[Goober5000]

...is LIGHT.

A major weakness of Intelligent Design, compared to Darwinian evolution, is that it does not propose a method by which the "designer" designed the universe or parts of the universe.  Well, this article proposes a very simple and intuitive explanation: via light, or electromagnetic energy.

(Be forewarned... the article uses a lot of combative language, particularly repeating the phrase "athiestic evolutionists" several times.  A commentary on the article, with edits and elaborations, can be found here.)

Here are some quotes:

...Intense Light energy resulted in the creation of matter in the form of sub-atomic particles; of primary importance to us were the protons, neutrons, and electrons, the basic building blocks of all that now exists in the physical universe. Additionally, as a side effect of the creation of material particles was the simultaneous appearance of space and time.

...According to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is about the 'special' characteristics of Light, photons of Light energy do not show any of the three necessary characteristics to be part of the physical universe. They do not have mass, they do not occupy volume of space, and they are not involved in the flow of time; therefore, Light maintains non-material characteristics, once again indicating its nature as an interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and the physical universe.

These changes from one stage to another, from the simple to the more complex, require only slight alterations in the overall structure of the DNA molecule. These small structural changes in the DNA molecule are determined by information transmitted by photons (Light energy) to the atomic structures making up the DNA molecule, instructing them to move into slightly different arrangements in one or more small areas of the long and complex structure of the overall DNA molecule.

No flaming please, on pain of monkeyage.

[MatthewPapa]

Finally someone says something innovative from the other side of the argument.

With myself being a religious person I have to say:
Go god

Basically a synopsis of the article:

In the Bible we are told that God created the universe out of nothingness through Light, and I believe other religions hold somewhat similar views. This is confirmed by modern cosmologists who now must acknowledge that physical existence had a beginning from complete nothingness (no time, no space, and no matter) and at a singularity Light, a fair non-technical name for the full spectrum of photons of electromagnetic radiation, came into existence. This intense Light energy resulted in the creation of matter in the form of sub-atomic particles; of primary importance to us were the protons, neutrons, and electrons, the basic building blocks of all that now exists in the physical universe. Additionally, as a side effect of the creation of material particles was the simultaneous appearance of space and time.

[phatosealpha]

Doesn't seem like much of a mechanism to me.  It's missing the basic control - how is god controlling this light?

[Nuke]

reality doesn not exist

[Ford Prefect]

It's easy to insert the "spiritual world" into any missing parts of a system we don't yet fully understand.

[achtung]

Since I beleive in God but I'm a realist as well I choose to beleive that evolution did happen but that god played a part in it sort of like a director.  By making small changes here and there in an animals design that way God could direct the world the way he or she wanted without getting directly involved.  

Youv'e done something right when noone can tell youv'e done anything at all.

[Black Wolf]

Nothing special.

It doesn't add anything new to the argument, simply dresses up science with God tacked on in a few places and mixes it up with a bit of quasi mysticism by talking about Light's ability to "bridge the physical and spiritual worlds". The essence of science is pretty much Occams Razor, and in this case, it can be applied neatly. We don't need God to be he controlling mechanism behind these things, thus we can eliminate him from the picture when trying to understand stuff like this. Therefore, this isn't any kind of proof of existence, nor is it reaqlly anything new for the intelligent design camp.

Plus there are problems with the science.

When God decides the time is right to create biological life He commands that His Will be done and sends messengers of Light from the spiritual existence to the physical universe instructing the necessary molecular forms He had already created to join together in the new, more complex relationship of simple biological life. These simple biological life forms are then made up of the even simpler material forms, the atoms and molecules, from the surrounding environment which are instructed by photons of light energy from a DNA type molecule to form themselves into the new, more complex relationship of biological life.

Beginning with the first simple forms of biological life which God had already created He now only has to send messages by Light from the non-physical (spiritual) existence to the physical world commanding that His Will be carried out and that all the necessary more complex forms of plant and animal life must come to be.

That doesn't make any sense. Light very rarely triggers chemical reactions - there's not enough loose energy to do the kinds of things needed to form complex molecules. Where it does trigger chemical changes, it's typically destructive (UV energy breaking down organic molecules for example).

These changes from one stage to another, from the simple to the more complex, require only slight alterations in the overall structure of the DNA molecule. These small structural changes in the DNA molecule are determined by information transmitted by photons (Light energy) to the atomic structures making up the DNA molecule, instructing them to move into slightly different arrangements in one or more small areas of the long and complex structure of the overall DNA molecule.

That's just straight up not correct. While it's true that high energy EM waves can ionize cellular particles and in turn alter DNA to cause cancers, or, conceivably, alter the DNA of gametes leading to transferrable mutations, it's not the primary cause of evolution - copying errors are.

There's a lot of other stuff dodgy about the article too. For one, it's anonymous. If he was serious about trying to get this scientifically accepted, he would be acknowledged so he can be questioned - anonymity means he never has to defend the holes in his arguments. Moreover, when was the last time you read a paper in Science or Nature where, in the first paragraph, he author was tring to score emotional points by telling his readers that he's dying of cancer?

