence of giants
There have been hundreds of credible reports over the centuries of findings of giant remains in burial mounds and tombs around the world. However, these remains have a curious tendency to disappear when sent to professional academics for examination. For obvious reasons such objects in their proper context (ie. with tools and evidence of civilization) would not survive the peer review process in scientific literature because they defy the uniformitarian evolutionary paradigm. “
Thanks – I was counting the hours until someone pointed out the FSM resemblance! I know that sounds like self-serving hogwash, but I really-o truly-o edited the FSM reference out of my post because I thought it would be more fun to have it come out in the comments. But it hasn’t, and instead you did it here. Which is way better! 🙂
Arguably the most incorrect entry in the above table is when they claim the FSM “Has no genuine support in the scientific community.” On the contrary.
Pingback: Monday’s reads at About Anything
Ok,
The best footnote in history has to be this one:
“Flying Spaghetti Monster an example of the straw man fallacy.”
Ummm… isn’t that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?
Odd – I’d’ve imagined Tokyo as being bigger. No surprise Godzilla squashes it all the time.
I think the article on “Cosmic chronology” is even “funnier”
http://creationwiki.org/Cosmic_chronology
I thought of the FSM right away seeing that map. In fact, this suggests a good idea. People should look for shapes resembling various things besides Jesus and email in pictures. This would be just to show how the rate of Jesus sightings is way to low to suppose any cause other than “randomness”.
Sean, if you want to blow a gasket, look up creationwiki on atheism.
The best part is that evolution has “supporting evidence that is highly contested,” while ID and biblical creationism just have supporting evidence.