142: In His Name We Pray, Ramen

[Russ Pitts]

In His Name We Pray, Ramen

"Part cult, part satire, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster now exists in its own world, where science is only as real as we believe it to be; where, according to The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a book by Henderson published in 2006, heaven is a place with a beer volcano and a stripper factory; where the Pastafarians dress up in 'full pirate regalia' at the directive of Him ... because 'He becomes angry if we don't'; and the devout end their prayers with the exclamation 'ramen.'"

Read Full Article

 

[sammyfreak]

Even as a christian i like FSM. It shows me what parts of my religion are stupid and superfiscial and what parts realy matter. And yes, inteligent design belongs amoung the stupid things.

 

[Archon]

This is ridiculous. It is past time we reject false idols and religions in favor of a deeper understanding of the true nature of the Force.

 

[oneplus999]

down with FSM! up with IPU!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

 

[Jacques 2]

On a gaming based website I'd hardly expect to see such a clear anti-religious article, and hell, I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's entertaining. A few notes on the first couple of pages annoyed me though

6,000 years is not accepted by all believers of creationism, "10,000" is more common; and not all or even most creationists disbelieve in dinosaurs, they are in the Bible. The most detailed descriptions come in Job, of the Behemoth and the Leviathan. The behemoth was something massive, with a tail like a tall cedar tree in terms of length, and it had bones like bronze (relatively strong) and iron. The leviathan had a hide covered in shields, and what's a lot like shields: scales, and was an amphibious or primarily water dwelling creature of massive size.

On Adam and Eve and their children and incest. Theoretically, Adam and Eve were genetically perfect, or as near as God would have wanted it. However, when cells prepare to divide or combine genetic codes, they pull their DNA apart, each part of the double helix being torn from the other. When the cell creates a copy half (for cell division) or when this combines with another half (sexual reproduction) it doesn't match up perfectly when it's locked together. I might be confusing DNA strands with Chromosomes, but the principles remain the same. When the two are put together they don't match up perfectly. This is how micro-evolution occurs in advanced animals, but at the same time potentially harmful errors are created though holes or mis-alignments. Naturally the body tries to use something rather than just a hole or a misaligned segment, but when it has nothing to substitute, it has to accept the error. Hence genetic defects. The longer time goes on, the more unstable our genes become, more flaws are apparent, and thus the exact same mistakes are going to be more common inside one's own family, so in the current time, incest is inviable for creating a child without massive genetic defects. Eventually, without re-sequencing, the human genome could become so problematic that genetic defects would be unavoidable with any mate. Going back to Adam and Eve and their local family, their genes were much less flawed and thus they could afford to go into incest to create more children. It is only after all these thousands of years that the flaws are being presented in such high numbers. This also explains the extremely long lifespans of humans described in the Bible. Ages like 920 years are ridiculous as we live such relatively short lives, usually ended by heart failure or various problems which are potentially the results of widespread genetic defects that are simply so common, that they are the norm. Some changes in genetics proved beneficial, like the increase in melanin around the equatorial regions which helped them to cope with the intense sunlight received there.

 

[Surggical_Scar]

I never realised Pastafarianism was so deep. And enjoying theological debate and some fundie-baiting in equal measure, I can't help but love this article.

Plenty to muse on - I'll just get my macaroni off the hob.

 

[oneplus999]

On a gaming based website I'd hardly expect to see such a clear anti-religious article

I don't think that an edition on myths could be complete without an article concerning the biggest, widest spread myths of all.

6,000 years is not accepted by all believers of creationism, "10,000" is more common; and not all or even most creationists disbelieve in dinosaurs, they are in the Bible.

And they also say that since no meat was eaten before the fall of man, veloceraptors and T-rexes had those big, sharp teeth so that they could eat plants more easily.

The most detailed descriptions come in Job, of the Behemoth and the Leviathan. The behemoth was something massive, with a tail like a tall cedar tree in terms of length, and it had bones like bronze (relatively strong) and iron. The leviathan had a hide covered in shields, and what's a lot like shields: scales, and was an amphibious or primarily water dwelling creature of massive size.

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

Ok, so he describes something big and strong. It's a completely generic, and no surprise it can be applied to one of the MANY species of dinosaur. Now if it had some exact dimension, or described something more distinctive than a tail, you might have something worth looking at here.

