"Intelligent Falling"

This started out as an MSN conversation that quickly dropped my jaw as I realized my opponent actually believes this theory. One issue I'd like to address right at the beginning of the debate is that the title of this "theory" is somewhat of a misnomer. .. My opponent refers to "intelligent falling" in lieu of other worthy theories, for example, gravity. "Intelligent falling" refers to the notion that large celestial bodies are intelligently placed - the theory would have been much more aptly named "Celestial Intelligent Design. " However, the fact remains that this is supposed to be a replacement for gravity. However, it is quite obvious that gravity in and of itself cannot be intelligent, as gravity has no mind. When considering the two theories (gravity and IF), my opponent only has this to say: "GodStands: I am amazed that I fell for gravity. " ********************************* First, a few responses: >> "Maths is usless with out science, like science is uncomplete with out maths. " Not exactly - science is impossible AND "uncomplete" without math. Math, however, is in and of itself not a science, but rather a tool that science (and other disciplines) frequently employ because it is very useful. >> "When a child is at a science lesson in school, he/she will learn about gravity as being a fact, being random, chance bound and unintelligent. " False - gravity is a theory (a good enough one to be "fact"). It is not random - it is very well explained by Newton's equations (. http://en.wikipedia.org... ; . http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...). Furthermore - it is not bound in any way by chance. Gravity never has any "chance" that it will work - it's "always on. " Of course - it's also not unintelligent OR intelligent - gravity has no mind or consciousness and can be no more intelligent or unintelligent than a rock. >> "This [the above statement about gravity] is simply not true. " Of course it's not - that's because my opponent does not understand gravity and has completely mischaracterized it. >> "If you do not use maths or science on anything it appears random. Say I twisted a tap, you would say that the strenth and the amount that the tap rotated was random, if you did not use maths or science by measuring me twisting the tap. It will seem random as you do not know the strenth or angle of the rotation. " This doesn't indicate that the action is random - it indicates that it was arbitrary. It is easy to get an approximate idea about how the tap was activated from a cursory glance at the handle and amount of water flowing from the tap. >> "All things are random with no maths or sciences involved. " False. The involvement of math or science does not change the nature of something. >> "Just because we do not know the mathmatics or science behind it does not mean its random or done by chance. " My opponent contradicts himself. .. >> "The moon orbits the earth, you can calaulate the orbit of the moon with maths and science. Meaning that it makes sense not randomness, just like the stone thrown behind the huge graph. Infact it is so obivous that the moon was intelligently placed there that you dont need a graph. Because the earth and the moon acts just like a drawn out graph. " This simply makes no sense. My opponent simply asserts that it is obvious the moon was intelligently placed without any sort of reasoning or evidence. And as for how the Earth and Moon act like a drawn out graph. .. obviously his argument is composed of conjecture and not reasoning. >> "You can easliy tell by this that intelligence was implied to this universe by God if you like it or not! Just say that the planets, stars and that the nights sky has graph paper printed on it. " I've looked at the moon and various planets myself through a telescope. .. I've never seen any graph paper. Again - my opponent asserts without reason or evidence that intelligence was "implied" (applied? ) to the universe by God. Where is the evidence for this? That the moon has a stable orbit? Unfortunately, Newton's (and following) equations describe the orbits quite well. >> "God has graphed the moons, planets and the suns, solar systems and the galaxies. By intelligently placing them" Considering things like decaying orbits and orbital resonance, as well as the need for leap years because our rotation speed isn't a good match to our orbital period. .. . God sure didn't do a very good job, did he? ********************** "Intelligent Falling" is nothing more than an attempt to interject intelligent design into another aspect of science. Obviously, this notion is completely flawed and has no rational basis at all. Aside from the fact that the theory hardly makes sense as presented, it actually explains nothing, and fails as a scientific theory - there are no testable hypotheses that can be formed with this theory. As such, I submit that "Intelligent Falling" is simply not a theory at all, and is just another attempt by religion to interject itself where it does not belong. The theory of gravity is a far superior to the "theory" of "Intelligent Falling. "