Mechanism behind intelligent design uncovered?

[Hardenbergh]

I just came across an article about the mechanism behind intelligent design:

Mechanism behind intelligent design uncovered?

Posted: June 18, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

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.

For complete article, follow the link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44847

 

[Dredred]

Isn't ID also supposed to be an alternative for evolution? This quote doesn't support ID, it just connects one word from the bible with one word from physics. And to my understanding, EMF is definately not the same as light.

 

[pgwenthold]

Isn't ID also supposed to be an alternative for evolution? This quote doesn't support ID, it just connects one word from the bible with one word from physics. And to my understanding, EMF is definately not the same as light.

Besides, the bible doesn't say matter "came from light."

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. At some point, he said, "Let there be light."

They were independent events, as were all of the creation events, up to the point where he created man from the soil and breathed life into him.

 

[Darat]

Besides, the bible doesn't say matter "came from light."

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. At some point, he said, "Let there be light."

They were independent events, as were all of the creation events, up to the point where he created man from the soil and breathed life into him.

To expand on this point.

Genesis does not make a claim that it starts at the beginning of time or everything.

In fact since the only thing that is "creatio ex nihilo" in Genesis is the creation of light ("let there be light"), something obviously existed before the creation of "everything" and not just God.

So we need go no further then “In the Bible, we are told that God created the universe out of nothing by using light. This is confirmed by modern cosmologists.” To understand that the argument being put forward cannot be correct.

 

[AWPrime]

Shakes head....my little remaining respect for religion is made smaller ones more.

 

[Dredred]

Ok, i followed the link, and they DO come up with an alternative for evolution:

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.

So they replace mutation with EMF. Isn't EMF the force holding an atom together? Then how could it change a DNA-molecule in an intelligent way? That seems rediculous.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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."

<marquee></marquee>

Science actually tells us that the nucleus is held together by the strong nuclear force, not by electromagnetism (which could not possibly hold together a collection of particles which are positively charged (protons) and neutral (neutrons) which is what the nucleus is) and that heavy elements were produced, again, by nuclear reactions, not by electromagnetism.

This leads one to wonder what this retired professor was a professor of. It can't be physics... or chemistry... or biology.

Still, this is exactly the level of scientific knowledge I would expect from someone who descibes the theory of evolution as "bogus".

 

[AWPrime]

I checked out the 'institute' of which she is part of.......

No way that it is an institute of science!

 

[Beleth]

[Modern cosmologists] acknowledge physical existence had a beginning from complete nothingness (no time, no space and no matter).

Strictly speaking, I do not believe this is true. Modern cosmologists say nothing about what happened, or existed, before a certain time - the Planck time after the moment the Big Bang is believed to have happened.

Adding this to the other objections others have brought up here makes me think that the author hasn't really done his homework.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've emailed her.

Re your article on ID.

( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44847 )

I notice that the anonymous text you quote is full of crude scientific errors that would disgrace a schoolboy.

For example: "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." "

Science actually tells us that the nucleus is held together by the strong nuclear force, not by electromagnetism (which could not possibly hold together a collection of particles which are positively charged (protons) and neutral (neutrons) which is what the nucleus is) and that heavy elements were produced, again, by nuclear reactions, not by electromagnetism.

Your anonymous source has also confused special relativity with the quantum theory.

And as for this bit: "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..." That's just weird. A "slight alteration and/or addition to the overall structure of the DNA molecule" would BE a mutation.

This might, then, be a hoax, or it might, alternatively, be the genuine opinions of a "creation scientist". This is about their usual standard of scientific literacy.

You yourself, I notice, write: "This hypothesis on the origin of life provides a scientifically testable alternative to the mechanism of macro-mutation offered by evolution." Presumably you intended to be honest, but you are mistaken or grossly misled on two points: (1) macro-mutation plays no part in the theory of evolution (2) the theory of evolution is not about the origin of life, but about the origin of species, which is a completely different question.

You write, with some confidence "I do know as a molecular biologist that Darwin's theory is unworkable." Molecular biologist you may be, but you don't know what Darwin's theory is, so you're in no position to judge it "unworkable".

Perhaps this will resolve one puzzle for you --- you may have wondered why all the other molecular biologists haven't noticed that Darwin's theory is "unworkable" (I can think of only one who shares your views). It's because they know what Darwin actually said.

There is a moral to this. If you are ignorant of some subject in science, such as special relativity, or nuclear physics, or evolution, then it is wrong to lecture the public on these subjects as though you knew something about them. "Thou shalt not bear false witness". In particular, I'd advise you to leave the theory of evolution alone until you can give an accurate account of what it says.

Dr A.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

(1) macro-mutation plays no part in the theory of evolution

In my experience, when a creationist or an IDiot (mis)uses the term macro-mutation, they mean speciation. That is probably what the writer intended.

Be that as it may, fine writing as always Dr. A.

 

[Dr Adequate]

In my experience, when a creationist or an IDiot (mis)uses the term macro-mutation, they mean speciation. That is probably what the writer intended.

Their codename for speciation is "macro-evolution". They can call it what they like, but if she goes on to infer that the underlying mechanism must be "macro-mutation", she's been suckered by her own nonsense.

Be that as it may, fine writing as always Dr. A.

Thanks.

 

[Darat]

Personally I wouldn't allow her the grace of even arguing about her science misunderstandings, the argument put forward fails before it even mentions science since it fundamentally misstates the text of Genesis.

 

[Yahweh]

From the article:

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.

That statement is kinda a sucker punch in the ID groin, whose advocates have strongly denied that ID is a religious theory (much less a Christian religious theory).

Edit to add: Oh, and isnt it the Tao Te Ching that says the universe came from "energy"?

 

[jjramsey]

And to my understanding, EMF is definately not the same as light. . . .

Isn't EMF the force holding an atom together?

Well, it's the force holding the electrons to the nucleus. The force holding the nucleus together is called the strong force.

And identifying EMF with light is not entirely wrong. At least in terms of classical physics, at least, light is an oscillating electric field at a right angle to an oscillating magnetic field.

I find this an odd statement:

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.

How is this any more than a fancy way of saying that a bit of electromagnetic radiation zaps some DNA and causes a mutation?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

How is this any more than a fancy way of saying that a bit of electromagnetic radiation zaps some DNA and causes a mutation?

Because we all know mutations normally occur from either industrial accidents or spider bites.

 

[aargh57]

"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. "

I'm just a regular Joe and not nearly as well versed as guys like Dr. A but aren't they conceding the Big Bang theory. I didn't think that IDers accepted this. It seems to me that perhaps they know that they are licked on some things and perhaps this is a good sign. If they accept Big Bang wouldn't that hurt their 7 day creation theory.

 

[jjramsey]

I didn't think that IDers accepted this.
--snip--
If they accept Big Bang wouldn't that hurt their 7 day creation theory.

Um, IDers don't do the "7-day creation" thing, not in public, anyway, and many don't do it in private, either. One of the big points of ID is to avoid mentioning the obvious howlers that keep creationism banned from the classroom.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I agree with jjramsey. ID has eliminated some obvious howlers in favor of a new crop of subtle howlers.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

If they accept Big Bang wouldn't that hurt their 7 day creation theory.

The number 7 is just a number of universality by the way.



Oh, and did you know that the 4th commandment speaks of the Sabbath or, 7th day? ... "And God said, Let there be light," huh?