Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Satire is not fair play when it is interjected into is science blog, the subject of which is physics and numbers. "The Onion", dubbed as "America's finest news source", does not make clear it satirical status, At any rate, I failed to perceive as much. I am certain many, otherwise, intelligent and well informed individuals are unaware that "The Onion" is a satirical website. Anyone, who would suggest that my oversight resulted from a lack of intelligence, skills of analysis, reading comprehension, or stupidity, as one post suggested, clearly demonstrates a degree of stupidity, on their part. Why; because they completely failed to explore, investigate, analyze and understand the actual reason for my response to the article. Since when do only intelligence articles or statements warrant serious analysis. I would argue the absolute need to respond to, analyze, and perhaps debunk any article or statement, if seriously proffered. Many thought experiments explore questions that fall outside of established knowledge and understanding, the purpose of which is to generate original ideas and opinions; potentially applicable to established knowledge and understanding. I am not embarrassed, as one post suggested, by seriously responding to this article. Disappointed, yes, but not embarrassed. No response herein will shake my higher purpose; to share, explore, and discuss serious issues. Why would, or should I feel embarrassed because I sincerely responded to a deception, the nature of which was not obvious to me. What should be embarrassing is the accepting of this game, the rules, of which, were not made clear. Again, you choose, but allow me to know before hand, that your object is other than serious discourse and reflection. Yes, satire has a place, yet when used as a vehicle of deception, diminish its value.

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.

How sad and stupid, a "science" blog indulging in this kind of deception. Please explain to me the benefit derived from this act. I am not amused or enlightened, even though I enjoyed the exercise of responding to the article, and entertaining original thoughts and ideas. Thus, I derived a measure of benefit from this deception. True, in retrospect, the ideas presented in the article now appear utterly silly. Yet, in todays world, far fetched views are not only commonplace, but the subject of serious study. My point, what is or is not a valid subject of serious study is not always clear, and often open to debate. The process of evaluating information, requires, of necessity, certain assumptions, parameters, and grounding. I made the reasonable assumption that this blog dealt exclusively with serious topics, given my respectable participation. Oh well, lets party and have a good time. Lighten up, its only a "science" blog. Deception is fair play. You choose, but allow me to know before hand, that your object is other than serious discourse and reflection. It is a little late in the day to waste precious time playing games. The world needs your insight, knowledge, and experience. This is a respectable forum, by every measure. Let us not forget, otherwise, perhaps unwittingly, will we slide into wrong thinking and popular delusions.

The mere fact that the actual nature of gravity cannot be presently explained, is not proof, in scientific terms, that the laws of gravity are invalid. Laws of science are not dependent upon a complete understanding of the forces or actions that result in the theories derived from such forces or actions. Such laws and theories are derived from direct observation, and capable of accurately predicting observational events. The notion that God pushes object back to the earth is absurd, in the extreme, and has no scriptural bases. Are we ask to believe that when object subject to Gods influence hit and hurt individual, that God deliberatively aimed these objects toward innocent people. Did God "push" downward all of the bombs that destroyed homes, businesses, and precious lives. How silly, stupid, and misguided. This is a demonstrably flawed example of Evangelical Science attempting to impose their certitude of scriptural interpretation and primacy upon a categorically distinct reality. When Evangelical Science, can predict, with similar accuracy, the law of gravity, I will become a receptive listener. As well, when then can explain, and justify the destruction to innocent lives that have resulted from "a higher intelligence", "pushing" bombs down, upon, men, women, and children, perhaps, then, I will gain some insight into their perspective. In point of fact, this will never happen. Evangelical Science, is not science, in the traditional sense. If they regard traditional science to be invalid, it is therefore impossible, and irrational to gauge, weigh, measure, compare, or contrast, traditional science with scriptural interpretation. Therefore, their arguments are manifestly flawed, and self-serving. In short, Evangelical Science is committing a categorical error of the first order, strategically designed to supplant, with pseudoscience, based on an intellectual interpretation of certain scriptures; most Christians do not understand or subscribe to, with a simplistic and infantile explanation of scientific established theories.