'At's a spicy meat balla!

Last year, Bobby Henderson wrote a mock open letter to the Kansas school board over the inclusion of ID theory in the curriculum.

His parody wasn’t especially clever, but it’s caught on.

Its popularity reveals far more about the intellectual level of ID opponents than it does about the intellectual level of ID proponents.

Let’s take a few examples:

“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.”

i) This is disanalogous to ID. ID theory is opposed to naturalistic evolution, not to evolution, per se. An ID theorist could be a theistic evolutionist.

ii) In addition, an ID theorist who opposes evolution does not oppose it even though “overwhelming scientific evidence” supports evolution.

To the contrary, an ID theorist who opposes evolution does so on scientific grounds. For him, the scientific evidence either undercuts naturalistic evidence, or undercuts evolution altogether.

iii) No ID theorist dismisses the “overwhelming” evidence for evolution as “coincidence,” attributable to divine deception.

Continuing with Henderson:

“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.”

Once again, this isn’t parallel to ID theory, since an ID theorist isn’t appealing to the Bible to make his case.

His argument for a divine creator is an inference from the scientific data.

“We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.”

How is this analogous to ID? The ID community is not a secret society, like the Free Masons.

And ID appeals to 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.”

Several more disanalogies:

i) Henderson is conflating ID with YEC. But ID theory is neutral on the age of the universe.

An ID theorist can be an OEC or a theistic evolutionist.

ii) Even on its own grounds, YEC does not maintain that God designed the world to make us think it’s older than it really is.

iii) In addition, it’s not as if modern science is committed to naïve realism in matters of dating.

According to the theory of an expanding universe, stars are younger than they appear to be to an earth-bound observer.

Likewise, time dilation is a feature of special relativity. Identical clocks run at different rates when in relative motion (moving clocks appear to go slower).

Continuing with Henderson:

“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.”

i) Once more, this is not analogous to either ID or YEC.

ii) I’d add that it’s rather gullible, even childish, to treat the universe as if it were a clock telling us the time.

While there’s nothing wrong with trying to date an object by reference to a periodic process, and extrapolating from the present back into the past, we need to remember that a periodic process is not, in fact, a natural chronometer. It was not designed to tell us the time.

That’s a secondary, human application. So there’s no reason to assume that if we ask a natural process to tell us something outside it’s natural function, it will yield a reliable result. Its purpose and our purpose are two different things.

No one’s more credulous than an unbeliever. Having denied that God made the world with him in mind, he continues to act as if the world were designed for his benefit.

Tree rings exist to tell him the time. That’s why Mother Nature planted the tree. Big Ben with leaves.

Continuing with Henderson:

“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.”

i) As I’ve said before, ID doesn’t appeal to the authority of Scripture.

ii) Does Henderson only believe what he can see with his own two eyes?

iii) Does Henderson believe that nothing can pass through matter?

In his parody, what Henderson has given the reader is an argument from analogy minus the argument and absent the analogy.

A parody is most effective when it is, in fact, analogous to the thing it satirizes.

Likewise, there’s a difference between a spoof that’s used to illustrate an argument, and an illustration that becomes a substitute for reasoned argument.

Henderson’s letter was intended to belittle the intellectual standards of the antievolutionary community.

Ironically, the popularity of his letter serves, instead, to document the anti-intellectual standards of evolutionary community.

As is so often the case, the unbeliever is only concerned with projecting the image of intellectual superiority rather than demonstrating his intellectual superiority.

In practice, he operates at the same mental level as the hillbilly Bible-thumper he so disdains.