Intelligent falling
Intelligent falling (IF) is a parody of the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. IF is a pseudo-scientific supernatural explanation of the effects of gravity that has become a minor Internet phenomenon. It says free fall is being caused by "the hand of god", as depicted in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel Ceiling painting.[1] While the current incarnation of IF has its roots in a satirical 2002 Usenet posting, religious explanations of gravity invoking the direct intervention of God span several hundred years, including some of Isaac Newton's own writings and recent depictions by fundamentalist Christians.
IF proposes that the scientific explanation of gravitational force cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them. Furthermore, IF asserts that theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics, making gravity a "theory in crisis". Pretended IF apologists advocate that IF should be taught in school along with the theory of gravity so that students can make "an informed decision" on the subject in accordance with demands to "teach the controversy".
IF as an Internet phenomenon
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 14 2002 | "Jeff Stubbs" posts a draft of a letter to editor that mentions intelligent grappling to the alt.atheism and talk.origins usenet groups.[2] "I don't like the theory of gravity, I feel personally insulted that engineers design structures only considering physical mass. What about our souls? I propose that science classes also teach the theory of "Intelligent Grappling". There's no way a weak force such as gravity can possibly hold everything onto the planet. It must be God, using our souls, to hold everything together." |
| June 18 2002 | Elf Sternberg posts a "FAQ on intelligent grappling" on the sci.skeptic usenet group. [3] |
| May 162005 | D. C. Simpson publishes an I Drew This comic strip titled "Teaching Gravity"[4]. |
| May 26, 2005 | Joshua Rosenau, a graduate student at the University of Kansas, presents the idea on his blog, citing Isaac Newton [5]. |
| August 17, 2005 | Intelligent falling is the subject of an article in The Onion [6]. |
| August 17-27, 2005 | More than 100,000 Google hits appear on the subject, indicating that Intelligent falling has become another Internet phenomenon. Although most hits are on Internet blogs and discussion pages, some media articles also start mentioning it, mostly alongside Pastafarianism, the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (another satirical response to "intelligent design"). |
| August 27, 2005 | An online petition to treat intelligent falling like intelligent design when making decisions about what theories to teach in public schools goes online [7]. |
Pre-Internet sentiments resembling IF
In a letter to the Reverend Dr. Richard Bentley in 1692, Isaac Newton wrote: "To your second query I answer that the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone but were impressed by an intelligent agent." This statement is referenced by Intelligent Design advocate Stephen C. Meyer in The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design[8], who refers to this statement as
Newton's famous postulation of special divine intervention to stabilize the orbital motion in the solar system" in developing his argument of the methodological equivalence of naturalistic and non-naturalistic (i.e. supernatural) theories
In 1925, Rev. William Asbury Williams, D.D. wrote, in a somewhat oxymoronically titled work:[9]
The power of attraction, which we may call a property of matter, is really the power of God. The effects are the results of power and intelligence..... Gravitation requires the computation of countless millions of the most complex and difficult problems, every instant, by the divine mind.... These innumerable calculations prove that God is everywhere. We are continually in the immediate awesome presence of an Infinite God.
Charles Darwin clearly opts for the opposite point of view. In 1842, Charles Darwin wrote his "pencil sketch" of his theory[10] in which he sets evidence of common descent against the doctrine of separate creation and asks:
What would the Astronomer say to the doctrine that the planets moved (not) according to the law of gravitation, but from the Creator having willed each separate planet to move in its particular orbit?
See also
References
- ^ http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Evangelical-Scientists-C.jpg
- ^ http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/92c36e6c5b4a8012?dmode=source&hl=en
- ^ http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/28ebb87902c8ecba?dmode=source&hl=en
- ^ Simpson, D. C., "Teaching Gravity", I Drew This
- ^ "I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it's time to discuss my theory of intelligent falling. I was inspired to question the Newtonist dogma on "gravity" when I learned that science cannot explain the movement of three things at once. Sure, Newton's "laws" can explain how two things move, but Newtonists can't explain how a third object would affect that movement." http://jgrr.blogspot.com
- ^ "'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.'http://www.theonion.com
- ^ "There is growing support to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to the theory of evolution. It is time to correct another outdated theory." [1]
- ^ "An example of theological plausibility functioning to limit design hypotheses can be found by examining the reception of Newton's famous postulation of special divine intervention to stabilize the orbital motion in the solar system. Newton postulated the periodic and special intervention of God to correct for an apparently accumulating instability in the orbits of the outer planets (Jupiter and Saturn) within the solar system. While this episode is often cited to illustrate why divine action or design can never be considered as a scientific explanation, it actually illustrates a more subtle point: how such inferences were constrained by considerations of theological plausibility." http://www.discovery.org
- ^ Williams, Rev. William A. (1925 & 1928). The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved, In 50 Arguments.
{{cite book}}: Check date values in:|year=(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help)CS1 maint: year (link)Gutenberg Etext - ^ Darwin's essay of 1842, part II.
External links
- Petition for intelligent falling
- Parody by The Onion
- Intelligent Forces Similar "Anti-Gravity" parody website
- intelligentattraction.com