In and of itself, this isn't a ridiculous concept--they both share the purpose of explaining what the world is and where it came from. But the case this guy makes is unneccessarily inflammatory: "Pick up a science book or magazine, and you can read leading scientists' theories about how God is supposedly unnecessary or doesn't exist", "yet a common belief is science makes God appear powerless." Nobody but hardcore atheists make claims like that. They're entirely unsupportable. Nothing in science indicates strongly for or against the existance of any kind of deity. This kind of posturing only serves to piss people off.
On the other hand, Andrew Missel's letter reads far too much into the articles. The connection between energy and divine love was a simile, Eghrari's attempt to use a scientific principle to illustrate a religious one. It wasn't an identity statement that energy===love. (As we all know, IRC chanop status equals love.) Missel's stated implication that (theoretical) dark matter is evil is completely out of left field, there's nothing at all in the articles about that.
But I do like the "very large quantum of love from God" crack. It reminds me of the Sumerian creation stories referenced by Cryptonomicon, which seemed to feature an awful lot of divine ejaculation.