Discovery Institute Takes on Gravity Myth

Hot on the heels of a recent Louisiana victory in the fight against evolution, the Seattle-based think tank Discovery Institute held a press conference Thursday to announce their latest initiative: defeating the myth of gravity.

Robert Crowther, Discovery’s director of communications was visibly excited as he detailed the Institute’s plan for attacking what he refers to as the sloppy, inaccurate, and overtly biased portrayal of the theory of gravity.

“Gravity is just a theory, and a poorly-supported one at that,” said Crowther.

At the press conference, the Discovery Institute introduced an alternate explanation for the apparent attraction of masses to each other. With its “Intelligent Motion” thesis, the Institute claims that the forces we call “gravity” can also be explained by an intelligent cause acting on masses, not a mysterious “natural” process.

“The so-called consensus in the scientific community is that gravity is allegedly described by the general theory of relativity,” explained Crowther. “They’re piling theory on top of theory here, and feeding it to us as if it were fact.”

As evidence that the theory of gravity is suspect, Crowther pointed to examples in nature that seem to literally fly in the face of the accepted explanations. “Take birds, for instance,” he said, “why doesn’t gravity seem to affect them as they soar majestically through the air? These are the questions that the news media and scientific establishment don’t want anyone to ask.”

Crowther emphasized that the Institute’s Intelligent Motion argument was not based on religious doctrine, but should instead be treated as a scientific alternative to the current understanding of gravity.

“Too many scientists have been afraid to speak out against the powerful gravity lobby,” said Crowther. “With Intelligent Motion, we are looking forward to imposing balance on yet another heavy-handed field of science.”

The Institute plans to begin their campaign against gravity by lobbying the state legislatures in Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Kentucky to pass a bill stating that Intelligent Motion must be taught in physics classes alongside Einstein’s theory of relativity.

About the Author

John Fostr
Naked Loon Technology Reporter

26 Comments on "Discovery Institute Takes on Gravity Myth"

  1. Robert Crowther | 2008-07-11 at 1:57 PM |

    John Fostr misstates the position of the Discovery Institute. Intelligent Motion does not deny that natural gravitation exists. We deny only that it has the power asserted by naturalistic physicists. Therefore, we divide gravitation into two parts, micro-gravity and macro-gravity.

    Micro-gravity is observable. Drop an anvil on your foot to observe it in action. Natural forces are adequate to explain the attraction of small objects to earth. We admit that recent research has extended observations of micro-gravity to objects relatively large by a human scale; even tall buildings may fall by its power.

    However, atheistic physicists claim that naturalistic gravity also makes the planets “fall” in their orbits. This is demonstrably false. The moon, for example does not fall, but remains suspended in the heavens. There is simply no such thing as macro-gravity. The only explanation is the existence of an Intelligent Designer that established the orbits of celestial objects. Even Newton, the founder of the now discredited theory of gravity, believed that God (his version of the Designer) keeps orbits from collapsing, when his calculations showed that they were unstable.

    Claiming that observable micro-gravity and hypothetical, unproven macro-gravity arise from the same naturalistic force is as untenable as atheistic biologists’ claim that a single mechanism of evolution suffices for observable changes in finches and the development of the human spleen from a bit of primitive algae. Micro-gravity, like micro-evolution, may possibly arise from natural forces. But macro-gravity cannot.

  2. TheBlackCat | 2008-07-13 at 9:02 AM |

    I know I speak for all believers in Intelligent Falling when I think the Discovery Institute for their defense. I have some questions for all the Einsteinists who are no doubt going to rush to the defense of this UNPROVEN THEORY.

    The supposed warping of space-time has never been directly observed. NOTHING in relativity can be replicated since it requires huge masses or extreme speed.

    Einsteinism doesn’t explain the formation of the first matter. You need matter to have gravity, but you need gravity to pull matter together.

    Einsteinism leads directly to a circular argument. Gravity is the force exerted by all mass, but mass is measured solely in terms of its interaction with gravity.

    NOBODY has been able to explain gravity in terms of quantum mechanics.

