Intelligent Falling

[rakuenso]

Sorry this was too funny to pass up:

 

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 (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."

 

Source: The Onion

[Nevermore]

Funny. Though, the Onion is a Satirical Newspaper. E.g., not true.

[JustStuit]

I think you mean i.e. E.g. (exempli gratia) means for example and i.e. (id est - that is) means in other words. We learned that stuff in latin.

[rakuenso]

Funny. Though, the Onion is a Satirical Newspaper. E.g., not true.

 

i know =) i thought it was blatantly obvious

[deltanova]

oh i feel dumber just reading that

 

edit: more correctly, i can feel my intelligence falling, well i know i can blame god for that!

[ydoaPs]

i'm pretty sure there is already a thread about this article

[5614]

We discussed it over here about 4 months ago:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13849

[pcs]

The piece does raise an interesting question. If a teleological model yields the same testable predictions as a naturalist one, what is there beyond parsimony to distinguish between the two?

[JustStuit]

Logic

[pcs]

Logic

 

Care to elaborate? As it stands right now, I could take this any number of ways. You might mean that all teleological models suffer from inherent defects in internal consistency, or that an Intelligent Design/Falling model does not follow from some system of justification we both share. I don't want to strawman, so hit me up.

[JustStuit]

Are you serious?

[JustStuit]

It [intelligent Falling] has recently been brought to public attention as a satirical response to the ongoing "intelligent design" (ID) debate.

-From Wikipedia

 

You might also look at the magazine which published it.

It would also no longer be science as it could not be tested.

[pcs]

-From Wikipedia

 

You might also look at the magazine which published it.

It would also no longer be science as it could not be tested.

 

Yes, the article was hilarious, and pretty well written; especially because I can imagine a creationist reading this and saying "wow, that Rev has an answer for everything."

 

And yes, under the definition most widely accepted in academic and professional circles, invoking a divine purpose fundamentally violates parsimony. However, does it follow that which is unempirical is also irrational? Ah hell, we can take this up in Philosophy if we want. Anyway, where the thread lies it's pretty damned funny and appropriate. Good find.

[JustStuit]

I find that something being able to be proved makes it a lot more rational.

[pcs]

I find that something being able to be proved makes it a lot more rational.

 

Go here.

[JustStuit]

Or maybe I think that things backed up by proof are more rational. I do not think they are the same.

[ydoaPs]

The piece does raise an interesting question. If a teleological model yields the same testable predictions as a naturalist one, what is there beyond parsimony to distinguish between the two?

 

the mechanism for a theory must exist. until one can prove that god exists, it isn't science....same with ID

[JustStuit]

Exactly. I think would fall in with religion

[Severian]

The piece does raise an interesting question. If a teleological model yields the same testable predictions as a naturalist one, what is there beyond parsimony to distinguish between the two?

 

Predictivity. One of the desirable things in a scientific theory is that it should make predictions. 'Intelligent falling' does not make predictions, whereas Nowtonian gravity does.

 

Of course, this is simply semantics to a certain extent. I could express mathermatically what 'God's will' would be in certain circumstances and make 'IF' as predictive as Newtonian gravity, but then of course it would be Newtonian gravity with another name.

 

Furthermore, the desirablilty of predictivity is a somewhat aesthetic judgement. A theory doesn't have to be predictive to be correct, but it has to be predictive to be a scientific theory.

[padren]

Predictivity. One of the desirable things in a scientific theory is that it should make predictions. 'Intelligent falling' does not make predictions' date=' whereas Nowtonian gravity does.

 

Of course, this is simply semantics to a certain extent. I could express mathermatically what 'God's will' would be in certain circumstances and make 'IF' as predictive as Newtonian gravity, but then of course it would [b']be[/b] Newtonian gravity with another name.

 

Furthermore, the desirablilty of predictivity is a somewhat aesthetic judgement. A theory doesn't have to be predictive to be correct, but it has to be predictive to be a scientific theory.

 

A little off-topic, but I thought of something I am curious about: is there a difference between how "theories" that try to explain what is observed vs. what is predicted?

 

I mean, most holy texts sound like an author was writing while his 6 year old kept asking "why? why? why?" questions constantly, at least when it pertains to why the world is as it is.

 

That's not a jab at religion, but I can't help but to make the observation that more "faith based" theories tend to start with a premise (God created the world, etc) and then proceed to "explain" how it was created in a manner that fits as much of what we know about the world as it can and religious texts.

 

It seems to be trying to piece together a puzzle that explains what we see, instead of a system that can predict where we will find new undiscovered pieces of the puzzle.

