The "Theory of Intelligent Falling" was postulated by The Onion in August of 2005, just as the Kansas State School Board adopted ID-friendly science standards for the second time in six years. In typical Onion style, it neatly parodied the Intelligent Design movement's machinations in Kansas at that time. Josh Rosenau had noted an earlier form - a transitional, if you will - of the burgeoning theory at his blog "Thoughts from Kansas in May of 2005.
Basically, Intelligent Falling (IF) claims that since Newton's theory of gravitational interactions cannot explain all motions of an object, then Newton's construct is a "theory in crisis." Those gaps in the Newtonian theory are best explained by the actions of a higher intelligence. An object doesn't fall to the ground because of the interaction between the earth and the object; it does so because an unnamed, unspecified Intelligence is pushing on it.
Puttering around the 'net today I happened on this comment delving into the ol' micro versus macro myth. Gravity, that is: micro-gravity v. macro-gravity. Enjoy this bit after the fold . . .
Micro-gravity is observable. Drop an anvil on your foot to observe it in action. Natural forces are adequate to explain the attraction of small objects to earth. We admit that recent research has extended observations of micro-gravity to objects relatively large by a human scale; even tall buildings may fall by its power.
However, atheistic physicists claim that naturalistic gravity also makes the planets “fall” in their orbits. This is demonstrably false. The moon, for example does not fall, but remains suspended in the heavens. There is simply no such thing as macro-gravity. The only explanation is the existence of an Intelligent Designer that established the orbits of celestial objects. Even Newton, the founder of the now discredited theory of gravity, believed that God (his version of the Designer) keeps orbits from collapsing, when his calculations showed that they were unstable.
Claiming that observable micro-gravity and hypothetical, unproven macro-gravity arise from the same naturalistic force is as untenable as atheistic biologists’ claim that a single mechanism of evolution suffices for observable changes in finches and the development of the human spleen from a bit of primitive algae. Micro-gravity, like micro-evolution, may possibly arise from natural forces. But macro-gravity cannot.
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
