The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

"Intelligent Falling"... "Evangelical Physics".
No more far fetched than "ID" and other fertilizer regularly posted here by 7-Eleven Adventists and other literal 'believers'.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
ISSUE 41•33
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

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.

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.".....

Click to expand...

Love the Onion! I remember reading this one a couple of years ago

Eh, hamfisted. Not their best work.

it would be better if Area Man would have discovered intelligent falling.

mbig said:

"Intelligent Falling"... "Evangelical Physics".
No more far fetched than "ID" and other fertilizer regularly posted here by 7-Eleven Adventists and other literal 'believers'.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
ISSUE 41•33
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Click to expand...

I totally reject the "Onion" as anything other than trash, and it pushes the realm of free speech farther then I find reasonable.

But in this case (as is often true of jokes) there is an element of truth in it.

Most scientist are super cautious in talking about it, but the Einstein concept of relativity and of gravity is that space pushes inward instead of gravity pulling inward.

With Einstein the curvature of space and time creates the pressure (the gravity) into its center, so a larger mass object (planet or star) will create a larger curvature and thereby create more pressure which we call gravity.

Newton said gravity pulled in while Einstein declares gravity is pushing inward.

The difference is very delicate but the difference is also very significant for those that want to know such things.

Reference: What is Gravity?

And according to all theories and knowledge about gravity the earth is not really round as it is straight up and down - because the gravity is straight up and down.

`

Paxaeon said:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Christian Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

Click to expand...

I do not believe anyone made a mistake or misunderstanding in this one, as it was obviously religious bigotry by the source link and by the OP.

As such a winking smilie or display of humor would NOT have improved any part thereof.

For me - I simply do not like to be put on the defensive because of blatant bigotry, so trying to turn the subject around to a "real thing" is taking the offensive - IMO - and I prefer the offensive instead of falling under the bigots by being defensive or apologetic.

To counter such nasty things by inserting some "real things" is what I understand to be the higher road.

The Onion's piece captures quite well how ridiculous creationism sounds to anyone who is even a little bit scientifically literate. Being in denial about evolution or the age of the earth is just as absurd as being in denial about gravity, or asserting that the world is flat, or that the sun goes around the earth.

Evolution is what it is. I've never experienced any conflict at all between science and my faith.

Paschendale said:

The Onion's piece captures quite well how ridiculous creationism sounds to anyone who is even a little bit scientifically literate. Being in denial about evolution or the age of the earth is just as absurd as being in denial about gravity, or asserting that the world is flat, or that the sun goes around the earth.

Click to expand...

How many persons actually go out and research things in depth first hand? The answer is probably only a small fraction of society. That means that the majority are simply taking someone elses observation or word (research) at face value. A person is taught something and they either chose to believe it or not. I see little difference in how most on either side choses to decide what they believe to be right and wrong yet both sides belittle the other for their error when in fact most act in a very similar fashion.

The onion is a real news source guys. Comment as such. This is true 100%.

Baralis said:

How many persons actually go out and research things in depth first hand? The answer is probably only a small fraction of society. That means that the majority are simply taking someone elses observation or word (research) at face value. A person is taught something and they either chose to believe it or not. I see little difference in how most on either side choses to decide what they believe to be right and wrong yet both sides belittle the other for their error when in fact most act in a very similar fashion.

Click to expand...

A high school biology class is enough information to understand evolution. Everyone should have that.

JP Cusick said:

I do not believe anyone made a mistake or misunderstanding in this one, as it was obviously religious bigotry by the source link and by the OP.

As such a winking smilie or display of humor would NOT have improved any part thereof.

For me - I simply do not like to be put on the defensive because of blatant bigotry, so trying to turn the subject around to a "real thing" is taking the offensive - IMO - and I prefer the offensive instead of falling under the bigots by being defensive or apologetic.

To counter such nasty things by inserting some "real things" is what I understand to be the higher road.

Click to expand...

Then you might want to avoid debate boards and save yourself some grief.

But I will turn the subject around to "real things" for you. Refuting Creationism through applied logic isnt bigotry.

