Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

August 17, 2005 | Issue 41"¢33

KANSAS CITY, 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.



Rev. Gabriel Burdett 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."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512?issue=4228&special=2005

I thought that meant landing on your head to minimize damage.

um

Sure, you laugh now...but I have been to Kansas. I wore a FreeBSD t-shirt, I stopped off at a BK for lunch, and I surely was confronted by a group of seventeen "Christian Youth Club" members--they wanted to know why I would wear an image of "The Dark Angel" on my chest.

I got my burger to go; returned to Michigan.

quote:

Originally posted by thayfen:
Sure, you laugh now...but I have been to Kansas. I wore a FreeBSD t-shirt, I stopped off at a BK for lunch, and I surely was confronted by a group of seventeen "Christian Youth Club" members--they wanted to know why I would wear an image of "The Dark Angel" on my chest.

I got my burger to go; returned to Michigan.

FreeBSD Daemon

If you had had Tux on your shirt they would have burned you at the stake.


And deservedly so.

Computers are instruments of The Penguin!

um

I'm sorry to get mad at this. But the might as f"ing well say the Earth is actually god's golf ball. That he plays golf with. The Sun is a golf ball. Sometimes they make me sick. That oxygen really isn't some kind of gas. But it really is god breathing on the Earth. Heck God wants us to know about the world sciences. So we can help keep it safe and clean. Free from harm. For his creation to be well.

quote:

I wore a FreeBSD t-shirt

Umm, who or what is BSD?

But more importantly, when I read the article I thought to myself, surely this is a joke. Then, I saw the link ... It is.

TheOnion.com is a satirical news outlet. RichardoMath ... you should have pointed that out.

That is a danger of the internet, sometimes we find an article and run with it without considering the source.

Not long ago, a rightwing anti-abortionist cited to an article out of the Onion to prove his point that women that have abortions are morally bankrupct. He got laughed off-line.

quote:

Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

quote:

I wore a FreeBSD t-shirt

Umm, who or what is BSD?

BSD is the version of UNIX developed at the University of Californis at Berkley.

FreeBSD is a freely available operating system derived from BSD.

BSD is a real UNIX system, whereas LINUX is technically a UNIX-like operating system. (I'm not sure that this really makes much practical difference.)

A more significant distinction is the copyleft license that it is marketed under.

The license for FreeBSD (and variants like OpenBSD and NetBSD) is a bit different than the GPL that LINUX is available under. Unlike the GPL, the copyleft for FreeBSD allows for code to be incorporated into programs without restrictions on how the resulting work is copyrighted. Thus, you can take FreeBSD code, and add to it, making the resulting "new and improved" operating system proprietary, and market it under a copyright similar to microsoft operating systems, if you want. This is not possible with LINUX. If you incorporate LINUX code into your program, you have to market it under the same GPL copyleft license as LINUX is distributed under.

I believe that Linux Torvalds, the original developer of the LINUX kernel, was once quoted as saying something to the effect that if BSD had been available at the time, he never would have written the LINUX kernel. (I believe that the original BSD code went into the public domain as the result of a court case, but I forget the details.)

This is all based on long forgotten memory, so don't quote me on any of it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ricardomath,

Clowns to the left of me...
Jokers to the right...
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

But more importantly, when I read the article I thought to myself, surely this is a joke. Then, I saw the link ... It is.

TheOnion.com is a satirical news outlet. RichardoMath ... you should have pointed that out.

That is a danger of the internet, sometimes we find an article and run with it without considering the source.

Not long ago, a rightwing anti-abortionist cited to an article out of the Onion to prove his point that women that have abortions are morally bankrupct. He got laughed off-line.

I have great difficulty these days in distinguishing between political satire and reality.

Note the similarities between the stories by the ONION and later by CBS 60 MINUTES about the GOP's efforts to get out the Black Vote on November 3rd in the 2004 election.

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m...401070361#3401070361

Here's a site that I was sure was satirical... but it's not!

http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html

Vox that site is a mess, this thread made my day, I needed a good laugh..

This is the funniest satire I have ever read, it is in horrible taste, but it's funny.

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v10n7/htdocs/gen.php