At the same time, how much of geology is predictive? I know you can crunch the numbers and then do lab tests on soil errosion can make accurate predictions with it.

 

I am just curious if science measures the differences between predictive aspects and "explaining the data we already have found" (solving the puzzle of how some mountains formed etc) in a concrete way.

[Severian]

That's not a jab at religion' date=' but I can't help but to make the observation that more "faith based" theories tend to start with a premise (God created the world, etc) and then proceed to "explain" how it was created in a manner that fits as much of what we know about the world as it can and religious texts.

[/quote']

 

That is how science starts too. You have to explain the world around you first. But the assumption that the same mechanisms will shape events of the future allows you to make predictions.

 

In principle, there is nothing preventing religion making predictions. A religion could predict an earthquake next week or the end of the world in 2010. However, most religions do not make such predictions because if they get it wrong they will lose followers (just like a scientific theory would, but a scientific theory doen't have any vested interests).

 

At the same time, how much of geology is predictive? I know you can crunch the numbers and then do lab tests on soil errosion can make accurate predictions with it.

 

You don't need to predict the future in order to be predictive. Evolution for example might predict a evolutionary link between different species, and if new fossil evidence is uncovered which support that claim then it is a successful prediction.

 

However, one of the things that I see often (as a professional scientist) is the different levels of rigour in predictions and evidence which different fields have.

 

In particle physics (my field) we test our models to an extreme. We have quantities which we can predict to 10 significant figures and when we measure them with this accuracy we find they agree. When we make a measurement we perform sophisticated statistical tests (since quantum mechanics is probabilistic) to make sure that what we see is a reasl effect. Before we announce a discovery, we insist on a 5-sigma significance which (as any statistition will tell you) is bordering on obsessively careful.

 

I don't see this sort of rigour in other fields. Cosmology is close enough to particle physics that I understand the field really pretty well, and I already see there a lessoning of these standards. Their data is messy and based on all sorts of assumptions. They perform extrapolations over orders of magnitude. But they never seem to quantify any systematic errors from these assumptions and extrapolations. Then they compare the massaged 'data' with theory and 'rule out' models at the level of 2-sigma significance. 2-sigma is a 95% confidence, so they are saying that they are 95% sure that the data is inconsistant with the theory. However, this means that it will take on average only 20 measurements to rule out a 'true' theory.

 

This seems to get worse as we move away from physics. Evolutionary science doesn't even seem to have significancies in predictions. They have huge extrapolations with very little justification. And while I think evolution is the best theory we have, and probably right on some level, this makes me deeply uneasy. What is worse, imho, is that the scientists studying these things do not see this themselves. They have not been conditioned to a field which demands extreme rigour so they don't see the inherant assumptions they are making. Ocassionaly someone on this forum will state something along the lines that we are as sure of evolution as the origin of species as we are of Quantum ChromoDynamics. That always pisses me off, because it is clear they have no idea what they are talking about.

[pcs]

the mechanism for a theory must exist. until one can prove that god exists, it isn't science....same with ID

 

Thank you for restating what I've already said. Now put the script down.

[ydoaPs]

Thank you for restating what I've already said. Now put the script down.

could you show me where you said this?

[pcs]

Predictivity.

 

I said the model makes all the same predictions. Just one is teleological. Clearly this isn't an additional distinguishing factor to parsimony.

 

One of the desirable things in a scientific theory is that it should make predictions. 'Intelligent falling' does not make predictions, whereas Nowtonian gravity does.

 

Sure it does. It makes the same predictions Newtonian gravity does.

 

Of course, this is simply semantics to a certain extent. I could express mathermatically what 'God's will' would be in certain circumstances and make 'IF' as predictive as Newtonian gravity, but then of course it would be Newtonian gravity with another name.

 

And a supernatural term. Which brings me back to my question, what besides parsimony is the distinguishing characteristic?

 

Furthermore, the desirablilty of predictivity is a somewhat aesthetic judgement. A theory doesn't have to be predictive to be correct, but it has to be predictive to be a scientific theory.

 

I think we're going to have to disagree here. A scientific theory needs to be testable. A theory that makes no predictions whatsoever may still still be falsified on explanatory grounds. That's unless we're using the term "prediction" to refer to refer to the discovery of evidence in directly unobserved processes.

 

In any case, the broader scientific community would attach an additional constraint--parsimony under methodological naturalism--that would automatically exclude supernatural terms. But if you don't care about parsimony, then what's the big deal?

[pcs]

could you show me where you said this?

 

That would be the parsimony point. And thank you for putting down the script for a post or two.