Posted on 06/18/2005 7:04:07 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Few e-mails have ever stopped me as cold as the one I am about to describe. In it, the author, a former university professor who wishes to remain anonymous, claims to know the actual mechanism behind intelligent design. That is the mechanism by which God created the universe, our world and all biological life within it.
This is especially intriguing as Darwin's theory of evolution is now hotly contested by arguments of intelligent design. One weakness of ID is its failure to offer a mechanism to counter evolution's bogus explanation of diversity through macro-mutation. As a result, ID has failed in broad view to distinguish itself as a true scientific theory on the origin of life.
Now, I admit the original e-mail has all the makings of a possible hoax. On the other hand, it could possibly produce one of the most fantastic breakthroughs in scientific theory since Darwin. So which is? I'll let you decide.
For the sake of brevity, what follows is an excerpted and edited summary of the author's theory. Additionally, I have expanded a few key concepts for clarity. A link to the full text in its original format can be found at the close of my commentary.
The mechanism behind intelligent design
This theory comes from a critical analysis of the Big Bang theory, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and quantum physics. The concepts behind this scientific knowledge can be understood by any person with a modern education and should be known to all.
In the Bible, we are told that God created the universe out of nothing by using light. This is confirmed by modern cosmologists. They acknowledge physical existence had a beginning from complete nothingness (no time, no space and no matter). Then from a single focal point of light the physical world came into existence initially in the form of sub-atomic particles, i.e., the Big Bang theory. Of primary importance were the protons, neutrons and electrons, the basic building blocks of all matter that now exists in the physical universe.
After this explosive event, these sub-atomic particles were sometime later transformed into atomic nuclei and the various elements. When asked why the sub-atomic particles joined together into the more complex arrangements of nuclei and elements, science answers that it is due to the "electromagnetic force." This EMF is carried out through an exchange of photons, which are light energy. For example, a photon is emitted by an atom during a transition from one energy state to another.
Both the Big Bang event and subsequent arrangement of sub-atomic particles, therefore, provide our first opportunity to see light as the interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and physical existence. Think about it. From light came matter. Then that matter was organized into various elements by EMF.
This is supported by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity concerning the characteristics of light. Specifically, photons of light can behave dually like a stream of high-speed, submicroscopic particles, but also like a wave phenomenon. A wave is defined as a disturbance that propagates and carries energy. As a wave, light does not show the physical property of mass. This non-material characteristic, once again, reveals light as an interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and the physical universe.
Science can confirm at the sub-atomic, atomic and molecular levels that changes are often due to information passed by an exchange of light energy. Unfortunately, as we reach the next level of complexity, which is the progression from the molecular stage to biological life, the processes exceed our current ability to appropriately dissect. But through logic, extrapolation and preliminary scientific findings, we may fairly hypothesize that the same method of applying EMF/light is used as in the earlier stages of progressive development.
For example, the changes from one life form to another may require only slight alterations and/or additions to the overall structure of the DNA molecule. These small structural changes would not occur by mutation as the theory of evolution suggests, but rather by EMF causing and creating ever-increasing complex relationships between the nucleotides along the DNA strand. The combined effects of these small structural changes to the DNA molecule would be sufficient to create progressively complex physical life. This explains how a human has only double the number of genes as a fruit fly. The amount of DNA didn't need to proportionately increase with human complexity; rather complexity of the relationships among existing nucleotides needed to increase.
This hypothesis on the origin of life provides a scientifically testable alternative to the mechanism of macro-mutation offered by evolution. My reason for sharing this theory is that I find it intriguing, but I do not have the expertise in physics to test it adequately. I do know as a molecular biologist that Darwin's theory is unworkable. So my hope is this presentation will intrigue others who are qualified to determine whether this theory has sufficient merit to develop it further, dismiss it entirely or rework into something more plausible.
In closing, it is of interest to recall that according to the Bible, God created the world and all that is in it through Christ Jesus who identifies himself as the Light of the World. The full text of the e-mail can be read at http://www.ScienceMinistries.org.
Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D., is a scientist, patent attorney and adjunct law professor of bioethics. She is a senior strategist for the Center for Reclaiming America, a conference speaker and founder of Science Ministries Inc.
Yes, but according to the bible we all share a common ancestor in Noah and he's not such a distant ancestor, maybe 200 generations or so. That doesn't allow for the racial diversification that we see around the world. Heck, it doesn't even allow for the history of ancient countries like Egypt or China.
Don't need to go to all that trouble. A proton is a hydrogen ion.
You might also give them a hint as to when antiparticles came into existence.
Chance mutation and natural selection have not been falsifed. What is more, one concern that Darwinians have about ID is that they cannot think of a test for falsification.
As I said, I'm no Darwinist (since I beleive in God). I suppose I do believe in some sort of intelligent design, but I part ways with popular ID when the discussion turns to making the transcendant empirical.
Regards.
Godwin's Law states that you lose.
That's nice, call people Nazi's and then whine that they are going to attack you at any minute.
M theory is an elaboration of the Big Bang theory.
?
M theory is a generalization of string theory.
That would be right at the time that particles came into existence. What's wrong with the graphic?
I don't like the fact that they use "n" for neutrino and "t" for tau. The standard notation is that "n" stands for neutron and "t" for top quark.
Do you know why the size of the universe by the inflation model is commonly ignored in popularizations? Is it that the size of the universe out to the visible limit is already incomprehensible and considering the whole universe beyond that would short-circuit most minds?
But string theory doesn't enter into that. Essentially all of the structure spectrum of the CMBR is determined by the fact that energy transport was primarily acoustic.
The Big Bang theory can work with or without string theory.
Do you know why the size of the universe by the inflation model is commonly ignored in popularizations?
For one thing, we only just recently determined that the universe is very, very much larger than the observable Hubble volume. For another, if a writer restricts his comments to our Hubble volume, it is at least possible to talk accurately and provably. And after all, our Hubble volume is quite large enough to blow almost any mind that tries seriously to grasp it.
It's too bad we can't do more experiments more quickly to uncover more of the system behavior of the Big Bang black box. At least it is being done scientifically [with hypothetical components], which would require fewer experiments and would happen sooner, rather than by art, but our set of system components seems to be changing every day. Quantum fluctuation, moderated by neutrinos, inflated to an incomprehensible size, or maybe brane collision, or maybe acoustics in an unknown medium, we need more lab data. Crystallization is as complex.
And what was "there" before that event?
I don't get what you're saying here because ionization has little or nothing to do with moving protons or neutrons around. It has everything to do with removing electrons, which you acknowledge can occur.
The statement that the net effect is zero and that a freed electron is immediately captured by an adjacent atom (which must also be an ion) is an oversimplification and not necessarily true.
Depending on conditions, electrons and ions can remain separated for considerably long periods of time in plasmas. However, the phrase 'long period' is a relative term and depends on the speed of other reactions or interactions of interest. Miliseconds are almost an eternity in plasma physics.
That depends on what the physics was like above the grand unification scale. We don't know, yet, but we will.
We haven't even got to the grand unification level yet, so I don't have trouble believing that. Nonetheless, at the point at which we start with what we know, what do the variables describe as existing?
Above the electroweak breaking scale, we have quarks, leptons, gravitons, gluons, and electroweak bosons.
Has it occured to anyone that cosmogony is basically metaphysics? Oddly inconsist with the radi cal empiricism of most scientists? When I consider how much the Hubble sees and then what it CANNOT see, I am reminded of Pascal's awe at the immensity of things.
Nope. You are the first to suggest that and should write the book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.