    NOBODY knows what dark matter is. But BELIEVERS know: it is the waters spoken of in the opening of Genesis.

    The secular theory of gravity is responsible for people pushing other people out of windows. Further, Einstein supported NUCULAR WAR! How can you support a theory that leads to such a destructive outcomes?

    There is a lot of scientific debate on Einstism.

    IntelliHand of Godlling is a scientific, unreligious answer to all of these questions. Why can’t public schools should TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!!

  3. PirateHooker | 2008-07-13 at 10:57 AM |

    I don’t see ANY evidence of macro gravity in the fossil record!!!

  4. W. De Weerdt | 2008-07-13 at 11:08 AM |

    There are too many holes, flaws and deliberate omissions in Discovery Institute’s heinous lies to even start anwering them, and they wouldn’t listen anyway.

    (Willful)ignorance doesn’t hurt, but it can kill…

  5. wow. i find it hard to believe that any rational thinking person could equate gravity with evolution. despite what you may think there is a difference between micro and macro evolution. in my humble opinion i think it is unscientific and dishonest to believe that complex systems can arise naturally. we trust gravity every day, it is literally a life or death belief and we see it’s effects everywhere, but i wouldn’t trust evolution (darwinian or modern) as far as i can throw a neandertal skull. if the theory is so airtight then you folks have nothing to worry about. there will be controversy for a while and then the striking and powerful evidence for evolution will win out against the conservative quasi-religious lobbyists. if the theory isn’t as solid as we are made to believe maybe it’s worth an honest open-minded investigation, sans rhetoric. after all, nobody wants to be told what to believe.

  6. Poor Jeremy,

    You said, “i think it is unscientific and dishonest to believe that complex systems can arise naturally”

    In your world crystals don’t exist. Eggs do not grow into animals. Ecosystems cannot form. Planets cannot orbit. Chemistry does not work… etc.

  7. E pur si mueve!

  8. Well… I personally believe it the famed “Dark Sucker” theory. Just TRY to debunk THAT!

  9. Danniel B. | 2008-07-14 at 6:34 AM |

    Stupidity is an amazing thing: It is both infinite and rapidly spreading. I can’t wait until the discovery institute starts telling us a “Revolutionary” theory stating that diseases are in fact caused by evil spirits.

  10. Latex Santa | 2008-07-14 at 9:47 AM |

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines. At least, not until the weasel work out that the only thing keeping them on the floor is a beleif in a force that does not exist…

  11. Kapten Kalabajooie | 2008-07-14 at 10:11 AM |

    Is this serious? I mean, can such ignorance of physical processes not only relating to gravity, but also aerodynamics, fluid motion, and fundamental science really exist? This all seems like a hoax to me.

    A hoax of a hoax. This seems about as physically possible as being beaten to death with your own skull.

  12. “i wouldn’t trust evolution (darwinian or modern) as far as i can throw a neandertal skull”

    that’s the great thing about intelligent motion. if it is His will I can throw a neanderthal skull into orbit (real far).

  13. eyesoars | 2008-07-14 at 10:59 PM |

    Love it. And the ‘macro gravity’ post is an awesome addition.

    Then we get the ‘TARDs, complete with “open mind”s (TM). bleh.


  14. Theblackcat writes : “The secular theory of gravity is responsible for people pushing other people out of windows” That statement is as disconnected from reality as it gets.

  15. Sorry to be a stick in the mud here guys, but the comment section on The Naked Loon is not the place for long-winded discussions about evolution. As we say on our About Page, this is a place for “a light-hearted take on local issues and anything else that happens to tickle our fancy.”

    I have archived your full conversation here.

    Please take your discussion to a more appropriate venue. Feel free to leave another comment suggesting where you would like to continue your discussion, but after that any comments that do not directly comment on this article will be removed.

    Thank you for your understanding.

  16. You can’t be serious. You can’t be [CENSORED] serious!
    OF COURSE gravity does affect Birds. THATS WHY THEY HAVE [CENSORED] WINGS!
    I’m very happy I live in Germany, where [CENSORED] like this will never be acceptet. I’ll laugh as America succumbs to it’s own stupidity… Have a funny future, [CENSORED].

