"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:d90rbj$hu1$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, "Alexander" <alexander.hudson@virgin.net> wrote:

Arf ... well the bet I had on with myself was mostly right. Didn't
expect a "former university professor who wishes to remain
anonymous" forwarding a 'theory' via email to be the clincher in the
argument that evolutionary models are 'bogus' though.

Why would a scientist who had a respectable theory wish to remain
anonymous?

Does beggar belief just a tad doesn't it?

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Grogs wrote:

"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in
news:1119095498.621328.90190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Howdy folks,

Just thought I'd like to make a few comments here...

Jason Spaceman wrote:

"Dr." Kelly Hollowell gives us a, uhhhh, mechanism for ID. No
really, it's in there somewhere. . .

From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Posted: June 18, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

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.

Now either the universe is a product of a mechanism or it's a
product of design; the difference is fundamental, because design
implies intent.

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.

Evolution doesn't propose macro-mutation as an explanation of
diversity, it doesn't propose macro-mutation at all. Saltations do
rarely occur, but not enough to explain diversity. Diversity of
life is explained through mutations and recombinations seen today
in the difference between a mother and daughter.

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.

Yeah, of course she'll let us decide, which is why she raised a
strawman version of evolution and used emotive language, describing
it as bogus.

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."

Ho, ho, ho.

Sure, they teach Relativity at school, how to apply the Lorentz
transformation to assertain the apparent contraction of a comet
heading towards you. Hey, don't you remember your Quantum Physics
classes, where they explained the operation of the ceasium clock?
No? Well, neither do I actually. Perhaps the author is a complete
and utter fool.

LOL, I *do* remember my QM classes. In fact, I took an entire course
devoted to QM en route to my BS in physics. It was enough to give me
an appreciation of the complexity of QM. Do I, having had more
education in the subject than 99%+ of the population claim to
understand everything about it? By no means. The thought that
someone could achieve mastery of the subject by spending 30 minutes
browsing a web page or a QM book is laughable.

Funnily enough, my knowledge of science _is_ all from popular science
books, though there are about 120 them read so far, because I never
had the chance of an extended education. So, you don't even need a
university education to see this person's incompetence.

Anyone with biochemical knowledge would know that most mutations are
deleterious, which is another fact in conflict with the proposition
that God uses light to direct evolution.

As for special relativity, the real irony here is that the author
chose the wrong 'flavor' or relativity. Cosmologists use *general*
relativity, not special relativity. Contrary to popular opinion,
these are, by no means, the same thing. 'Special' relativity is
special because it applies only to a particular case in which
space-time is 'flat.' In the presence of a strong gravitational
field or on cosmological (billions of light years) scales, space-time
is anything but flat and GR has to be used. The math involved in GR
is *much* more difficult than the math in SR.

How's this for coincidence? Tomorrow, I will finish reading Bertrand
Russell's ABC of Relativity and the chapters I read today deal with
exactly this point. Russell even explains for the first time (to me,
that is :-) exactly _why_ GR and QM are incommensurate. Russell's
writing is good for the mind!

<SNIP!>

"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."

The Electromagnetic force is just one of four(possibly five)
fundamental forces: Gravity, Electromagnetism, the Weak atomic
force and the Strong atomic force. The electomagnetic force does
not bind sub-atomic particles into atoms, this is done by the weak
and strong atomic forces.

EMF, in fact, wants to destroy atomic nuclei. Since protons all have
the same charge (positive), electromagnetism tries to force them
apart. It also has no effect whatsoever on uncharged particles (like
neutrons.) Were it not for the fact that the strong nuclear force is
many orders stronger than EM (and affects particles regardless of
charge,) hydrogen (1H) would be the only element in the Universe and
stars would never have formed (nuclear fusion would be impossible.)

Thank you.

Taking another look at the original text, it says that the subatomic
paricles are _transformed_ into atomic nuclei, whereas the protons and
neutrons (which are not constituents of light), and their constituent
quarks _combine_ to form nuclei, so even their terms are wrong, not
just their facts.

<Big Snip>

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."

I would imagine the PhD is in law. Her writing makes it very clear
it's not in physics or any related field.

This is a nonsense of vagueness upon ignorance and
misrepresentation. Ignore it.

Regards,

(-; Ian :-)

Grogs wrote:

"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in
news:1119095498.621328.90190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Howdy folks,

Just thought I'd like to make a few comments here...

Jason Spaceman wrote:

"Dr." Kelly Hollowell gives us a, uhhhh, mechanism for ID. No

it's in there somewhere. . .

From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 18, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

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.

Now either the universe is a product of a mechanism or it's a product
of design; the difference is fundamental, because design implies
intent.

This is especially intriguing as Darwin's theory of evolution is now
hotly contested by arguments of intelligent design. One weakness of

is its failure to offer a mechanism to counter evolution's bogus
explanation of diversity through macro-mutation.

Evolution doesn't propose macro-mutation as an explanation of
diversity, it doesn't propose macro-mutation at all. Saltations do
rarely occur, but not enough to explain diversity. Diversity of life

explained through mutations and recombinations seen today in the
difference between a mother and daughter.

As a result, ID has
failed in broad view to distinguish itself as a true scientific

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.

Yeah, of course she'll let us decide, which is why she raised a
strawman version of evolution and used emotive language, describing it
as bogus.

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."

Ho, ho, ho.

Sure, they teach Relativity at school, how to apply the Lorentz
transformation to assertain the apparent contraction of a comet

towards you. Hey, don't you remember your Quantum Physics classes,
where they explained the operation of the ceasium clock? No? Well,
neither do I actually. Perhaps the author is a complete and utter

LOL, I *do* remember my QM classes. In fact, I took an entire course
devoted to QM en route to my BS in physics. It was enough to give me an
appreciation of the complexity of QM. Do I, having had more education

the subject than 99%+ of the population claim to understand everything
about it? By no means. The thought that someone could achieve mastery
of the subject by spending 30 minutes browsing a web page or a QM book

laughable.

Funnily enough, my knowledge of science _is_ all from popular science
books, though there are about 120 them read so far, because I never had
the chance of an extended education. So, you don't even need a
university education to see this person's incompetence.

Anyone with biochemical knowledge would know that most mutations are
deleterious, which is another fact in conflict with the proposition
that God uses light to direct evolution.

Anyone with biochemical knowledge would know that most mutations are
deleterious, which is another fact in conflict with the proposition
that God uses light to direct evolution.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Grogs <grogs@nomail.com> wrote:

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."

I would imagine the PhD is in law. Her writing makes it very clear
it's not in physics or any related field.

Supposedly in biochemistry... from Regent U.

http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/mission_statement.cfm