Baralis said:

How many persons actually go out and research things in depth first hand? The answer is probably only a small fraction of society. That means that the majority are simply taking someone elses observation or word (research) at face value. A person is taught something and they either chose to believe it or not. I see little difference in how most on either side choses to decide what they believe to be right and wrong yet both sides belittle the other for their error when in fact most act in a very similar fashion.

Click to expand...

I do. That's what my career is. It's not about taking someone else's word or observation - that's why there are all these journals. Even if it's something more broad, like Nature, it's not a belief as there is evidence presented..

Paschendale said:

A high school biology class is enough information to understand evolution. Everyone should have that.

Click to expand...

zgoldsmith23 said:

I do. That's what my career is. It's not about taking someone else's word or observation - that's why there are all these journals. Even if it's something more broad, like Nature, it's not a belief as there is evidence presented..

Click to expand...

I think you both are missing my point. The examples that both of you have given still require a person to rely on evidence presented and acquired by someone else and if a person has not gone out and actually confirmed these finding themselves than it still takes a little "faith" in that what is being claimed is true. Much like those with religious beliefs, science requires a bit of trust in second hand information in most cases. It all comes down to what a person may see as the more legitimate claim as very few of us are scientists or do first hand scientific research ourselves. Many of the scientific opinion probably consider it absurd that persons could believe in something just because it says so in the bible or is taught to them without evidence yet they are perfectly willing to believe in science, which for most people, comes down to reading literature or being taught by others.
I just believe that both sides of the debate fail to see the similarities because of their own bias. I just think everyone, regardless of view, should treat other peoples beliefs with a little more respect and allow them to come to their own conclusions without ridiculing them for it.

Baralis said:

I think you both are missing my point. The examples that both of you have given still require a person to rely on evidence presented and acquired by someone else and if a person has not gone out and actually confirmed these finding themselves than it still takes a little "faith" in that what is being claimed is true. Much like those with religious beliefs, science requires a bit of trust in second hand information in most cases. It all comes down to what a person may see as the more legitimate claim as very few of us are scientists or do first hand scientific research ourselves. Many of the scientific opinion probably consider it absurd that persons could believe in something just because it says so in the bible or is taught to them without evidence yet they are perfectly willing to believe in science, which for most people, comes down to reading literature or being taught by others.
I just believe that both sides of the debate fail to see the similarities because of their own bias. I just think everyone, regardless of view, should treat other peoples beliefs with a little more respect and allow them to come to their own conclusions without ridiculing them for it.

Click to expand...

You completely don't understand.

ANYBODY with the desire and knowledge can go off and test any scientific theory or idea, and LOTS of people do. We can say with a fair amount of certainty that gravity, evolution, cells, electrons, heliocentrism, etc. are true with very little exceptions, because such concepts have been openly analyzed, tested, and proven, over and over and over again, and the evidence is published.

Religion on the other hand, has no evidence. Nothing can be tested, nothing can be proven, it's "faith". Believing what can be proven is NOT faith. However, believing a 2,000+ year old book written by people you've never met, making claims you can never test and never prove, requires blind, unquestioning faith.

Your faith is not equally as intellectually founded as things proof, facts, and evidence.

nota bene said:

Evolution is what it is. I've never experienced any conflict at all between science and my faith.

Click to expand...

Well, if you actually understand even the definition of evolution, it's pretty much impossible to be a by-the-book christian and believe in it. To believe in the bible you must believe that every human being and animal on earth came from 1 single Jewish family that survived god's wrath on a massive boat full of animals, just 4,000 years ago. Nevermind the fact that many ancient cultures, like the Chinese, existed before, during and after the alleged flood.

This is absolutely, positively, completely contradictory to evolution and absolutely everything we know about life on earth and the planet itself.

RabidAlpaca said:

You completely don't understand.

ANYBODY with the desire and knowledge can go off and test any scientific theory or idea, and LOTS of people do. We can say with a fair amount of certainty that gravity, evolution, cells, electrons, heliocentrism, etc. are true with very little exceptions, because such concepts have been openly analyzed, tested, and proven, over and over and over again, and the evidence is published.

