Arguments
Intelligent Falling proposes 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. Furthermore, IF asserts that theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics, making gravity a "theory in crisis". IF also makes the claim that gravity is "only a theory", parodying the claims made by creationists regarding the theoretical status of evolution. Pretend IF apologists advocate that IF should be taught in school along with the theory of gravity so that students can make "an informed decision" on the subject in accordance with demands to "teach the controversy". IF has found common ground with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a similar critique of intelligent design, and the two are often combined when mentioned in discussions.
Read more about this topic: Intelligent Falling
Famous quotes containing the word arguments:
“Because a person is born the subject of a given state, you deny the sovereignty of the people? How about the child of Cuban slaves who is born a slave, is that an argument for slavery? The one is a fact as well as the other. Why then, if you use legal arguments in the one case, you don’t in the other?”
—Franz Grillparzer (1791–1872)
“The second [of Zeno’s arguments about motion] is the one called “Achilles.” This is to the effect that the slowest as it runs will never be caught by the quickest. For the pursuer must first reach the point from which the pursued departed, so that the slower must always be some distance in front.”
—Zeno Of Elea (c. 490–430 B.C.)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)