The theory of Intelligent Falling is based on the basic assumption that objects are not held on the ground due to gravitational forces , but rather are pressed to the ground by a "higher intelligence". The arguments that support this thesis are similar to those used by the advocates of intelligent design to enforce that American schools teach intelligent design instead of or at least alongside the theory of evolution .
The satirical transfer effort here consists in questioning not Darwin's theory of evolution, but Newton's theory of gravitation. The transfer of the unscientific arguments against one of the best-known scientific teachings (Darwin) to another equally well-known (Newton) is intended to ironically caricature the religious-fundamentalist quarrel with the knowledge of natural science and to bring it into a line of tradition with the debate about another in the 17th century well-known scientific doctrine, the Copernican worldview and the lawsuits against Galileo on his behalf .
The concept of Intelligent Falling was first mentioned in a comic published on May 16, 2005 by DC Simpson called Teaching Gravity. Shortly thereafter, Josh Rosenau presented an elaborated version on his blog Thoughts from Kansas.
As with the theory of the flying spaghetti monster, the new approach - which ironically refers to the attempts by the creationists to displace the theory of evolution from American schools and replace it with their own fundamentalist and biblical view - very quickly spread to relevant sites such as The Onion or in various blogs.
The following is a translation of Josh Rosenau's article Inspiration :
It's just a theory - on the shoulders of a huge mistake
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it's time to talk about my Intelligent Falling theory.
When I learned that science cannot explain the motion of three objects at the same time, this stimulated me to question the Newtonian dogma of "gravity". Sure, Newton's "laws" can explain the motion of two objects, but Newtonists cannot explain how a third object would affect that motion.
Newtonism would be great if there were only two objects.
But Newton can't even explain this one object: the Pioneer spacecraft .
Newtonism would be great if it could explain the Pioneer anomaly .
Of course, Newtonists can claim to be able to predict the orbits of planets and the like, but if they cannot even predict the motions of three objects then this is obviously a lie. Afterwards you can explain why you were wrong, but just outside of it is also over. Has a Newtonist ever foretold the reappearance of a comet?
Newtonism would be great if it could explain where the planets come from.
Newtonism would be great if it could explain where gravity comes from.
Newtonism would be great if you knew what gravity is.
There are many little "ifs" in Newtonism, and a lot of discussion about "gravity". I think these many little "if" s ("if" s) add up to one big IF: Intelligent Falling.
IF believes that the movements of the planets and stars around the earth are too complex to be explained solely by natural processes. There has to be a slider. If a person walks down the path and suddenly falls, it can be expected that it happened because he was pushed.
I believe that angels push the planets and control the fall of objects on one another. If this is true then there is no need to teach our children the unscriptural error that the earth moves around the sun. If the slider wants the sun to move, there's no reason it shouldn't.
Newtonism is in crisis and our children should be taught controversy. If the Newtonists cannot explain what gravity is, why not accept their "sacred" saying above and accept that Intelligent Falling is the only credible explanation for the universe.
Analogies to intelligent design
Since IF was developed directly as a satire on intelligent design , it shows not only argumentative analogies but also similarities in refutability :
Like the theory of intelligent design , IF cannot be refuted by scientific experiments. Because ID or IF do not make deviating empirical predictions. However, a large number of experiments and everyday experience confirm the theory of evolution and Newtonian mechanics. Nevertheless, there is in principle always the possibility that physical theories will be overtaken, e.g. B. can be treated as borderline cases of an empirically more rigorous theory. The current state of physics also contains numerous explanatory gaps. The incomplete explanation of the gravitational force is a particularly important example (see world formula ). Such explanatory gaps offer starting points for theories beyond the established teachings.
- Inspiration , article by Josh Rosenau in Thoughts from Kansas, May 26, 2005