Talk:Intelligent falling/Archive 1

old
I found the first reference to Intelligent Falling in a note by Sue Gamble, a member of the Kansas school board, which was published in an article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the Wichita Eagle. Due to the visibility on the Internet I concluded it is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, so I created it (I was not logged in at the time). Groeck 17:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Onion article isn't the first place where Intelligent Falling is talked about. See Teaching gravitySciguy47 17:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Also, on May 26, 2005, it was described in Inspiration. I updated the main article, but did not include the link to the comic (it seems to be low bandwidth). Groeck 10:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Intelligent falling" sounds an awful lot like aristotelian theories of gravity, based on final causes, which were current for many centuries in the west. For example, a stone fell to the ground because that was its rightful place. Does anyone have enough philosophical background to flesh this out into a paragraph int he article? (EW)

I thought the aristotlian theories of gravity were based on supposed potentials and elemental composition, not direct divine intervention. Either way, I think you missed the point entirely.

Scott Adams
Does anyopne want to mention Scott Adam's theory (might not be origionally his) that everything in the universe is constantly doubling in size, thus producing a gravity-like effect, perhaps as an example of other alternate theories of gravity? Dont' knwo if that fits in this article, maybe under gravity.. Kuroune 01:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory Article
While I am certainly not a creationist, I cringe somewhat to see this article. While there is some historical significance, and even contemporary reference, it would be extremely easy for an article like this to turn into the encyclopedic equivilant of a troll. I think we should be particularly careful as to what we put in the article. --Ignignot 15:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is not inflamatory at all but is merely a presentation of a fact of thought and action which stems from very old religious arguments on natural phenomena. I think I.F. it is relevant culturally, and important for debate between those who understand what science is and those who do not understand science - ideas like this move individuals to ask themselves important questions about the natural world.  And in my opinion there isn't anything particularly inflamatory about getting people to use logic, deduction, and the other staples of intelligence which we humans have. Astrobayes 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For religious freak, Reality is inflammatory thing itself, considering that all pesky thingies like proofs, evidence and so-called "facts". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.245.228 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Creationist response
Any responses from creationists to this? They should be included. Abdullais4u (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never seen any. I would imagine that it's such an obvious parody that not even the goofiest person would take it seriously enough to respond. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's more of an original than a response, but Stephen C. Meyer [ref 8] is an intelligent design creationist, and his convoluted argument seems to be that Newton's invocation of divine intervention in gravity makes it ok for ID to do the same. The Rev. Williams was clearly anti-evolution, writing just before the term "creationist" was adopted by supporters of that cause. .. dave souza, talk 14:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow ... can we get credit in Philosophical Theology 101 for editing this article? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A creationist pastor once said in a sermon (I was listening from the audience) that Jesus is the force holding the world together. Without Jesus Christ, the whole planet would spin apart and physically disintegrate. He was deadly serious. I don't think his views are typical of creationism though. Bouncey (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gravity is God.
That's why being drunk is bad, we lose our sense of balance. Karma, what goes around comes around, orbit. Gravity is infinite division. Gravity makes sense of the "quantum mechanics" universe, where everything is everything, everywhere, and Tesseracts run rampant. Gravity projects that chaos, and focuses it into the "hologram" we know as our universe like light through a prism. Gravity seperates things so they can exist apart from everything else, while holding everything together at the same time. Gravity gives things weight, and structure. All things grow according to Gravity, all things are subject to it. Praise JEHOVAH! 156.34.180.171 (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)(Tetra Vega)