On Adam and Eve and their children and incest. Theoretically, Adam and Eve were genetically perfect.... The longer time goes on, the more unstable our genes become

If Adam and Eve were so perfect, why did God make their DNA polymerase (the stuff that copies DNA) so imperfect? Oh, right, because imperfect DNA replication can lead to novel phenotypes, which is part of evolution!


BTW - It wasn't clear if you believe what you said or if you were just playing devil's advocate (irony much?) so either way, nothing personal here, just pointing out the problem with this belief.

 

[Geoffrey42]

6,000 years is not accepted by all believers of creationism, "10,000" is more common; and not all or even most creationists disbelieve in dinosaurs, they are in the Bible.

While it may be off by 40% when comparing 10,000 years with 6,000 years, I don't think the point of the article is lost, as the difference being compared is on the scale of orders of magnitude. Thousands vs. Billions.

On Adam and Eve and their children and incest...Some changes in genetics proved beneficial, like the increase in melanin around the equatorial regions which helped them to cope with the intense sunlight received there.

I lack the degrees necessary to refute any of this with any authority, but I can say that I get the impression from reading it that whoever came up with this explanation started with a goal, and subsequently selected factoids that supported it, rather than letting the evidence lead.

 

[Keljeck]

The most detailed descriptions come in Job, of the Behemoth and the Leviathan. The behemoth was something massive, with a tail like a tall cedar tree in terms of length, and it had bones like bronze (relatively strong) and iron. The leviathan had a hide covered in shields, and what's a lot like shields: scales, and was an amphibious or primarily water dwelling creature of massive size.

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

Ok, so he describes something big and strong. It's a completely generic, and no surprise it can be applied to one of the MANY species of dinosaur. Now if it had some exact dimension, or described something more distinctive than a tail, you might have something worth looking at here.

I think you're missing the salient point, that is that most creationists do not say dinosaurs didn't exist, but that the dinosaurs didn't exist so long ago. They point to dragon myths and various ancient histories that claim fantastical creatures live.

And there is a very big difference between populist creationism and intelligent design, which the article fuses together to create a 60 foot strawman. Not that it really matters, the article is really about Pastafarianism. Also, I think the whole origins argument is misguided. Scientists waste their time trying to convince the fundies, fundies waste their time trying to disprove the science. If the model works in science, let it work in science. That's my view.

EDITED: Posting in class, bad idea.

 

[monodiabloloco]

I followed that as it came about and am now delighted at how many people recognize my WWFSM sticker.

 

[Jacques 2]

If you'd like evidence, look at the rise in various childhood conditions, such as ADHD (which I know, like anybody else, isn't always true for every kid that claims it), autism (also linkable to flu vaccines containing minute amounts of mercury thought to be in-potent till recently), bipolar disorder, etc. etc. think about it and our life spans, the only reason they are increasing in comparison to the past few centuries is better living conditions.

As for "no meat eaten before the fall of man," don't take what you see on The Daily Show to stand for all creationists either, and yes I watch the Daily Show and often find it funny. Animals are part of a natural system, and they were meant to balance each other out. Too many herbivores means the plant population won't be sustainable, too many carnivores and the herbivore population won't be sustainable, too many plants leads to a vast increase in insects and their ability to effectively attack larger creatures (see ticks and other various parasites). Humans were vegetarians and existed outside the system until the fall, as they were in the garden where their sustenance was provided by fruit and berries. When we were placed into the system, we had a rough balance, but intelligence gave us an edge.

There have been tales of dragons as far back as we have stories to recall from. Dragons much fit the idea of Dinosaurs, giant lizards. It is often the "breathing fire" bit that gets us to thinking that it's impossible. The Bombardier beetle, however, shows us otherwise, it combines two chemicals that form a superheated spray, and when it feels it is without hope, it detonates itself. It's not quite fire, but it burns a high temperature, much like fire, and it is so quick, something similar could be confused with it. Dry brush might spring into flames after being sprayed, further suggesting that fire came from the beasts mouth. We have wiped many species from this planet, mammoths with tusks the size of several grown men, is it so hard to believe that we could have killed off the dinosaurs? Many species could have died in the flood as their eggs were carried on board the Ark. Eggs would be brought aboard rather than full size animals, much like young animals of other species would be brought aboard.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

If you'd like evidence, look at the rise in various childhood conditions, such as ADHD (which I know, like anybody else, isn't always true for every kid that claims it), autism (also linkable to flu vaccines containing minute amounts of mercury thought to be in-potent till recently), bipolar disorder, etc. etc. think about it and our life spans, the only reason they are increasing in comparison to the past few centuries is better living conditions.

