Reply to comment

I knew this article was a gag when I looked at what the source was, which is listed at the end. I too thought it wasn't appropriate for inclusion on a science site, but declined to comment at first. I'm just doing so now because I see that this piece has become an issue with others on the site, so I thought I'd speak-up.

My opinion is that articles like this should be regulated to a science humor section that is clearly marked as such. Other publications and web sites have similar sections. This way, those of us who don't have the time to bother with such triflings, can avoid them.

I took time to look at the article because it concerned gravity, which is an area related to my physics research; and religion, which is related to my sociology and psychological research. In an environment where there is a conflict between religion and science, the premise of the article was not that far fetched, which of course is why it makes a good gag. However, because I thought this was supposed to be a "science blog" and with stories related to the issue of creationism were running at the same time, my initial impression was that the article was legit, so I rapidly began scanning through it to see what this new theory was all about. It wasn't until I saw the how ridiculous the premise of the theory was - that God is pressing down on things (too ridiculous even for the most ridiculous religious fanatic) that I knew to jump and look at the source - the Onion. My first impression was to question whether or not whoever it is that puts this site up had even realized that the article was a gag. Then, I figured that they knew it was a gag, at which point I, like others already have said, felt it was inappropriate.

Seeing as how I use Scienceblog as a resource related to my work, and I work most of the time, I will be sure to immediately check the source of articles that catch my attention before investing any time in reading the first word. I think it is not out of line for anyone to question the motive of placing the article here. Afterall, it is very possible that it was a test to see how many people would take it seriously and respond (i.e. how many people would be "fooled", which is just another way of saying "stupid", "lacking in skills of analysis", "poor reading comprehension", what have you). It is very possible that this was a kind of psychology experiment. I don't know, one way or the other, but that's the way it could be interpreted which then puts a bad light on Scienceblog.

For those who like humor, and have the time for it, I feel that a section of science humour and gags would be a good addition to the site. That way it will be clear that the site owners are trying to entertain us instead of entertaining themselves at our possible expense, or worse, as lab rats.