Evangelical scientists refute gravity

[PUGalicious]

Faith does not require a leap of sound reasoning. But some of faith take that leap anyway.

Evangelical scientists refute gravity with new "Intelligent Falling" theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Read the full story.

[Karried]

I always wonder how scientists and doctors, physic majors and engineers can ignore some of their logical thinking and have such incredible faith in something they can't see - a higher power? Most people that think logically want to dissect and reason and have tangible proof.

How do they do it?

How does one not question the validity of religion and faith. How do people justify and believe all the while thier minds are continually questioning and searching for concrete proof and evidence? How do they keep the faith when theories such as evolution are accepted?

I know that is the definition of faith but how do they stop analyzing and searching for proof of a supreme being/higher power/ God?

I really would like to know - how do some of you do it?

[MadMonk]

Wow! That's insane.

[ibda12u]

Umm before anyone gets too crazy. The Onion is known to right hoax documents like that one on Intelligent Falling. They had a really great article written by a pie, called "So you want a piece of me?" It's funny entertaining writing, but it's not factual.

[MadMonk]

No way!
I was really looking forward to my car being powerd by Hydro-Quasi-Solariation!

[PUGalicious]

Umm before anyone gets too crazy. The Onion is known to right hoax documents like that one on Intelligent Falling. They had a really great article written by a pie, called "So you want a piece of me?" It's funny entertaining writing, but it's not factual.

You are absolutely correct. But it's one of those "makes-you-think" illustrative pieces.

[Karried]

How funny, I never read the article that is being referred to but it did get me thinking about how people can have incredible faith, even when the mind can't make sense of it. That is what I am really curious about.

[PUGalicious]

Maybe you could start a new thread on that topic specifically if you would like to explore the topic further.

[Winterhawk]

Faith does not require a leap of sound reasoning. But some of faith take that leap anyway.

Evangelical scientists refute gravity with new "Intelligent Falling" theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Read the full story.

Well I really thought you were joking when I first read this. However I am stunned that this article did not appear at The Onion.

Big difference between evolution and gravity, and that is the differenc between theory and law, scientific law that is. It is not the theory of gravity, it is the scientific law of gravity.

I would love to see them disprove it.

[PUGalicious]

The article did indeed originally come from The Onion.

[Winterhawk]

The article did indeed originally come from The Onion.

I stand corrected, misread the link.