Intelligent Falling catches on

Many moons ago, I presented my theory on Intelligent Falling to the scientific community in the only way recognized as valid: I posted it on the internet without any supporting evidence. Important journals like The Onion picked it up later, but it has taken longer to fulling infiltrate the ID movement.

In a discussion at Bill Dembski’s blog, “bornagain77″ writes:

I Find it very interesting that materialism had to invent hypothetical particles to keep the equations of Gravity working properly when Theism would of predicted Gravity as a primary cause and would not have seen a need to invent them. Are not atomic particles the result of various forces acting on energy anyway?

And later adds:

The mathematical problem with the hypothetical particles (Dark Matter/Energy)that had to be invented to keep the equations of Gravity from falling apart, may very well be intractable because, ?How in the world do you put a number on an indivisible force that very well may arise from indivisible God in the first place??

At last, Complex Specified Pushing can join its brethren in the IDolators’ pantheon.

Comments

  1. #1 Ex-drone
    April 30, 2007

    For someone who believes in an invisible being that supposedly exists outside of our space-time continuum, he should be careful about using the word “invent” so sneeringly.

  2. #2 Chris Hyland
    April 30, 2007

    “Theism would of predicted Gravity as a primary cause and would not have seen a need to invent them”
    Have you noticed in discussions of ID/creationism you never see the word predicted without “would of/have” in front of it.

  3. #3 John Pieret
    May 1, 2007

    [Sniff] That brings back memories! I was there when Jeff Stubbs and Elf Sternberg first proposed Intelligent Grappling back in ‘ought two.

    Those were the days when men were men … and horses were nervous.

  4. #4 Marge
    May 1, 2007

    Not to be a nit-picker or grammar police, but is it now commonly acceptable to say “would of” instead of would have? “Have” is a “helping verb” followed by another verb – “predicted” in the above quote. “of is a preposition, usually followed by an object – a noun or pronoun. I think the confusion arises from the contraction “would’ve” which sounds like would of, but it seems to me a person with any education (i.e, high school) should know better. Off the subject, I know, but I feel better.

  5. #5 Josh Rosenau
    May 1, 2007

    No, Marge, it has not become acceptable. It is common, alas.