Sorry to jump on a tangent here, but I feel it's important to note that the claim that autism is caused by mercury in vaccines is not supported [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=14] by more current research... most notably, that autism rates haven't declined since the removal of mercury-based preservatives, and that the rate of autism in vaccinated children is no higher than that of non-vaccinated children.

Pet peeve, and a fear that parents will leave their children vulnerable to proven killer diseases because of mistaken fears about the preventative care, mean I'm compelled to post this. Again, apologies for the diversion.

-- Steve

 

[Jacques 2]

I don't honestly think that the Flu we commonly know is going to kill any healthy 4-40 year olds. But thanks for the information, though I have to think, how can mercury not harm the brain?

 

[DreamerM]

It's easy to regail Religion as such. It's easy to mock dogma and fable and the blind, obedient, stupid sheep who think God is a wise Bearded Father in the sky or a Flying Spigetti Monster or anything so rediculous.

"There are two kinds of faith: stupid and smart. Where the atheists fall apart is when nobody bothers to explain the difference to them, and I speak as one of them; overcoming the stupid kind of faith inevitably leads to a denigration of the smart kind, because they both look the same from the outside," said Jacob, and he put it incredibly well.

There's the Stupid Faith that values obedience and submission and order above curiosity and observation, the kind that demands you not eat certain foods or mix with certain people or take your children to the doctor. The kind that will have you charging full speed ahead to some promised Paradise like a rat in a maze, the kind that will crush all opposition because it is Wrong, that would destroy the dangerous Questioners for asking why, why are these Truths you've given me so shallow that they don't explain what I can deduce with my own senses? That's the kind of faith that leads to Hate and War.

Then there's the Smart Faith. The kind that brings people together, provides the Hope that will keep you going when everything is lost. The kind that brings Strength out of nowhere, because it's bigger then what you can see, simply by it's nature it exists against and above all reason and words and intellect that could be leveled against it.

That's the kind of faith that we smart-ass Atheists can't really make fun of. The kind that gives strength out of nowhere.

PS. Hey Russ,this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIHJ_BHTGk] is the song for you. It exploded from the cluttered depths of my head-space upon reading the last sentence of that article. Fear the Ism song!

 

[Mairsil the Pretender]

The most detailed descriptions come in Job, of the Behemoth and the Leviathan. The behemoth was something massive, with a tail like a tall cedar tree in terms of length, and it had bones like bronze (relatively strong) and iron. The leviathan had a hide covered in shields, and what's a lot like shields: scales, and was an amphibious or primarily water dwelling creature of massive size.

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

Ok, so he describes something big and strong. It's a completely generic, and no surprise it can be applied to one of the MANY species of dinosaur. Now if it had some exact dimension, or described something more distinctive than a tail, you might have something worth looking at here.

I think you're missing the salient point, that is that most creationists do not say dinosaurs didn't exist, but that the dinosaurs didn't exist so long ago. They point to dragon myths and various ancient histories that claim fantastical creatures live.

And there is a very big difference between populist creationism and intelligent design, which the article fuses together to create a 60 foot strawman. Not that it really matters, the article is really about Pastafarianism. Also, I think the whole origins argument is misguided. Scientists waste their time trying to convince the fundies, fundies waste their time trying to disprove the science. If the model works in science, let it work in science. That's my view.

EDITED: Posting in class, bad idea.

Yes, because folklore is far, far more reliable than carbon dating. To decide that carbon dating is wrong, we have to throw out alot of what we think we know about elementary particles and atomic physics. To decide that folklore is wrong, it means that we have to admit that (gasp!) people make stuff up sometimes.

The intelligent design movement came out of the Discovery Institute, an organization run by old-school creationists.

Now I'm going to go into personal opinion/speculation, rather than fact
It's a political wedge to force their agenda into public schools. Better education in this country has made it harder to keep kids beleiving in what they want them to beleive; to keep paying in cash and attending services. If they can confuse the issue and obscure the teaching of science in classrooms, they cripple people's ability to logicaly evaluate facts.

 

[Geoffrey42]

If you'd like evidence, look at the rise in various childhood conditions, such as ADHD (which I know, like anybody else, isn't always true for every kid that claims it), autism (also linkable to flu vaccines containing minute amounts of mercury thought to be in-potent till recently), bipolar disorder, etc. etc. think about it and our life spans, the only reason they are increasing in comparison to the past few centuries is better living conditions.