Religion on the other hand, has no evidence. Nothing can be tested, nothing can be proven, it's "faith". Believing what can be proven is NOT faith. However, believing a 2,000+ year old book written by people you've never met, making claims you can never test and never prove, requires blind, unquestioning faith.

Your faith is not equally as intellectually founded as things proof, facts, and evidence.


This is absolutely, positively, completely contradictory to evolution and absolutely everything we know about life on earth and the planet itself.

Click to expand...

I do not think we are looking at this the same way. I am not refuting that some scientific claims can be proven. I am saying that a majority of people chose to believe in science without ever checking things first hand and that takes a measure of faith. When a person makes the claim that science is true or fact and religion is false without ever checking for themselves I say they are being bias in their approach.

Baralis said:

I think you both are missing my point. The examples that both of you have given still require a person to rely on evidence presented and acquired by someone else and if a person has not gone out and actually confirmed these finding themselves than it still takes a little "faith" in that what is being claimed is true. Much like those with religious beliefs, science requires a bit of trust in second hand information in most cases. It all comes down to what a person may see as the more legitimate claim as very few of us are scientists or do first hand scientific research ourselves. Many of the scientific opinion probably consider it absurd that persons could believe in something just because it says so in the bible or is taught to them without evidence yet they are perfectly willing to believe in science, which for most people, comes down to reading literature or being taught by others.
I just believe that both sides of the debate fail to see the similarities because of their own bias. I just think everyone, regardless of view, should treat other peoples beliefs with a little more respect and allow them to come to their own conclusions without ridiculing them for it.

Click to expand...

Did you go out and verify everything you were presented with in public school...Sunday school? What is your point...we all accept precepts.

Baralis said:

I think you both are missing my point. The examples that both of you have given still require a person to rely on evidence presented and acquired by someone else and if a person has not gone out and actually confirmed these finding themselves than it still takes a little "faith" in that what is being claimed is true. Much like those with religious beliefs, science requires a bit of trust in second hand information in most cases. It all comes down to what a person may see as the more legitimate claim as very few of us are scientists or do first hand scientific research ourselves. Many of the scientific opinion probably consider it absurd that persons could believe in something just because it says so in the bible or is taught to them without evidence yet they are perfectly willing to believe in science, which for most people, comes down to reading literature or being taught by others.
I just believe that both sides of the debate fail to see the similarities because of their own bias. I just think everyone, regardless of view, should treat other peoples beliefs with a little more respect and allow them to come to their own conclusions without ridiculing them for it.

Click to expand...

Any scientific writings that you may read stem from lots of different sources, many of which directly compete with each other, and are all the product of lots of individual researchers and scientists working separately or together, and checking each other's work and results. And you are encouraged to question their results and get your own. The most you have to ask here is, "are these people telling me the truth as they see it?" and "do the things they tell me conform to reality?". From science, the answer to both questions is yes. In religion, you have no such competition or checking. You have one book, that no one can verify, that is declared to be always right and above question. The answer to those questions for religion are "sometimes" and "no".

In that high school biology class I mentioned, you do hands on experiments. You get to see it in action. You do it yourself and get your own results. Nobody has those kinds of demonstrations for religion. Faith healers are charlatans. Intercessory prayer doesn't help. And the wine and crackers don't really turn into blood and flesh. And you certainly can't do any of that yourself.

No, I don't think you grossly mischaracterize scientific learning.

mbig said:

"Intelligent Falling"... "Evangelical Physics".
No more far fetched than "ID" and other fertilizer regularly posted here by 7-Eleven Adventists and other literal 'believers'.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
ISSUE 41•33
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Click to expand...

Man throw a bit of bait in the water and watch the bass take it. man they got you hook line and sinker.
along with the 6 people that agreed with you.

Paschendale said:

The Onion's piece captures quite well how ridiculous creationism sounds to anyone who is even a little bit scientifically literate. Being in denial about evolution or the age of the earth is just as absurd as being in denial about gravity, or asserting that the world is flat, or that the sun goes around the earth.

