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.
Char
Totally umauthorized message from all of Christendom: we coulda tolja that!!!!!!!!!!!
There is something that rings inevitably bogus about an "anonymous source" with a "revolutionary mechanism".
I won't waste my time.
There is something that rings inevitably bogus about an "anonymous source" with a "revolutionary mechanism".
I won't waste my time.
Oh beautiful. Another thread for the Evo-Nazis to bash other peoples beliefs.
I thought the Big Bang had been discarded as unworkable in favor of M Theory. Membranes in 11 dimensional space and all.
My anonymous source tells a different story.
When light first came to the earth, O-ma-ma-ma the earth mother of the Cree people gave birth to the spirits of the world. The first born was Binay-sih, the thunderbird who protects the animals from the sea serpent, Genay-big. Thunderbirds shout out their unhappiness or anger with black clouds, rain and fire flashes in the sky. The second born was Ina-kaki, the lowly frog who heightens the sorcerer's powers and helps to control the insects in the world. The third born was the trickster Wee-sa-hay-jac, who can change himself into many forms or shapes to protect himself. The fourth child was Ma-heegun, Wee-sa-hay-jac's little wolf brother. They travel together with Wee-sa-hay-jac on his back. The fifth born was Amik the beaver, who is greatly respected because he is an unfortunate human from a different world. Fish, rocks, grasses, and trees all came from the womb of the great earth mother O-ma-ma-ma. The earth was inhabited a long time by only animals and spirits because Wee-sa-hay-jac had not yet made any people.
Creationist scientist says: Who inthe wrote this sh=?
Soooo glad to see another of your creation stories. I know it is difficult to check historical data, but the Bible is historically correct in everything that we have been able to verify. Not one inconsistency to date. While this may not prove the story of Genesis scientifically, it certainly lends credence to the possibility that it may be devinely inspired writing.
Kelly repeated shows she does not know her Bible very well.
(Gen 1:1 KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Gen 1:2 KJV) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
water came before anything, or at least, was the only visible form of any matter.
For her to state that God used light to form matter, she is ignorant of the very first 2 verses of the Bible and their implications to Creation.
Or maybe another thread for the Creation/IDers to bash science?
With name calling like "Evo-Nazis" you are off to a good start there. Or are you just assuming your side is right and everyone else is stoopid?
This is the funniest thing Ive ever said gnite to in my life. wa hoo. ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
Thought I'd leave it?
When it's mine?
When it's funny?
Tune in,ah!!!
"Genesis and the Big Bang" and "The Science of God" are two good books on the subject by Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder" former MIT prof. and now teaching (last I heard) in Jerusalem.
How do you know that a turtle didn't bring up mud after the flood, or Coyote and Eagle didn't create people? You are choosing your beliefs about creation over the beliefs of others, when you have the same scientific basis for them as they do (i.e., none).
I assume nothing, I know from lurking on many Evo threads that you and your fellow believers will gang up on anyone who disagrees with you. Any moment the Evo ping will go out and I will be flamed mercilessly until the thread runs out of steam. Evolution is a flawed theory that is constantly being reworked. IF the day comes that evolution is a proven fact, instead of a belief, let me know.
I think the evo-nazis will pass on this one.
I'm no Darwinist, but EMF is non-ionizing because it lacks sufficient energy to move protons and neutrons around. It affects electrons only, and that effect is temporary with the net effect ultimately zero (an electron moved away from one atom is replaced immediately by one freed from an adjacent atom). That is electron drift, the basis of electric current. If nonionizing EMF could mutate DNA so readily, radio and TV engineers would be terribly mutated creatures begging to be killed to end their suffering, and the rest of us sitting in from of the high-voltage cathode-ray tubes of computer monitors would likely be not much better off.
Better study the methods of science. There are no "proven" theories or "proven facts," not even gravity or electricity. Scientists know evolution is a theory, but unfortunately some with strong religious beliefs make a big deal of this as they think that by labeling evolution a theory they can discredit it. "Its just a theory, nothing to take seriously."
This just demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the workings of science.
That's fine, now would you explain to me where all the water came from? It can't be easy to create water, yet the world is overflowing with it. Where did it come from?
Evolutionist continually refer to what they do as "science". The problem is that without the scientific method, it is not and cannot be science. In case you are unsure about the scientific method, it amounts to these steps:Observation. Question. Hypothesis. Prediction. Experiment. Analysis. The theory of evolution makes a big mistake in that the hypotheses comes first and all facts must fit the theory. Any fact that doesn't fit is discarded.
See post 21 for an explanation of "a lack of knowledge of the workings of science".
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.
AFAIK, wave/particle duality is part of QM, not SR. Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect is related to it, also, but not Relativity. What more proof does one need that this "mystery e-mail" by an "anonymous professor" is either a hoax, or the machinations of an ill-educated nutcase?
