Transcript FSM and Rough Draft

Free Write: An Open Letter to the Kansas State School Board
from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
What was the article about?
What do you think was the enthymeme?
Do you think the author’s argument was a good argument?
Was the evidence convincing?
Do you think Americans should allow teaching religious
beliefs in school?
Introduction
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing
to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should
be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree
that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they
can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to
them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one
theory of Intelligent Design.
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.
Introduction (Continued)
It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that
this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other
two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do
this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see
where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not
based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed,
then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on
science, not on faith.
Evidence #1
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about
our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the
universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written
accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His
power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us,
and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are
not substantiated by observable evidence.
What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think
the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbondating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14
has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact 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. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this
can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and
can pass through normal matter with ease.
Evidence #2
I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are
taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they
realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying
Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs
without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia.
I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately
cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is
already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He
becomes angry if we don’t.
Evidence #3
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes,
hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the
shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have
included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the
average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see,
there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates
and global temperature.
Conclusion
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and
beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this
theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers
in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope
dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look
forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in
our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world;
One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying
Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical
conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Sincerely Yours,
Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain,
trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
Conclusion
The evidence is terrible. So why does this essay work?
It is satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose
and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of
contemporary politics and other topical issues.
It is hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be
taken literally. Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical
device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as
auxesis (lit. "growth"). In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes
strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech,
it is usually not meant to be taken literally.
It is logos: This evidence is similar to the evidence used to allow
Christianity to be taught in Kansas public schools. If this kind of
evidence is acceptable, then we can use similar evidence to teach other
religions. Therefore, we should teach Pastafarianism.
What’s the real argument?
We should not teach Christianity in schools because it is not science.
What’s the real evidence?
Carbon-dating proves that Intelligent Design theories are wrong and
are not science.
Evidence based on a religion’s beliefs do not constitute science.
Correlation is not causation.
What’s the real conclusion?
Only science should be taught in schools.
What do people have to say about this essay?
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster now consists of thousands
of followers, primarily concentrated on college campuses in North
America and Europe. According to the Associated Press, Henderson's
website has become "a kind of cyber-watercooler for opponents of
intelligent design". On it, visitors track meetings of pirate-clad
Pastafarians, sell trinkets and bumper stickers, and sample
photographs that show "visions" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Owing to its popularity and media exposure, the Flying Spaghetti
Monster is often used as a modern version of Russell's teapot.
Proponents argue that, since the existence of the invisible and
undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster—similar to other proposed
supernatural beings—cannot be falsified, it demonstrates that the
burden of proof rests on those who affirm the existence of such
beings. Richard Dawkins explains, "The onus is on somebody who says,
I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever
it is. It is not up to us to disprove it." Furthermore, according to Lance
Gharavi, an editor of The Journal of Religion and Theater, the Flying
Spaghetti Monster is "ultimately...an argument about the arbitrariness
of holding any one view of creation", since any one view is equally as
plausible as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. A similar argument was
discussed in the books The God Delusion and The Atheist Delusion.
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic
teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell
(1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies
upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than
shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of
religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun
somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for
him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot
prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions
concerning the existence of God.
According to Justin Pope of the Associated Press,
Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: there's no more scientific basis for
intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta
created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a
science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing
into sciences classes but the best available science.
— Justin Pope
Justin Pope praised the Flying Spaghetti Monster as "a clever and
effective argument". Simon Singh of the Daily Telegraph described the
Flying Spaghetti Monster as "a masterstroke, which underlined the
absurdity of Intelligent Design", and applauded Henderson for
"galvanis[ing] a defence of science and rationality". Sarah Boxer of the
New York Times said that Henderson "has wit on his side". In addition,
the Flying Spaghetti Monster was mentioned in an article footnote of
the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review as an example of
evolution "enter[ing] the fray in popular culture", which the author
deemed necessary for evolution to prevail over intelligent design.
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design, contested
this, saying, "the problem for their logic is that ID is not an arbitrary explanation,
because we have much experience with intelligent agents producing the type of
informational complexity we see in nature.“
Columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote in The Boston Globe that intelligent design "isn't
primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying spaghetti. It's science." This view of science,
however, was rejected by the United States National Academy of Sciences.
Peter Gallings of Answers in Genesis, a Young Earth Creationist ministry said
"Ironically enough, [Pastafarians], in addition to mocking God himself, are
lampooning the Intelligent Design Movement for not identifying a specific deity—
that is, leaving open the possibility that a spaghetti monster could be the intelligent
designer... Thus, the satire is possible because the Intelligent Design Movement
hasn’t affiliated with a particular religion, exactly the opposite of what its other
critics claim!“
Mark Coppenger, a pastor who teaches at the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, commented, "I'm happy to say I think FSM hurts the evolutionists'
program since, by mocking the Christian tradition... it reinforces the correct
impression that there is genuine contempt for biblical faith in that camp... Besides,
the parody is lame, and there are few things more encouraging than cheap shots…”
Writing a rough draft
By now you have:
Come up with a topic that addresses a question at issue
Written an enthymeme
Developed and/or researched some evidence
Written an outline
Now it’s time to write your rough draft!
What am I looking for in a rough draft?
A good enthymeme that addresses a question at issue
Compelling evidence
A complete argument
A counter-argument
Fully developed ideas and thoughts
A complete essay: Introduction, Evidence, CounterArgument, and Conclusion
What am I NOT looking for?
Perfect language – we will work on that when revising
(I do need to understand it though)
How do I write a rough draft?
Now that you have developed an outline, you just need to
start writing from your plan.
Don’t worry about being perfect the first time, JUST KEEP
WRITING!
Don’t stop writing if you make a mistake. Don’t correct it.
JUST KEEP WRITING!
If you don’t know a word, leave a blank space, you can go
back and fill it in later. JUST KEEP WRITING!
Don’t cross anything out. JUST KEEP WRITING!
Remember some of the tips I gave… SHOW DON’T TELL, give
examples!
BE PRECISE, if you ever find yourself being vague think “How
can I say exactly what I mean?”
After following the instructions in the previous slide, you
now have a “pre-write.” This is not a rough draft.
You should now take your pre-write and fill in the blanks for
words you didn’t know.
You should now correct any mistakes you find (but don’t
worry about being perfect, just make it understandable.)
You should now type it up, if you didn’t type to start with.
As you are turning your pre-write into a rough draft,
continuously ask yourself, “Have I provided enough evidence
and examples?” “Am I showing or telling?” “Have I said
exactly what I mean?” Add where necessary.
Some final tips:
In a rough draft, it is better to have too much than too little.
It is easier to remove while revising to a final draft than to
add.
Don’t get too caught up in the language, but do make sure I
can understand it.
Cite your sources! (Make sure a skeptic can find your source)
Use feeling words in your Pathos.
Plan your logic with “Given, if, then, therefore…” (but don’t
actually use those words when writing)