NationStates Jolt Archive

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New "Intelligent Falling" Theory.
www.theonion.com

TOPEKA, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.


Above: Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

*************
*************

OH NO! Not another Evolution vs. Creationism thread!!!! :)

Well, yes, but one with SATIRE!

I did not post the above to bash Christians (many of whom tend towards evolution), but because while it is entirely baseless humor, it clearly illistrates a viewpoint:

The utter ridiculousness of a "theory of intelligent falling" is how many of we science oriented folk see the "theory" of intelligent design.

Have I caught your goat? If so, please post below. I am most interested in hearing peoples thoughts on and responses to this wonderful work of art.

-Wazzu

***********

Credit Due:
The Onion (for publishing this beautiful "article")
The Author (whoever s/he is)
Twisted (the guy on another BBS who brought this to my attention)

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New "Intelligent Falling" Theory.
www.theonion.com

TOPEKA, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.


Above: Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

*************
*************

OH NO! Not another Evolution vs. Creationism thread!!!! :)

Well, yes, but one with SATIRE!

I did not post the above to bash Christians (many of whom tend towards evolution), but because while it is entirely baseless humor, it clearly illistrates a viewpoint:

The utter ridiculousness of a "theory of intelligent falling" is how many of we science oriented folk see the "theory" of intelligent design.

Have I caught your goat? If so, please post below. I am most interested in hearing peoples thoughts on and responses to this wonderful work of art.

-Wazzu

***********

Credit Due:
The Onion (for publishing this beautiful "article")
The Author (whoever s/he is)
Twisted (the guy on another BBS who brought this to my attention)




So 5 minutes ago!

So 5 minutes ago!

Someone got it first?!?!?!


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someone got it first?!?!?!


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



*comforts* It was about a week ago, dear :(

*comforts* It was about a week ago, dear :(

But, but, but...you said 5 minutes!

*sigh*

OK, I'll let this dead old rock sink to the bottem.

hahahaha

I was feeling down 'till I read theat. You've made my day.

ID=IF=Dumb.

There isn't anything intelligent about (un)intelligent design.

I'm a creationist but I have to admit, i really think there is nothing wrong with the theory of gravity - These guys just seem to want to push Christianity down people's throats, which I totally disagree on.

We all must remember and keep in mind that evolution and gravity are still theories - We can say "Look all around you!" but we have still not proven the very element or links that are vital to these whole theories.

As for intelligent design, I suppose the same can be said, but hey, what if we can't prove everything? ;)

We all must remember and keep in mind that evolution and gravity are still theories - We can say "Look all around you!" but we have still not proven the very element or links that are vital to these whole theories.


It seems your kind doesn't understand what a scientific theory is. It isn't just a theory.. it is a scientific theory, which requires a substantial amount of evidence to it. The evidence for evolution and gravity is overwhelming. They are most certainly proven.

Or, maybe I won't let it fall...seems to be becomming popular.

I'm a creationist but I have to admit, i really think there is nothing wrong with the theory of gravity - These guys just seem to want to push Christianity down people's throats, which I totally disagree on.

We all must remember and keep in mind that evolution and gravity are still theories - We can say "Look all around you!" but we have still not proven the very element or links that are vital to these whole theories.

As for intelligent design, I suppose the same can be said, but hey, what if we can't prove everything? ;)

It also seems you don't understand "satire."

No one is really proposing "intelligent falling." This is a joke article made to poke fun at "intelligent design." The source, www.theonion.com is known to make fake news articles. It is a humor site.

However, factually false as the article is, it quite strongly shows how many people see the idea of "intelligent design."

hell, I never said that I don't believe in gravity, you would have to be stupid to be thinking that.

One interesting idea about evolution though - 'the missing links' between when creatures crawled out of the water and when mammals evolved onto two feet have not been discovered - is the entire theory therefore based on assumptions?

it has also been pointed out that evo is a circumvention theory. I am referedncing toward the fact that evo is based on fossil evidence. now fossils are rocks, and you cannot date rocks - it has no ageing features to distinguish it from newly formed features.

Fossils are rock. they are dated from which the rock they are found it or formed of. uh, hang on, I thought you can date rocks..
Also, rocks are mainly 'dated' upon which fossils are found herin the rock...

Anybody see anything wrong with this?

ps, it is not very clear that this is not a joke. Also, I think it is showing people who agree with ID as being not only a little stupid and ignorent, but also outright thick.

hell, I never said that I don't believe in gravity, you would have to be stupid to be thinking that.

One interesting idea about evolution though - 'the missing links' between when creatures crawled out of the water and when mammals evolved onto two feet have not been discovered - is the entire theory therefore based on assumptions?

it has also been pointed out that evo is a circumvention theory. I am referedncing toward the fact that evo is based on fossil evidence. now fossils are rocks, and you cannot date rocks - it has no ageing features to distinguish it from newly formed features.

Fossils are rock. they are dated from which the rock they are found it or formed of. uh, hang on, I thought you can date rocks..
Also, rocks are mainly 'dated' upon which fossils are found herin the rock...

Anybody see anything wrong with this?

ps, it is not very clear that this is not a joke. Also, I think it is showing people who agree with ID as being not only a little stupid and ignorent, but also outright thick.


I realize you said this was a joke, but I feel the need to point out that you can date rocks based on the levels of radioactive materials present in them. And, thus date fossils as well.

Also, evolution is based on much more than fossil evidence. Biochemical and genetic evidence also strongly support evolution.

Finally, there are big problems with the Theory of Gravity...but not the Law of Gravity. They are different.