problem with quotation
The first blockquote under "Pre-Internet sentiments resembling IF" has a stray quotation mark and no period. I did not edit the quotation, but someone needs to check the original to repair any munging, I think. Długosz (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking that up, the blockquote included commentary on the quote, which should therefore be in body text. The context is shown in a larger quote from Meyer's article in the footnote. Hope that's clearer. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 10:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this fit Wiki's standards?
Entire sections quoted from blogs (Wiki does not consider these reliable sources), the most prominent resource is the parody-creator of the idea (intelligentfalling.org?) which is not a working link anymore. Stating it as an "internet phenomenon" would seem to not be a neutral stance. Citing references to publishing sites sites such as Onion and fakenews should not be listed as verifiable fact. When citing a quote from an external source, should it be indiscriminately hacked with "...." or "....." added as the author pleases? Is there enough content after considering these items to warrant an article or should it be deleted/smerged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.120.173.252 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Internet sentiments resembling IF Synthesis/OR
The whole section "Pre-Internet sentiments resembling IF" appear to be a synthesis/original research since there is no explicit link to the topic of Intelligent falling. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's certainly excessive, but the reference to occasionalism is quite interesting - clasic value of wikipedia, leading you to things you didn't know and didn't think syou needed to know. I agree that all the detials about Islam, Newton and Darwin are off toptic and/or OR and should be removed ... which, in fact, I think I will do and see what people think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is interesting but it just doesn't belong in this article (perhaps it does in other articles). I think it looks much better now after you were WP:BOLD. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved the material into a new article here: Religious explanations of gravity IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Use FSM as a model
I would suggest that this article be rewritten to reflect the tone of the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism article. Using phrases like "modern IF advocates" suggest that this is a legitimate movement. Here's my suggestion for the opening paragraph:

Intelligent falling (IF) is a satirical supernatural explanation of the law of gravity, intended to parody the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. IF suggests 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.

Irene Ringworm 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would propose treating this subject like what it is, a minor internet phenomenon, rather than weaving the satirical elements in with pretended support from Newton and Darwin. Irene Ringworm 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No pretence, this is a properly sourced theological argument. Which Darwin thinks no reasonable person would support. The satirical intent of the modern "revival" is clearly stated in the second sentence. .. dave souza, talk 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood but disagreed. My concern is that placing quotes from Darwin and Newton in the timeline make IF read like a legitimate revival of some school of thought rather than a satire of ID.  This blurs the line between an encyclopedic article about a minor internet phenomenon and a parody post detailing the "history" of intelligent falling.  Irene Ringworm 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is a properly sourced theological argument, is falling down stairs and landing flat on your face "Intelligent" or done by God? (Just my 2c) 210.50.76.132 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have followed my own advice and corrected the tone and clarity of this entry. I have kept most of the original material but reworked it to clearly differentiate between IF (satirical internet phenomenon) and pre-internet religious sentiment which resembles IF. The only thing that doesn't seem to fit is the offhanded reference to the David Snoke book.

Still needs some editing for clarity but I think that this solves the tone problem while retaining the substance of the original. Irene Ringworm 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Pekunlu of Ege University - Broken Link
The link given is a 404. There is this cached version on Google, not sure if it is indeed the same article though?

Why are cached websites on Google blocked?

A popular search engine beginning with G.com / url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEsQxQEwAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fviewer%3Fa%3Dv%26q%3Dcache%3A2mIDKH4YPv0J%3Aastronomy.ege.edu.tr%2F~rpekunlu%2FBGPop%2FIntellFall.pdf%2B%26hl%3Den%26pid%3Dbl%26srcid%3DADGEESglXdg66Mtl_O_0SMm_184eXvk__3JWkuCNsKSWRsx0smFPIdp5CnzPH3sNxgxFkdRNxR2bpgB_9sTiZjUMvtcIkkQ4vSAeEj6EvGW6XVEaTPWBEUzo-n4A25EyiLcDyr3VZbYT%26sig%3DAHIEtbRGu2DlIfjwS4IrP7nkD_8TAZFmAw&ei=Gg4MUJjxB-GP0AWf9tnFCg&usg=AFQjCNFbDiD1Z9MtkzRWoOMyOPlaC5ujNg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.128.170 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Serious Consideration
Well, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.228.112.125 (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Prof. Dr. Esat Rennan Pekünlü
Prof P was right. According to Einstein´s theory of relativity gravity is explained as a force of curved spacetime that presses matter against other matter, So this pseudo-religion Intelligent Falling is trying to sell us Einstein´s general theory of relativity as a religion, while in reality it is science. I am waiting for a new pseudo religion which claims that electricity is the flow of energy form God to the Devil, while in reality it is the flow of electrons from minus (a cathode) to plus (an anode). Or would anyone try to sell to the world Max Planck´s quantum mechanics of the identity of waves and particles as Holy Duality? I suggest this to be integrated into the article. Intelligent Falling is unmasked as a trivial hoax for serious people. Ontologix (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * On the assumption that this comment isn't a troll, note that the very first sentence of the article says it is a parody." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course IF is a parody. But the parallels to Einstein´s theory of relativity are striking. And the closer to reality a parody is, the more effective the message. Ontologix (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If by "striking" you mean "trivial", then yes, I'd agree. But either way, it has nothing to do with this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