    [Editor’s Note: Someone apparently has serious problems with reading comprehension, with respect to both the no swearing comment policy and the nature of this site.]

  17. Maxadolf | 2008-07-18 at 3:30 PM |

    And, did know that pigs fly at ground level in order to overcome gravity and conform with evolutionary theory. I’m not sure why I’m even bothering to comment on the article’s mindless drivel. Let’s engage in some real science!

  18. Yo Yo Ma Ma | 2008-07-25 at 9:19 AM |

    I’m working on a movie, tentativly called Entice: No Gravity Needed. It looks at how physicists who espouse the Entice theory (God’s angels entice our bodies to remain attacted to the Earth) are mocked and shunned by their anti-religious colleagues.

    So far, I’ve swiped some Beatles songs, and am copying a video I downloaded from a Harvard website.

  19. thebaldsoprano | 2008-07-31 at 12:08 PM |

    Discovery Institute Debunks Theory of Electromagnetism

    Like many other discoveries in “Science”, Michael Faraday discovered “Electrity” accidently, while experimenting with thin strands of copper insulated with bees’ wax and “Magnets”[1] to keep evil spirits trapped inside his cauldron.

    Once trapped, they soon found out they had little choice but to do Faraday’s bidding or face being extinguished by means of Holy Water.

    Faraday initially tasked the spirits with putting the judge in a suitably compromising position to escape prosecution at his trial for witchcraft.

    However, it quickly became apparent that the spirits would need to be restrained to more mundane tasks to avoid raising eyebrows in the higher echelons in the Theocracy.

    New “Units of Measurement” had to be devised for this electrical system given that it was somewhat more difficult to explain than previous “Scientific Discoveries”.

    While the official descriptions are intentionally obscure, the Discovery Institute has exposed the real meaning beind them.

    There are:

    Voltage – a measure of how much pain the evil spirits currently in and therefore how much work they’ll do.

    This can be calculated as follows:

    Drops of Holy Water / Number of Spirts * Volume of Cauldron

    Amperes simpy refers to the number of spirits in the Cauldron.

    Occasionaly, there can be security lapses in Faraday’s system and a spirit can escape through person nearest the breach. Like a faith healing, convulsions can occour but unlike a faith healing they try to kill the poor sod. Sometimes they succeed.

    1. Magnet is a poorly disguied anagram for “Get Man”.
    When a witch is of marriagable age she performs the ritual of stroking a phallic shaped piece of iron with an egg shaped piece of iron while chanting.
    When the two stick together the ritual is complete.

  20. Ulysses | 2008-07-31 at 2:44 PM |


  21. thebaldsoprano | 2008-07-31 at 3:35 PM |

    Ulysses, your writing ability is truly exceptional, I dare say you’d give Joyce himself a run for his money!

  22. Ulysses | 2008-07-31 at 4:59 PM |

    I’d rather write like I do than blow a lot of hot air.

  23. thebaldsoprano | 2008-07-31 at 7:41 PM |

    Is satire meant to be something else? Cold air perhaps?

  24. Birds can’t fly. Penguins are birds and they can’t fly. The rest are just experimental errors.

  25. gabrielsvc1977 | 2008-09-27 at 7:29 AM |

    If one takes the bible as the source of scientific learning, then not only gravity but the very movement of the planets (as understood at this time by science is suspect). For example, in the battle at the walls of Jericho, God causes the sun to sit in the sky. If the earth revolved around the sun, then He would have had to make the earth stop, thereby stopping gravity and allowing everyone to float off into space. Science and religion are sadly, completely incompatible with one another.

  26. orien rigney | 2010-05-23 at 4:51 PM |

    Perhaps “gravity” is only the manifestation of “magnetism” in matter being propelled around planatary systems inside galaxies by different vortices? This, while our entire universe is being hurled out into the continuum along vectorial lines of radii?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.