Your right - the best mathematical explanation for the Big Bang is M theory - with 11 dimensions - that our universe was created with the collision of two membranes in the 11th dimension.
The author would have done better to find an anomalous source.
What?
None of the versions of the Bible I've read come even close to saying this.
However, the Creationists will in general jump to defend this article. No wonder scientific work is being outsourced.
Hmm, I wonder how many posts you read on this thread. I have yet to see one creationist defend this article. For reference you might try reading posts 9, 11, and 26.
ID does not equal genesis. I dont know why fundamentalists are hitching their cart to this horse.. I suppose its the best they can do with real science..
Uh huh. So sometime about 4,000 years ago the entire earth was covered by a great flood? So where are the mass extinctions, sediment layers, etc... to show any evidence of this? How come we have any genetic diversity at all if we are all the relatively recent decendents of Noah? That's more than a little inconsistent. Even Coyoteman's story is more plausible.
Notice it says "waters" not "water". The latest theory is that all those subatomic particles, before being transformed into nuclei... exhibited the physical properties of liquids... therefore they could be the waters that Gen. refers to. First came the subatomic particles in the form of waters, next came light... Just as described!
Hmm, I don't know. It seems that scientists have proven that the human genome has less than 1% of diference from race to race. Seems plausible to me. I would think that the evolutionist theory of genetic mutation would easily account for such a small amout of diversity. That is, considering you think we all evolved from ectoplasmic goo over the course of a few million years.
I'm really curious what you are intending to say. Please support your explanation with some relevant examples from the history of biology.
I think you ought to know that evolution was accepted as a fact by biologists and theologians long before Darwin. Natural Selection was hypothesized to explain evolution, not prove it.
Bats are birds? (Leviticus 11:19)
yes, I read some work on that, that it was water that was the basic building block of life, that God used water to make the ground, to eventually make Man
Water is used in many analogies, the most prominant being LIVING WATER, I guess
THE HORSE 'SERIES' When challenged to produce a series of fossils demonstrating the transition of one species into another, the 4-3-1 toe evolution of the horse is frequently presented as evidence. However, (A) Over twenty different geneological 'trees' have been drawn up by various scientists. This is because there are 250 similar looking animals to chose from. Those which contradict the series are ignored. (B) All the known species of birds and mammals appear and 'diversify' within the last 150 Million years according to the evolutionists geological time scale. At this rate, the 70 million years it has taken simply to modify a horse's hoof is far too large a proportion of the time since mammals first appeared. There is therefore something seriously wrong with the time scale. (C) Some animals used in the sequence have differing numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae, indicating that various species have been used to compile the series, but this is ignored as this contradicts the theory. Most of these fossil animals have been found in America. Yet the first fossils of modern horses they are supposed to lead up to are found in Europe. (Present American horses are a recent introduction). Two evolutionists - Prof. George Gaylord Simpson said "It never happened in nature" and Charles Deperet called it "a deceitful illusion"
Start with that...I'll find you some more.
Having no desire to reenter the evolution debate at the moment, this article being the matter at hand, it is safe to say it is claptrap and obviously does not provide the "mechanism" it claims. Further, I am unaware of the need for believers in God's creation to identify any such "scientific mechanism". As opposed to faith.
the horned owl, the screech owl, and the gull, any kind of hawk, WEB
and the ostrich, and the night-hawk, and the seamew, and the hawk after its kind, ASV
And the ostrich and the night-hawk and the sea-hawk, and birds of that sort; BBE
and the female ostrich and the male ostrich, and the sea-gull, and the hawk, after its kind; DBY
And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind, KJV
And the owl, and the night-hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, WBS
and the ostrich, and the night-hawk, and the sea-mew, and the hawk after its kinds; JPS
and the owl, and the night-hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after its kind, YLT
Which version of the Bible were you reading?
Well, evolution hasn't either; because evolution is a true scientific theory of the origin of SPECIES, not of the origin of life.
Don't forget why Joshua is stopping the sun instead of the earth to lengthen the day (Was used against Galileo by the Church, btw.)
Please link me to where I suggested in any way that you were going to hell. I simply addressed the fact that athiests and evolutionists must by default realize there is no hereafter for them. Evolution may get you to where we are, but it doesn't lend itself to the etherial hereafter.
I like the hand waving theory the best. With a magic wand mind you.
I actually interviewed a former university professor who gave me the inside story on who wrote Shakespeare's plays. He also wishes to remain anonymous. He swore me to secrecy, too. (Claimed, that if the Truth were know, it would lead to the end of Western Civilizaton and the Entlish Language. He also showed me the handshake.)
There is something that rings inevitably bogus about an "anonymous source" with a "revolutionary mechanism".
The Thunderbird is my Totem..
The divesity of human races is on the close order of 0.1%. I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express or whatever--that's from an article posted here earlier today.
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.