Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post
KANSAS CITY, KS (KL News Service)— 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.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

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."





Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.





According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.





The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."





"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.





Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.





"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."





Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.





"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"





Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.





"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

Somebody sent me this, I didn't come up with it myself.
haha it's pretty funny but is actually the kind of thing the media would like people to think creationists actually believe. Probably half the people reading that wouldn't even realise it was a joke as proponents of intelligent design get lampooned so much in the media.

As for having an appendix, the idea that it is merely vestigial and useless has long since been discredited. It is part of the immune system and is active during pregnancy and the development of a featus. It's not a useless organ at all.

Also if none of our body parts should exist unless they are vital for life then explain to me why men have nipples?

When in our evolutionary past do you suppose that men were involved in suckling their young? I presume you must do as we have them and they are clearly vestigial as they serve no purpose in males. Yet no scientists believes that men used to suckle their young it's a silly idea, but becuase we have a coccyx it's used as evidence we once had a tail?

Nine mucscles attach to the coccyx it is a neccessary part of the human body.

These pieces of observational evidence are just ridiculous, a platypus has a duck's bill so it must have once been a bird right? What about a chameleon, they have hands that can grasp like ours, must be a relation right?

These bogus evolutionary pieces you put up just highlight a few chosen examples and ignore the rest. There are no vestigial organs in the human body, it's just an attempt by evolutionists to look for evidence to support evolution.

If gradual transitional evolution over millions of years actually occured the amount in vestigial and transitional organs and appendices in nature would be overwhelming. Likewise if random mutation within the DNA copying process led to new species of animals being created and creatures evolving into other things then both the fossil record and the modern world would be full of millions of examples.

They wouldn't need to find a prehistoric bird that had teeth and trump that as their best and pretty much only proof of a transitional fossil.