undue weight?
Somebody has placed an "undue weight" hatnote on the article, without including discussion about the editor(s)' concerns. Without such discussion, the note will be removed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

the article gives undue weight of relevance. this is a joke posted on some magazine, and article treats it as legitimate subject. while spaghetti monster is a subject which is referenced sufficiently to make it relevant, this one-time joke is not. probably the whole article should be scrapped, or at best merged with spaghetti monster or some other article. treatment of this one-way joke is absolutely out of proportion to its (i)relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.221.171 (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I must disagree - it's not just a one-off joke; it has taken on a life of its own as a pointed parody/satire. As the article makes clear, references can be found. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue you're describing,, is notability rather than undue weight. The latter, in a way, assumes the article is notable and should exist, but expresses a concern that, based on the body of literature on the subject, the current text is unbalanced. Based on your comments above I've gone ahead and switched the tag to what seems to be your primary concern. If you think the article should be deleted, please see WP:Deletion process for more information. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Early insight on intelligent falling theory
[creationist]

In 1925, rev William A. Williams in his book evolution of Man Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproven shows what I think that is one of the earliests of the modern gut feelings that falling is intelligent, not random (as we never fall to the sides, or up, except on the evolutionist videoclip of the band Blur, "song 2"). Here I quote the book:


 * Who can say that God does not intervene, in this case to save all life? It is a striking proof that God is not absent nor inactive.


 * Gravitation requires the computation of countless millions of the most complex and difficult problems, every instant, by the divine mind. The attraction of all matter for all other matter is in proportion directly to the mass and inversely to the square of the distance. The exact weight of every object is determined by the attraction of the earth and every particle thereof, the mountain that may be nearby, the elevation and altitude of the place, the attraction of the sun and the moon, and every star in heaven, even though too small to be computed by man-- all these are computed precisely by the divine mind. These innumerable calculations prove that God is everywhere We are continually in the immediate awesome presence of an infinite God.

Following he says a bit about what could be developed into the intelligent hydrodinamics theory, or maybe, intelligent fluid-filling theory. Have you ever noticed how the oceans fit the roundness of the Earth? How communicant vases "know" the level they all must be? Could that be randomly evolving? I don't think so.

I think the rev. worth be mentioned in the article. Other point the article totally miss is that evolutionists never explained how the so called gravity evolved in ther first place. [/creationist] --Extremophile 01:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Damnit. You think you find a perfect example to make clear the sillyness of the ID movement, and it turns out that some people were spreading the idea as serious 80 years ago. SanderJK 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that I sincerely hope he is kidding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FVZA Colonel (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Circular reasoning is funny. Start with the premiss that there is a God, describe how powerful he'd have to be if that premiss was true, then say it is therefore proved that there is a God. And physics evolving from something, as if it were a living creature... there's an interesting concept. Hell, didn't gravity evolve from apples? Capi 14:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, i think it's about time to create "intelligent light", where god is the cause of all light which radiates from his holy sunglasses. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jastubbs 03:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Just wanted to confirm that "Jeff Stubbs" is a real person. It's me.


 * I think this quote or something more briefly referring to that would be a nice addition in a Poe's law subsection, or at least a brief mention elsewhere. Perhaps even a mention on Poe's law article itself is warranted.
 * Wow - a response to a discussion almost 9 years later! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)