While we're pulling things out of our nethers, [sarcasm]look at the rise in various childhood conditions as a result of our medicating everyone into normalcy. People survive diseases they otherwise would've died from (or that would've caused them to be avoided as mates because it made them seem "crazy"), and go on to breed their deficiencies into the rest of the population. If we'd just let the Bipolars kill themselves before they had a chance to procreate, we wouldn't have all these bipolar people running around! Similarly, I could probably chart the increase in average age to the decline in the number of pirates in the world. Better living conditions are obviously not the only reason: fewer pirates AND better living conditions.[/sarcasm]

Per living conditions, is it your claim that Methusela had better, worse, or comparable living conditions to what we now enjoy? Based on that comparison, how long WOULD she have lived had she had comparable living conditions and medical care?

On the vegetarian/vegan thing, I think you can talk to many modern-day veggies/vegans and learn that we're pretty capable of living without meat. [sarcasm]What I've always wondered is why we give animals so much more moral weight than plants. Plants are living things too! Plant murderers, the lot of you...[/sarcasm]

There have been tales of dragons...

As an alternative, maybe way back in the remnants of our pre-human brains, we have an evolutionary fear of large lizards, and of fire. Makes fire-breathing, giant lizards even scarier. Or, mayhaps, people in the olden days were capable of fiction, just like us. Honestly, I have no problem imagining a scenario where we killed off the dinosaurs. It isn't my imagination that's lacking though; what we're lacking is evidence of their co-existence, and the lack of evidence makes it difficult for me to believe.

 

[Uszi]

I am not a Creationist, nor an advocate of intelligent design. Actually, I had a mini orgasm when I looked upon His Noodleliness.

THAT said, I would like to point out that advocates of intelligent design would probably greatly resent being lumped into the same group as Young Earth Creationists.

Before you even begin any discussion of the matter, you should probably be aware of three different groups:

1. Young Earth Creationists -- Not exactly the MOST popular breed of creationist, by any mean. Not to say they don't exist, just that you'd be wrong to say that every creationist believes this.
2. Old Earth Creationists -- Creationist who compromise on the rules on the age of the earth. And this group probably includes a wide variety of creationist branch offs from the Young Earth model. Around the time of Darwin, for instance, a popular theory was that there were multiple creation events.
3. Intelligent Design Advocates -- Many times they are not creationists at all. While many creationists may support this view, there are actually a fair deal of respectable scientific minds that do as well. And many times they're arguments sound very good -- especially to anyone not well versed in science. If they have no proof, then the least that could be said is the raise interesting questions. AGAIN, I am not an Intelligent Design-ist, so take that grain of salt as you will.


So Yeah. I fault the article immediately for that. Even a heavily biased article, I think, should try to have some pretense of objectivity.

 

[Keljeck]

Yes, because folklore is far, far more reliable than carbon dating. To decide that carbon dating is wrong, we have to throw out alot of what we think we know about elementary particles and atomic physics. To decide that folklore is wrong, it means that we have to admit that (gasp!) people make stuff up sometimes.

I am not a creationist, or an ID'er, so you are largely preaching to the choir there. I agree, the fact that nearly every culture has dragons isn't a very good argument for a younger earth. But the salient point remains, Creationists by and large don't reject fossils as evidence for the existence of dinosaurs, what they reject is the dating methods as you pointed out. I'm in complete agreement with Uszi, there should be some pretense of objectivity here.

intelligent design movement came out of the Discovery Institute, an organization run by old-school creationists.

Look at Uszi's post, that means nothing to me. Also, there is the possibility that fellows at the Discovery Institute figured out they were on the losing side of the argument and adapted their hypothesis. You know, like scientists are supposed to do? Not saying that they are practicing good science, but they are sure doing a better job than Ken Ham.

I'm going to go into personal opinion/speculation, rather than fact
It's a political wedge to force their agenda into public schools. Better education in this country has made it harder to keep kids beleiving in what they want them to beleive; to keep paying in cash and attending services. If they can confuse the issue and obscure the teaching of science in classrooms, they cripple people's ability to logicaly evaluate facts.

I disagree, though I respect that it's only personal speculation. It is possible to be Christian and simultaneously agree with Evolution. There is no monolithic Christian entity (unless you are Catholic j/k) so the possibility for conspiracy here is small. I would hope that a question of origins would not make or break a person's faith, though it seems to do so in most people. The Churches would mainly be kicking people out for questioning their orthodoxy, which frankly a lot of Churches of this type do regularly. Almost comically so.