One interesting idea about evolution though - 'the missing links' between when creatures crawled out of the water and when mammals evolved onto two feet have not been discovered - is the entire theory therefore based on assumptions?

Damn someone is full of it today. I'm wondering.. evolution has a lot more then just assumptions. It has evidence. Seriously, who are you to say that it is based on assumptions? Look at what creationism (ID) is all about.


Fossils are rock. they are dated from which the rock they are found it or formed of. uh, hang on, I thought you can date rocks..
Also, rocks are mainly 'dated' upon which fossils are found herin the rock...

Fossils are fossils. They have elements on them. And yes you can date rocks. They've done it before. Again, radioactive elements can be found on them.

Obviously someone doesn't know anything about radioactive half-lifes.

ps, it is not very clear that this is not a joke. Also, I think it is showing people who agree with ID as being not only a little stupid and ignorent, but also outright thick.

Errr, "not very clear that this is not a joke." That is a double negative, that vaguely means "it is clear that it is a joke."

Yes, it is a joke. A satire. That is why I very specifically sourced the "article" twice to theonion.com, a JOKE/fake news agency. That is why I said more then once that it is "satire." In case you didn't know, satire is political humor.

Lets be clear once more.

The above article is fake, false, not-true. It is a joke, a light-hearted attempt at humor by poking fun at the "theory" of intelligent design. It has absolutely NO basis in fact, and that was stated quite clearly in the opening post.

But it is clear on one thing, that those who trust in the theory of Evolution see the idea of "Intelligent Design" as being as ridiculous as the idea of "Intelligent Falling."

Understand?

Ya I should of took it more lightly myself... heheh.. it is a funny article...

I don't see how the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Intelligent Falling has to conflict with each other. It simply means, "things will tend to fall towards the centre of the Earth", and I have to say, that God has more serious business in looking for lost souls than switching on and off the gravity button. Will these people concentrate on what is best for Christ's Kingdom and not on this kind of rubbish?

hi gents and ladys alike yes its me to terroise an steal your beers again!
we all seem to be overlooking a simple fact with the fossils in rock problem... where does it say in genisis
*and low after god turned on the lights with the all powerfull words ''let there be light'' he diceded to watch a godzilla film unfortunatley his deam became real dammn that omniperesent subcoincious an that beer!!! an thus dinosaurs were created, after a few mellenia of god watching his new found creations he thaught unto himself sod it this is boring without towns an villages for em to run around in an creatures that squeal when terroised!! so he destroyed them but he forgot how either a rock a volcano or a virus caught from the ice age (when god reached for another beer he left it open ok!?!?!? that aught to explain it for chritians lol) then god made man in the hopes of a deacent godzilla vs man flick unfortunatley he did such a good job of wiping out the real big dino's he scotched that 1...

and in answer to the chritian/bible basher that says next ohhh ur goin to hell my answer... god made me an gave me this sence of humer to use so if the big man cant laugh along with me than there must be something wrong !

You notice that the scientists coming up with these "refutations" are always Christians. The average Pagan back in the days of Greek city-states would rightfully laugh at these "theories" that these brilliant men are coming up with so easily. I mean, you HAVE to be brilliant, considering that you come up with an "equal" theory to counter Evolution called Intelligent Design without the years of research, empirical testing, observation, peer-reviewed paper submissions and thumbs-up feedback, et cetera.

Yes, I'm well aware that the article by which this thread is based is satire.

Errr, "not very clear that this is not a joke." That is a double negative, that vaguely means "it is clear that it is a joke."



sorry to berate you with inguistic minutia, but i am a syntactician and cannot idly allow this misinformation to be propagated. the phrase "not very clear that this is not a joke" is most certainly not a double negative. if you are going to try to impose prescriptive grammar rules on message boards, it is best to know what you are talking about. the bible thumper's phrase does not convey the information intended, but the problem is not one of competing negation. a correct interpolation of the passage might be "it is not clear that this is serious," which is indubitably not what the author sought to convey.


carry on. :)

sorry to berate you with inguistic minutia, but i am a syntactician and cannot idly allow this misinformation to be propagated. the phrase "not very clear that this is not a joke" is most certainly not a double negative. if you are going to try to impose prescriptive grammar rules on message boards, it is best to know what you are talking about. the bible thumper's phrase does not convey the information intended, but the problem is not one of competing negation. a correct interpolation of the passage might be "it is not clear that this is serious," which is indubitably not what the author sought to convey.


carry on. :)
hmm im an english man an even i cannot comprehend the level of the queens english used in the above scripted quote so i will try and stay by the laymans terms comprehension that i get from browsing the text within this thread...
*its a ruddy joke ! live with it and try not to go in too deep lol* :sniper:

HMMMMMM BEER............
:mp5:

Errr, "not very clear that this is not a joke." That is a double negative, that vaguely means "it is clear that it is a joke."

Yes, it is a joke. A satire. That is why I very specifically sourced the "article" twice to theonion.com, a JOKE/fake news agency. That is why I said more then once that it is "satire." In case you didn't know, satire is political humor.

Lets be clear once more.

The above article is fake, false, not-true. It is a joke, a light-hearted attempt at humor by poking fun at the "theory" of intelligent design. It has absolutely NO basis in fact, and that was stated quite clearly in the opening post.

But it is clear on one thing, that those who trust in the theory of Evolution see the idea of "Intelligent Design" as being as ridiculous as the idea of "Intelligent Falling."

Understand?

Yes, however it seems plausible that some fundamentalist would say this

Yes, however it seems plausible that some fundamentalist would say this

If you really believe that, I'm forced to assume that you don't know any actual fundamentalists.