Finally, it's got almost nothing to do with evolution. It's cosmology, trying to masquerade as biological science, something which occurs a lot in Science vs. creationism debate, probably because the creationists have a unified belief which covers the creation of everything, wheras the evolutionists typically limit themselves to evolution and leave the creation of the earth to the geologists/astrophysicists, and the creation of the universe to the cosmologists.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Swantz
Since I beleive in God but I'm a realist as well I choose to beleive that evolution did happen but that god played a part in it sort of like a director.  By making small changes here and there in an animals design that way God could direct the world the way he or she wanted without getting directly involved.

Not a critic or nothing, just a genuine question: then, why do you need a god in the picture?

[karajorma]

To answer "Why are we here" rather than "How are we here" would be my guess. That's the reason why most people who are religious but yet still accept evolution still continue to believe in God.

Personally I think that the question is nonsensical since it makes a basic assumption that there must be a reason when there is no reason to believe there must be one.

[Nuke]

Originally posted by karajorma
To answer "Why are we here" rather than "How are we here" would be my guess. That's the reason why most people who are religious but yet still accept evolution still continue to believe in God.

Personally I think that the question is nonsensical since it makes a basic assumption that there must be a reason when there is no reason to believe there must be one.

sometimes people ask stupid questions

i dont know his actual words, but confucious once said something about not attempting to understand the spiritual world. that it was unwise to try and understand something that we cannot learn anything about. it is best to live a virtuous life now, and face the afterdeath when that time comes.

[Bobboau]

ok, you want to play in the world of science, before you do anything you have to prove God exsists scientificly. good luck with that.
even if you were to prove that light could have some effect on the structure of matter you still haven't proved the 'Intelligent' or 'Design' of your 'theory', and the fact that this is always side steped is why no one takes ID as science. how does God controle light? you can't answer that because you don't have God in a scientific realm, he's out in magic land. oh, and congradulations on finding Quantum physics, I've been saying for years it's were you should be focusing your energy, it's got parts of it that are nearly as BS as ID.
there is no "spiritual world" in science.

[NGTM-1R]

*watches Nuke's point fly over Bob's head and shatter on the wall*

In simpler terms: You are attempting to understand that which cannot be understood. Stop.

[Mefustae]

Let's face it, there are always going to be people who go with Religeon, and those who go without, as a consequence, we're always going to have insecure morons who believe simply - "My way is good, theirs is bad...i think i might go tell them so."

...truly, the only happiness, whether Spiritual or...Scienmatifical (seriously, us Athiests really need a cool word like 'Spiritual' to describe ourselves), can only be found in Acceptance of others...

...you see, we have to accept other people for who and what they are, for example, here's a statement that may anger you; I'm the Lord Jesus Christ, i think i'm gonna get drunk and beat up some Midgets. Now, you should accept the fact that i'm a politically incorrect, alcoholic moron, then, we can ALL be happy ...

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Mefustae
(seriously, us Athiests really need a cool word like 'Spiritual' to describe ourselves)

"reality"

[Zarax]

Rationalists. The Greek already said it all.

[Bobboau]

you know there's a group of folks, that agree with the intelegent design 'theory', that there is a super powerful force of creation, that made all there is in the world. there called the raelians, and the only diference (and from the way creationist describe ID a minor one) is that it was space aliens that created the world, not God. this is the exact same theory as Intelligent Design because ID is very carefull not to say God anyware (because they want it taught in schools, and they got bitch slaped last time they tried teaching God based creationism in schools) so if you want to prove ID you'r going to have to stand with these people and say, for the most part they've got the right idea, you just disagree with one minor detail.

[Ghostavo]

Sorry Goober, but I can't respect a "supposedly scientific" article (even if you did warn about it) when it starts with the sentence:

I am sending you this information in hopes that you can find some way to use it in the battle against the atheistic, Darwinian concept of evolution which has destroyed so much of the original spiritual nature of human society, and help to bring the attention of the people of the world back to the increasingly obvious fact that God created this universe and everything in it.

[Bobboau]

yeah, science is about finding the truth, not winning a political/socal battle.

[aldo_14]

The logic behind it seems to me, to be 'God controls light', and that's about it.  

I don't see how that can be considered testable in any way; especially as God by nature represents an intangible concept (which is an innate part of faith).  

Even if all this supposed mechanisms of control by light were proven - and AFAIK there's no evidence presented - it doesn't entail a guiding hand in the design.

NB: WorldNetDaily; biased.  Think it's worth noting that it has an inherent interest in supporting any theory purporting creationist arguements, given its association with various Christian (i.e. pro-creationist, i.e. inclined to bias) magazines and websites.

[karajorma]

Looks like yet another sensitive misinterpreting their Starborn in the Sun dream again.  

Oh well at least this one didn't open a knossos to shivan space.