Click to expand...

A person might view the subject in such hopeless terms when they read garbage like the "Onion" because otherwise there are very sensible and realistic views which align both science and religion together as one.

As in = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~ Albert Einstein

As like the "Big Bang" is scientific proof of a real creation day, just as "evolution" is just another way of saying that God (a Creator) is still in that process of creating / of evolving.

The "onion" claim about denying gravity is not a real story or report as it is just a lie.

Paschendale said:

A high school biology class is enough information to understand evolution. Everyone should have that.

Click to expand...

To understand evolution is simply not enough.

The schools teach evolution as a false kind of scientific religion where people are degraded into animals and beast of burden.

Every person really needs to de-program the brainwashing that we all received.




=======================================

Baralis said:

How many persons actually go out and research things in depth first hand? The answer is probably only a small fraction of society. That means that the majority are simply taking someone elses observation or word (research) at face value. A person is taught something and they either chose to believe it or not. I see little difference in how most on either side choses to decide what they believe to be right and wrong yet both sides belittle the other for their error when in fact most act in a very similar fashion.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of this above.

Many if not most people simply believe what they are told and then call that as thinking which it is not.

We all get told stuff and we all got taught stuff, so we each need to think everything through and make our own decisions based on our own sincere perception of the truth.

It must not depend on whoever says what, or who is more knowledgeable because the final judgement must be our own.

To think has to mean using self generated thought, and as such we must never simply believe what we are told.


=============================================

FreedomFromAll said:

Refuting Creationism through applied logic isnt bigotry.

Click to expand...

Nothing like that was done in this thread, unless you view dishonest sarcasm as being "applied logic" which it is not.

I agree that the childish kind of creationism of a literal 6 days and 6,000 years is foolish, but the Bible is far more pertinent then are those who claim to represent the Bible.

As said before - the "Big Bang" is direct scientific PROOF of a real creation day and that really is applied logic included.


============================================

1750Texan said:

Did you go out and verify everything you were presented with in public school...Sunday school? What is your point...we all accept precepts.

Click to expand...

YES - at least all of the important stuff - yes, go out and verify everything.

I do believe that is what is meant by maturity.

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

Baralis said:

How many persons actually go out and research things in depth first hand? The answer is probably only a small fraction of society. That means that the majority are simply taking someone elses observation or word (research) at face value. A person is taught something and they either chose to believe it or not. I see little difference in how most on either side choses to decide what they believe to be right and wrong yet both sides belittle the other for their error when in fact most act in a very similar fashion.

Click to expand...

JP Cusick said:

I agree with all of this above.
Many if not most people simply believe what they are told and then call that as thinking which it is not.
We all get told stuff and we all got taught stuff, so we each need to think everything through and make our own decisions based on our own sincere perception of the truth.
It must not depend on whoever says what, or who is more knowledgeable because the final judgement must be our own.
To think has to mean using self generated thought, and as such we must never simply believe what we are told.

Click to expand...

Here we have two more Classic examples of what I call the "Everything is just a belief FALLACY".
IOW, Religionists seek to equate their BaseLESS 'Faith' with Others' acknowledgement of FACTS, and call them both merely 'beliefs'.

They DISHONESTLY try: "Well, I believe in Flat Earth, you believe in Evolution, No difference."
THAT is the FALLACIOUS CRAP JPCusick and Barailis are trying.
Their justification, Ironically, is just the Perverse trick OP mocks, ie, 'Since we haven't tested the gravity of every planet, it's just faith'.

They also FALLACIOUSLY suggest that since we all Personally haven't dug up Fossils, Tested DNA, Done Isotopic Dating, etc, that somehow all these sciences/scientists are just part of a vast conspiracy, great Coincidence, and ergo dubious.
Dishonest/Obtuse BS attempt.

