UnNews:Dinesh D'souza on the real problem with Newtonism
Typically evangelical Christians seek to counter this Atheism by trying to expose the flaws in the Newtonian account of gravity with good, logical, Bible-centric arguments like argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad antiquitatem. This explains the appeal of "creation gravitation" and the "Intelligent Falling" (IF) movement. These critiques, however, have not made any headway in the scientific community, the majority of whom hate God, and they have also failed whenever they have been tried in the courts, themselves filled to the bursting point with Liberal activist judges. It is only because He is merciful that God has not released His divine grip on them and watched them float away. Fortunately there is a better way to argue against the Newtonism being preached by Newtonists--by loudly screaming "WE'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG" until blood gushes from the their unholy Atheist ears. Yet they insist on using their ungodly logic--but we can use this against them!
Consider this: the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting Atheism in any way. How do I know this? Well, the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect the "free exercise" of religion and at the same time forbids the "establishment" of religion. Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an Atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated (if you are fired from your job at a private company for being an Atheist, thankfully, you're pretty much up shit creek. Find Jesus, already!). In other words, the term "religion" means not only "religion" but also "Atheism."
Yet, if the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes Atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from "establishing" not only religion but also Atheism. This means that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science teachers cannot advocate Atheism, even if they are forced to avoid teaching anything at all to pull it off.
I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting Atheism in the physics classroom. No need to produce creationist or IF critiques of Newtonism. All that is necessary is to parade the Atheistic claims that have made their way into Newtonology textbooks and Godless physics lectures. The issue isn't the scientific inadequacy of Newton's "theory" of gravitation but the way in which it is being used to undermine religious belief and promote unbelief. If the case can be made that Atheism is being advocated in any way, then the textbooks would have to be rewritten and classroom presentations changed to remove the offending material. Schools would be on notice that they can neither use scientific facts to draw metaphysical conclusions that are favorable to Atheism, nor that they can get away with teaching science in science class.
In this way, Newtonism in the public school system would no longer be a threat to religion in general or Christianity in particular. Instead, supplanted by the Truth™, public schools would actively promote the Truth™ rather than unproven facts, and the theories, like Newtonism, that attempt to form testable models based on them.