The writing--I assume the reporter is a fault--obscures the message. Light does not absorb photons. Interstellar gas and dust absorb photons. Something like that seems intended.
They also applied another dogma of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which Davies summarizes as "you can't get something for nothing."
That would be the first law. The second law is that entropy always increases in a closed system. ("You can't break even.")
What really bugs me is that the fans of Australian creationist Barry Setterfield (Mr. CDK) will be all over this thread claiming vindication. I see two possibilities. 1) This theory does not vindicate CDK. 2) This theory is a crock.
The second law is that = ("You can't break even.")
They are actually the laws of life, and
there are three of them, all told.
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.
Well, it certainly doesn't vindicate CDK, as we're talking about a change of one part in 100,000 over 12 billion years. As for it being a crock, this result isn't a theory but a measurement, and while it may be in error, I have no reason to doubt it (although I still don't see how a change in the electron charge can be ruled out any more than a change in the speed of light).
There is one possible mechanism by which the speed of light may have changed. If there are large (order 1 mm) extra dimensions, some models predict that the compactification scale (the radius of curvature for the extra dimensions) will "relax" slightly over time after the universe forms. A tiny change in the speed of light may be a signature of that relaxation. If this is the case, relativity is unmolested. What we are seeing is the principle of relativity applied to a universe whose geometric structure is changing slightly over time.