Is Cusick's Evidence for Christ's Resurrection (and so much other MYTH), better or worse than that for Evolution?
The observable/tangible evidence for His belief is NON-existant, unlike that of scienceS for evolution. (and unlike evolution, NT Divinity is NOT verified by any credible independent source)
He also Dishonestly and Transparently tries to Twist science into a 'religion', but of course Only that Part of science that contradicts His BaseLess indoctrinated beliefs.
Evolution has been re-enforced by every New science that's emerged for 150 years when any One of them could have refuted it.


PS: And I note in PANDERING to the Religious, who already have their own VOODOO Section, someone altered/Prefaced my OP Title to Include "The Onion:"
Naming the source is Not necessary in the Title line. Indeed it's Unusual to see it before the top of the body of the post.

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

JP Cusick said:

As in = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~ Albert Einstein

Click to expand...

Quoting AE in regards to his religious beliefs is like quoting Better Crocker about her ideas about Quantum physics....

JP Cusick said:

As like the "Big Bang" is scientific proof of a real creation day, just as "evolution" is just another way of saying that God (a Creator) is still in that process of creating / of evolving.

Click to expand...

The Moment the universe began with a physics that we recognize (i.e. the Big bang") is nothing more than the moment that a specific set of circumstances aligned at the correct moment to produce the result. Just like lightning, volcano's and super nova.

JP Cusick said:

The "onion" claim about denying gravity is not a real story or report as it is just a lie.

Click to expand...

*sigh*

/drooling sarcasm

Really?

JP Cusick said:

To understand evolution is simply not enough.

Click to expand...

Enough to do what?

JP Cusick said:

The schools teach evolution as a false kind of scientific religion where people are degraded into animals and beast of burden.

Click to expand...

Schools teach evolution as a theory to explain how creatures change and adapt over time. As kids get older, they are taught how evidence is gathered and examined.

JP Cusick said:

Every person really needs to de-program the brainwashing that we all received.

Click to expand...

The irony....

JP Cusick said:

We all get told stuff and we all got taught stuff, so we each need to think everything through and make our own decisions based on our own sincere perception of the truth.

Click to expand...

Your only truth is that god created everything, therefore in every other part of your life you already know the answer, you simply search for evidence to validate what you already believe.

That's faith and has nothing whatsoever to do with science, reason or critical thinking.

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

Baralis said:

I think you both are missing my point. The examples that both of you have given still require a person to rely on evidence presented and acquired by someone else and if a person has not gone out and actually confirmed these finding themselves than it still takes a little "faith" in that what is being claimed is true. Much like those with religious beliefs, science requires a bit of trust in second hand information in most cases. It all comes down to what a person may see as the more legitimate claim as very few of us are scientists or do first hand scientific research ourselves. Many of the scientific opinion probably consider it absurd that persons could believe in something just because it says so in the bible or is taught to them without evidence yet they are perfectly willing to believe in science, which for most people, comes down to reading literature or being taught by others.
I just believe that both sides of the debate fail to see the similarities because of their own bias. I just think everyone, regardless of view, should treat other peoples beliefs with a little more respect and allow them to come to their own conclusions without ridiculing them for it.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. If I want to do that experiment, the data *should* match up. And, just like my experiments, vice versa if someone wants to do them. It takes no faith for me. I know EXACTLY what they went through to get that data published, to get that theory established, to refute the counter claim. Reading the literature is nothing more than reading the experiment. The data are presented. To re-conduct that experiment would simply be an exercise in redundancy - that's why you usually see the 'n = x' noted in the papers.

This is a weak attempt at equivocation. 'Scientific belief' (is that even a real thing?) vs. 'religious belief' is still not the same. The two, when compared, are absurd. Evidence is presented that backs up the science. The Bible is the claim and then is used as the evidence in a fallacious manner.

Why can't beliefs be ridiculed? That reminds me of a great quote from Patton Oswalt: "'You’ve gotta respect everyone’s beliefs.' No, you don’t. That’s what gets us in trouble. Look, you have to acknowledge everyone’s beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go: 'That is ******* stupid. Are you kidding me?' I acknowledge that you believe that, that’s great, but I’m not going to respect it. I have an uncle that believes he saw Sasquatch. We do not believe him, nor do we respect him!" I acknowledge that you believe that - I just choose to openly mock it.