Talk:Intelligent falling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Use FSM as a model

I would suggest that this article be rewritten to reflect the tone of the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism article. Using phrases like "modern IF advocates" suggest that this is a legitimate movement. Here's my suggestion for the opening paragraph:

Intelligent falling (IF) is a satirical supernatural explanation of the law of gravity, intended to parody the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. IF suggests 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.

Irene Ringworm 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would propose treating this subject like what it is, a minor internet phenomenon, rather than weaving the satirical elements in with pretended support from Newton and Darwin. Irene Ringworm 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No pretence, this is a properly sourced theological argument. Which Darwin thinks no reasonable person would support. The satirical intent of the modern "revival" is clearly stated in the second sentence. .. dave souza, talk 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Understood but disagreed. My concern is that placing quotes from Darwin and Newton in the timeline make IF read like a legitimate revival of some school of thought rather than a satire of ID. This blurs the line between an encyclopedic article about a minor internet phenomenon and a parody post detailing the "history" of intelligent falling. Irene Ringworm 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have followed my own advice and corrected the tone and clarity of this entry. I have kept most of the original material but reworked it to clearly differentiate between IF (satirical internet phenomenon) and pre-internet religious sentiment which resembles IF. The only thing that doesn't seem to fit is the offhanded reference to the David Snoke book.

Still needs some editing for clarity but I think that this solves the tone problem while retaining the substance of the original. Irene Ringworm 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] old

I found the first reference to Intelligent Falling in a note by Sue Gamble, a member of the Kansas school board, which was published in an article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the Wichita Eagle. Due to the visibility on the Internet I concluded it is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, so I created it (I was not logged in at the time). Groeck 17:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Onion article isn't the first place where Intelligent Falling is talked about. See Teaching gravitySciguy47 17:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Also, on May 26, 2005, it was described in Inspiration. I updated the main article, but did not include the link to the comic (it seems to be low bandwidth). Groeck 10:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Intelligent falling" sounds an awful lot like aristotelian theories of gravity, based on final causes, which were current for many centuries in the west. For example, a stone fell to the ground because that was its rightful place. Does anyone have enough philosophical background to flesh this out into a paragraph int he article? (EW)

I thought the aristotlian theories of gravity were based on supposed potentials and elemental composition, not direct divine intervention. Either way, I think you missed the point entirely.

[edit] Scott Adams

Does anyopne want to mention Scott Adam's theory (might not be origionally his) that everything in the universe is constantly doubling in size, thus producing a gravity-like effect, perhaps as an example of other alternate theories of gravity? Dont' knwo if that fits in this article, maybe under gravity.. Kuroune 01:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early insight on intelligent falling theory

[creationist]

In 1925, rev William A. Williams in his book evolution of Man Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproven shows what I think that is one of the earliests of the modern gut feelings that falling is intelligent, not random (as we never fall to the sides, or up, except on the evolutionist videoclip of the band Blur, "song 2"). Here I quote the book:

Who can say that God does not intervene, in this case to save all life? It is a striking proof that God is not absent nor inactive.
Gravitation requires the computation of countless millions of the most complex and difficult problems, every instant, by the divine mind. The attraction of all matter for all other matter is in proportion directly to the mass and inversely to the square of the distance. The exact weight of every object is determined by the attraction of the earth and every particle thereof, the mountain that may be nearby, the elevation and altitude of the place, the attraction of the sun and the moon, and every star in heaven, even though too small to be computed by man-- all these are computed precisely by the divine mind. These innumerable calculations prove that God is everywhere We are continually in the immediate awesome presence of an infinite God.

Following he says a bit about what could be developed into the intelligent hydrodinamics theory, or maybe, intelligent fluid-filling theory. Have you ever noticed how the oceans fit the roundness of the Earth? How communicant vases "know" the level they all must be? Could that be randomly evolving? I don't think so.

I think the rev. worth be mentioned in the article. Other point the article totally miss is that evolutionists never explained how the so called gravity evolved in ther first place. [/creationist] --Extremophile 01:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Damnit. You think you find a perfect example to make clear the sillyness of the ID movement, and it turns out that some people were spreading the idea as serious 80 years ago. SanderJK 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
All I can say is that I sincerely hope he is kidding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FVZA Colonel (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Circular reasoning is funny. Start with the premiss that there is a God, describe how powerful he'd have to be if that premiss was true, then say it is therefore proved that there is a God. And physics evolving from something, as if it were a living creature... there's an interesting concept. Hell, didn't gravity evolve from apples? <sigh> Capi 14:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, i think it's about time to create "intelligent light", where god is the cause of all light which radiates from his holy sunglasses. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jastubbs 03:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Just wanted to confirm that "Jeff Stubbs" is a real person. It's me.

[edit] Inflammatory Article

While I am certainly not a creationist, I cringe somewhat to see this article. While there is some historical significance, and even contemporary reference, it would be extremely easy for an article like this to turn into the encyclopedic equivilant of a troll. I think we should be particularly careful as to what we put in the article. --Ignignot 15:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is not inflamatory at all but is merely a presentation of a fact of thought and action which stems from very old religious arguments on natural phenomena. I think I.F. it is relevant culturally, and important for debate between those who understand what science is and those who do not understand science - ideas like this move individuals to ask themselves important questions about the natural world. And in my opinion there isn't anything particularly inflamatory about getting people to use logic, deduction, and the other staples of intelligence which we humans have. Astrobayes 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
For religious freak, Reality is inflammatory thing itself, considering that all pesky thingies like proofs, evidence and so-called "facts". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.245.228 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creationist response

Any responses from creationists to this? They should be included. Abdullais4u (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any. I would imagine that it's such an obvious parody that not even the goofiest person would take it seriously enough to respond. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It's more of an original than a response, but Stephen C. Meyer [ref 8] is an intelligent design creationist, and his convoluted argument seems to be that Newton's invocation of divine intervention in gravity makes it ok for ID to do the same. The Rev. Williams was clearly anti-evolution, writing just before the term "creationist" was adopted by supporters of that cause. .. dave souza, talk 14:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow ... can we get credit in Philosophical Theology 101 for editing this article? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)