Intelligent Falling

[ShieldAxe]

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

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.

This article in The Onion is a joke of course, but i got to wondering... why don't christians want this Intelligent Falling theory to be presented in schools as well? After all, like evolution, there are gravitational theories (traditional theory, theory of quantum gravity, energy density theory, etc. ) to explain the mechanism of gravity, but they are still theories. This Intelligent Falling 'theory' is every bit as valid as Intelligent Design, so why not teach in schools?

[CJK]

Interesting!

It would not be unreasonable for a 'New Theory" to be pronounced by and evangelist intstitution, in that it gives this numb-minded secular society an ideological twist to a dogmatically structured reality, in order to keep pace with the advances of a scientific approach to understanding.

If mankind in its entirety were to rely solely on a dogmatic understanding of the cosmos, the history of mankind will be as meaningful as dust in the wind.

[USIncognito]

To run with the "teach the alternative" argument, why don't they support the same in History class where Holocaust denial and Moon Landing as hoax have as much "evidence" as ID/Creationism does?

Well, I guess they don't pump up the electoral base like ID does...

[juliod]

Actually, Holocaust Denial is a reputable field as compared to creationism. For example, David Irving, one of the main deniers is also a recognized historian of the period who has done important work. Creationists can't say that.....


DanZ

[micatala]

It is also worth noting that, as the article says, we really don't know how (or perhaps I should say why) gravity works. We understand how evolution works much better, it seems to me.

[nikolayevich]

Actually, Holocaust Denial is a reputable field as compared to creationism. For example, David Irving, one of the main deniers is also a recognized historian of the period who has done important work. Creationists can't say that.....


DanZ

Holocaust denial is reputable only among racists and pseudo academics. No historian can weigh the evidence in denial without divorcing truth in his argument.

Problems for the denier:
1) There are countless living witnesses and survivors.
2) There are millions today who can count as their relatives those who were lost in the holocaust.
3) Extant infrastructure which betrays evidence of its use for inhumanity.
4) Historical documentation of multinational corporate collusion with the Nazis for Hitler's "Final Solution".

These are the four that first spring to mind. I'm sure I could go on... do I need to?

One word for you: Revisionism.

If you have any sympathy for David Irving's assertion that Hitler never called for systematic extermination of the Jews, you haven't learned of Hitler's reliance on technology corporations such as Dehomag (IBM-owned) to enact his plans. The holocaust was systematic, thorough, and calculated as could be with technology of the future. The numbers on the arms of those in the concentration camps were tabulated numbers by a system that took many years to refine in cooperation with Hitler and his closest controllers.

If you can give credence to such a thing as Holocaust revisionism, you let down your fellow evolutionists by claiming the same as reputable. It doesn't say much for your ability to determine the veracity of your Theory. It only gives weight to the idea that you are uncritical of evolution for personal reasons, not scientific ones.

[nikolayevich]

Sorry for the tangent in my last post. Okay, back to the main topic:

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

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.

This article in The Onion is a joke of course, but i got to wondering... why don't christians want this Intelligent Falling theory to be presented in schools as well? After all, like evolution, there are gravitational theories (traditional theory, theory of quantum gravity, energy density theory, etc. ) to explain the mechanism of gravity, but they are still theories. This Intelligent Falling 'theory' is every bit as valid as Intelligent Design, so why not teach in schools?

The article, while amusing is a prime example of how some evolutionists must abandon logic, even to the point of absurdity to throw mud on creationists.

Who discovered gravity? Hint: Not an evolutionist!

Creationists are not threatened by theories which make sense and stand the test of time. It's just we have this one problem.... evolution really doesn't. It doesn't have the luxury of being on the level of gravity because, while theories around gravity may vary, we know by experience that it exists and acts upon us, while with evolution, the theory itself has undergone change after change, shifting approach after shifting approach, and more and more seems to be only "truly understood" so say some, at the level of a scientist. What a change from a decade ago, where everyone could "understand" evolution. Change in marketing, change in stories, etc, etc. If someone points to a problem with evolution, well you don't really understand the depths of evolution. Yes, well, no one does. That will be shown year after year as usual. We can virtually predict now what happens with one discovery after another. Each "missing link" is just one better than the next, until a yet better replacement is found, discrediting the former. Ah... the wonderful evolution.

The idea that creationists would generate new theories just because other theories are "theories" is loopy. Personally I just like to focus on theories with which there are problematic or unanswered questions.

[Nyril]

The article, while amusing is a prime example of how some evolutionists must abandon logic, even to the point of absurdity to throw mud on creationists.

Who discovered gravity? Hint: Not an evolutionist!

Unless your ultimate goal is irony, I don't see the point. You mock us on one hand with your first statement, and then do the same thing in the second. You know very well that anyone born before the TOE was written and well distributed could not possibly subscribe to the theory. Am I saying anything at all when I say that the people that truly started civilization (with cities, laws, trade, etc...) were not Christians, did not believe in Jesus, and so on?

Of course not, that's nonsense.

