BBella: Here is another interesting perspective on DNA:-http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_2012_18a.htm-According to this article, mainstream western scientists have "missed out on one of the most basic energy fields of the Universe", which David Wilcock calls a "consciousness field" and ties in with the concept of God. He says it appears to be responsible for matter and life.-"Little critters have already been generated spontaneously, in an utterly sterilized environment, from nothing more than distilled water and beach sand that had been super-heated to white-hot levels, where no living thing could possibly have survived within any scientific models."-I'm surprised we haven't heard more about this sensational event (the article was written in March 2008). Is it authentic? But the point I would make here is that if little critters were generated "spontaneously", how the heck does that prove they were consciously created? And yet Mr Wilcock says it is proof of Intelligent Design.-He goes on from the spontaneous generation of little critters to the claim that Russian scientists have proved how living things can be completely re-arranged into other species. DNA, he emphasizes, "is not a hard fixed structure", and a beam of light trained on a frog embryo can transform it into a salamander. "This mechanism drives life to evolve on Earth spontaneously, in very short periods of time." Once again, if this process happens spontaneously, how does it prove there is a consciousness field? Why shouldn't beams of light ("or other forms of energy") happen randomly to drive evolution? But "Darwin was wrong. Evolution is not random."-Before David jumps to the defence of these conclusions, let me stress that it's not the conclusions I'm arguing against. IF this article is referring to genuine scientific discoveries (my "if" is deliberately capitalized), I'm suggesting that as it stands, its emphasis on spontaneity provides just as strong a case for randomness as for design.