News Flash!!!
Religious Right questions Ohm's Law.
Says it's "just a theory with no proof."
WASHINGTON, DC - Religious Right leaders James Dobson and Pat Robertson issued a joint statement today questioning the validity of Ohm's Law. In 1827 a German scientist named Georg Simon Ohm observed a mathematical relationship between voltage and current in an electric circuit and published his findings. It became known as Ohm's Law and is the basis of all electric and electronic circuit design.
There is no mathematical proof for Ohm's Law. Like most scientific theories, it is based on a set of careful observations and measurements, verified by independent colleagues and peers in the scientific community. This process is known as the Scientific Method and is the basis for most scientific knowledge accumulated throughout history.
Dobson and Robertson's statement deplores the "lack of any definitive proof" for Ohm's Law, and states that electrons are really "complete living beings created by God, " and that they should be "free to pursue their own individual spiritual destiny." They cite the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as evidence that science does not really understand the nature of electrons. "They can't even say for sure where an electron is or how fast it's going," Dobson said. "How can they claim that their unproven theory is correct?" The joint statement went on to say that this is just one more example of "secular liberalism's attempts to eliminate God from nature."
The statement demands that high school physics classes immediately modify their curriculum to include discussion of God in electrical circuits. President Bush issued a statement supporting the teaching of "both sides of the controversy."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
now why you wanna go putting ideas like that into their heads?
Well, if a fertilized egg has a soul, why not an electron?
Good one, Russ. I am losing my capacitance for patience.
They are inducting great anger in me. But I will continue my impedance of their goals.
......
Best,
Peter
if it's the first two, please elaborate. if it's the third...carry on.
I never understood why god and knowledge are on opposite sides of the roads for the "deeply religious "president and his furry friends..why are brains and science on opposite sides? I have had a great professors teaching psychology, physics ,biology and they were religious ... Bert, i propose to end the separation between brains and god in in the u.s.
If these people don't understand science can't they just admit to being stupid and not try to convince everybody that god is against evolution..
George, you may make out of it whatever you wish.
Feel free to distribute it...but I don't know if you will be giving me credit or blame...
And while all of us scientifically enlightened folks may get a snicker out of this (sad) scenario, I strongly encourage your research into the Christian Reconstruction movement http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm to gain an understanding that this highly organized and politically powerful movement has a clearcut agenda which they ARE getting implemented as LAW a step at a time...
And respectfully, folks, if'n we don't stop laughing about them and start DOING something to turn this tide... well, I hope y'all are ready to live in the world they envision as 'holy and pure'.....
Believe me, I share your concern. I just happen to think that a little humor...carefully pointed humor...that exposes their Luddite beliefs for what they are...an attempt to return us to the Middle Ages...might be the best medicine.
I could be wrong, but sometimes humor can do wonders.
At least, it's fun!
Hasn't anyone heard about OMNISCIENCE?
Since God can be everywhere at the same time, what is to keep God from being in each of those itsy bitsy electrons and neutons?
Its all part of Omin-Science.
There is that of God in you, whether you like it or not.
Because each of us has chemically created electricity that enervates our involuntary functions.
You can't see them and you can't feel them, but they're there. And you better hope they keep activating your lungs and your heart.
On the subject of God in everything, you might find this interesting.
Carol,
That book has been recommended to me by others. I have to get it. Thanks for the reminder.
Thanks for the tips. I hope you, as well as others who read my last post, catch my improper usage of the terms "omniscience" and "enervate". I should have used the terms "omnipresent" and "energize".
Chalk-up both mistakes to staying up too late and posting when my brain should become quiescent.
Makes me wonder whether those little molecules in my brain regenerate or whether I get brand new molecules to use the next time I regain consciousness of "being".
Also makes me wonder why everyone has a brain but not everyone (e.g. the demented) has a "mind". And many are somewhere in between; especially when faith, bias ior tradition s given authority to supplant reason.
by your failure to elaborate, i will assume it's the third.
Oh...my...God.
All I gotta say is that I'm sure God made electrons. He even made the molecules in the equipment that lets us measure them. Because we can measure them consistently we can contol and direct them predictably. That's a scientific proof, a theory is exactly the opposite.
Does anyone see the irony here? Isn't that what the Right is trying to do? Trying to harness the power of God, control and direct it predictably?
"Have you made all possible measurements? Maybe the next one will refute all your previous ones. Give us proof!"
Of course that illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the Scientific Method, and in the case of the attack on Evolution, for example, the 'theory" that is to be substituted or at least taught on equal footing, has no scientific basis whatsoever! But the main arguments against teaching Evolution are aimed at the fact that it is not "proven." No mention is ever made of the fact that Creation (or Intelligent Design...same thing) has no scientific basis whatsoever. It is the ultimate example of hypocrisy, and even our President is party to it.
There have been many instances when I could have used a third hand to good advantage. Certainly God should have known that having 3 hands would be advantageous to homosapiens.
Those who could carry a combination of 3 offensive and defensive weapons versus those who could only carry 2 weapons would presumably survive in combat, and at least provide the type of proof I need to believe in evolution based on the survival of the fittest.
Why do you think we don't have at least 3 hands? Is it because we can't write with two hands at the same time, (our brain power is insufficient)? Why don't we have four legs (like a horse) plus 3 hands? If we did, we could both fight and flee better.
Is it up to us to create new "beings" that have capabilities exceeding ours? Are we in effect at the limits of our innate human capabilities and thus inadvertantly cast into the role of creators?
And are our "creations" the result of development, which is premeditated, or the result of evolution, which isn't (just happens by accident)? Or are our creations the result of a little of both?
Since Jesus, whom trinitarians refer to as God, could write (in the sand), why didn't he write about such things (and alot more) instead of leaving it to St. Paul, the Prophet Mohammed, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jim Dobson, the Popes and rabbis (oh yes, I forgot James Baker and Jimmy Swaggart), and to you and me to explain such mysteries?
This is gettin' to be some real fun! Don't stop now!