It's just we have this one problem.... evolution really doesn't. It doesn't have the luxury of being on the level of gravity because, while theories around gravity may vary, we know by experience that it exists and acts upon us

Evolution acts on us, and we act on evolution. We've got bacteria that resist our best efforts to kill them, we get all our new and improved versions of wheat and corn, and we've been playing with our pet's gene lines for millennia. What can we do with gravity? We can fall, we can watch things fall. That's about it.

What a change from a decade ago, where everyone could "understand" evolution. Change in marketing, change in stories, etc, etc. If someone points to a problem with evolution, well you don't really understand the depths of evolution. Yes, well, no one does. That will be shown year after year as usual. We can virtually predict now what happens with one discovery after another. Each "missing link" is just one better than the next, until a yet better replacement is found, discrediting the former. Ah... the wonderful evolution.

We should extend your argument to cover all other fields of science too. Gravity should stay at the same level we had it at when Newton defined it. Physics should stay in the 1900's. Our ideas of electromagnetic properties should never have changed once the Greeks figured out you could rub rabbit fur on amber and get sparks. We should still be driving the first car ever off an assembly line. We'd like to refine the design, but that ruins it.

Our physics teacher told us once that new students in physics back in the 1900's were discouraged from entering the field on the grounds that they already knew everything (He had a quote, but I'll be darned if I can find it). A few years later we get some major revelations, and we figure out that we know nothing at all about the field.

That's the entire point of it. I apologize if my tone had a bit of vitriol, but the idea that we can take such a core theory and change it as easily as we do is a good thing. You say it changes, but it doesn't really. A detail here, a concept there, but the general idea of common descent has remained unchanged.

[USIncognito]

Actually, Holocaust Denial is a reputable field as compared to creationism. For example, David Irving, one of the main deniers is also a recognized historian of the period who has done important work. Creationists can't say that.....

While I agree with your last sentence, and concur that kooks can produce legitimate work, I disagree with any premise that Holocaust deniers have a shred of respectability - with regard to the issue at hand - that James van Praagh has on survival after death, homeopathy advocates have on medicine or Moon landing deniers have on Astronomy.

[USIncognito]

Who discovered gravity? Hint: Not an evolutionist!

As long as we're playing one question... who discovered Evolution? Hint: A creationist.

Creationists are not threatened by theories which make sense and stand the test of time.

Sadly yes they are. They're threatened by Red Shift, Plate Techtonics, Big Bang (offered by a Catholic priest) and Evolution - all of which have stood the test of time.

It's just we have this one problem.... evolution really doesn't.

How exactly does 150+ years, and, what now is literally mountains of evidence constitute the Theory of Evolution not standing the test of time?

It doesn't have the luxury of being on the level of gravity because, while theories around gravity may vary, we know by experience that it exists and acts upon us, while with evolution, the theory itself has undergone change after change, shifting approach after shifting approach, and more and more seems to be only "truly understood" so say some, at the level of a scientist.

Do you even understand what a scientific theory is? Do you have any comprehension of the difference between the "laws" of gravity and the "theory" of gravity? I'll tell you what, since you seem to be suggesting that postulations about gravity haven't "changed" since Newtons time (Notwithstanding Einstein) how about you tell us what the precise mechanism of gravity is? Gravitons? Warped Magnitism? Angels holding things together?

What exactly is the mechanism of gravity? I can tell you the mechanism of evoltuion. It was postulated by Darwin and evidenced by Watson and Crick.

What a change from a decade ago, where everyone could "understand" evolution. Change in marketing, change in stories, etc, etc.

Oh this is hilarious. Creationism has changed more than evolutionary theory has over the last 150 years and yet ignorant Creationists love to claim that evolution has flip flopped with every new discovery - when precisely the opposite is the case.

Check out Ronald L. Numbers book "The Creationists" (especially the first 3 chapters) for how much Creationism has warped and twisted to deal with scientific discoveries - until finally deciding on a "we can't trust the reality our own eyes see" position vs. how Darwin's theories posited in Origin have come to fruition over the last century and a half.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Each "missing link" is just one better than the next, until a yet better replacement is found, discrediting the former. Ah... the wonderful evolution.

Your citation of the trite "missing link" demonstrates your ignorance level on the fossil record, so I'll just keep it simple and pose for you a question I've seen asked Creationists for nearly 5 years now.

[img]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... s2.jpg[img]
Image A is a chimpanzee. Image N is a modern human. Please draw a line betwen "ape" and "human" and more importantly explain why?

The idea that creationists would generate new theories just because other theories are "theories" is loopy. Personally I just like to focus on theories with which there are problematic or unanswered questions.

How ironic. Do you realize that the concept of "microevolution" which nearly all creationists embrace today was anathema a hundred years ago? Do you realize that Day-Age, Gap and OECism as an explanation for the fossil record is rejected by YECs since it would contradict a 6,000 year old Earth?

I'll even pay for your copy of "The Creationists" if you'd actually read the first three chapters, then come back here with a straight face an tell me that adaption of "theories" in light of unviable evidence is not a hallmark of Creationists.