Second point I'd like to make is that this is indeed political. I think the real motivation is that the parents want their children to grow into good Christian boys and girls, and they have been brought to believe that evolution is the modernist devil. It's not a concern for coins in the coffer as much as a concern for what their children are learning, which I believe is totally understandable. This is the only way to make sure their kids are learning what they believe they should learn short of homeschooling or putting them in parochial schools, both of which are very expensive. So they change the curriculum. It's a matter of indoctrination, whether in truth or in falsehood.

Third point I'd like to make is that the teaching of science in the classroom is already obscured. Textbooks cannot keep up with the good science. One is more likely to learn how to "logically evaluate facts" in a philosophy class. As an example, I'm sure you've heard the story of the peppered moths in London, how before they were mostly white and later became black from the soot. As it turns out that was faked, and it is generally regarded as such, however textbooks haven't edited it out yet. Or how about the hypothesis that humans go through evolutionary stages in embryonic form? Turns out those aren't gills and that's not what we do. Both are widely regarded as false, are taught in the classroom, and are easy pickin's for Ken Ham.

Also, evolution in a school environment lacks nuance. It's easy for a young creationist to ignore it since it's so poorly represented. I know many public educated friends and other people who believe that evolution says we are decedents of apes, not a common ancestor. Here's another example of the problems in teaching evolution:

http://www.livescience.com/history/070831_hn_family_tree.html

Science changes faster than politics or than the printing press can handle. Science classes do themselves in. And they can only do the best they can.

 

[oneplus999]

3. Intelligent Design Advocates -- Many times they are not creationists at all. While many creationists may support this view, there are actually a fair deal of respectable scientific minds that do as well. And many times they're arguments sound very good -- especially to anyone not well versed in science. If they have no proof, then the least that could be said is the raise interesting questions. AGAIN, I am not an Intelligent Design-ist, so take that grain of salt as you will.

I'm afraid you have fallen prey to the ID campaign of misinformation Though they would deny it, ID was designed to be as close to creationism as legally possible. While it may not use the word "god" it was in fact just a repackaging of creationist ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandas_And_People
Instead of "god" they describe an "outside force", which just happens to be a sentient force capable of directing evolution across the history of life on earth. Gee how many entities can we think of who can do that?

The idea that it is backed by scientific evidence is also a lie. There have been no peer-reviewed studies supporting ID, and it's really not even testable as a theory, since the intervention of an "outside force" is not reproducible in the lab (as the theory was designed to be).

So, for #1, it's crap because of radiometric dating (actually not carbon dating since it is too short term, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils#Further_discoveries they use Argon and uranium dating).

#2 Really doesn't sound too different from ID, unless this is the "evolution is god's way of generating life" idea, which is still stupid to me, but ok. On a related note you wouldn't get your paycheck this week if FSM didn't let it happen.

#3 ID doesn't raise interesting SCIENTIFIC questions, since they don't meet the definition of a scientific hypothesis, which includes that it be testable and disprovable.

 

[oneplus999]

The most detailed descriptions come in Job, of the Behemoth and the Leviathan. The behemoth was something massive, with a tail like a tall cedar tree in terms of length, and it had bones like bronze (relatively strong) and iron. The leviathan had a hide covered in shields, and what's a lot like shields: scales, and was an amphibious or primarily water dwelling creature of massive size.

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

Ok, so he describes something big and strong. It's a completely generic, and no surprise it can be applied to one of the MANY species of dinosaur. Now if it had some exact dimension, or described something more distinctive than a tail, you might have something worth looking at here.

I think you're missing the salient point, that is that most creationists do not say dinosaurs didn't exist, but that the dinosaurs didn't exist so long ago. They point to dragon myths and various ancient histories that claim fantastical creatures live.

????

I made no claims either way, I was just pointing out that a few lines in a book written few thousand years ago in fact does not contain an eye-witness account of a dinosaur. There are two creationist explanations of fossils that I am familiar with:

1. Fossils are god's way of testing you, there were no dinosaurs.

2. There were dinosaurs before the flood, and the flood wiped them all out, and caused rapid fossilization... somehow.

Unfortunately the book of Job takes place AFTER the flood, so unless he fit that creature's ancestors on the boat, it's not a dinosaur.

Also, I think the whole origins argument is misguided. Scientists waste their time trying to convince the fundies, fundies waste their time trying to disprove the science. If the model works in science, let it work in science.

Scientists wouldn't have a problem with what fundies believe if the fundies didn't try to get everyone else's children to believe the same thing, a la Kansas education system.