Author: Granville Sewell

In the 2010 book interview for the first edition of my Discovery Institute Press book David Klinghoffer asked me, what do you think will be the turning point in the ID-Darwinism debate? I answered (approximately) “the turning point will be when scientists believe they will be considered intellectuals for doubting Darwin rather than for promoting Read More…

Based on this Oct 28 post at Evolution News.

Posted at Evolution News Friday: In The Origin of Species (1859, 201), Charles Darwin suggested the following test, among others, for his theory:  If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory for such could not Read More…

Above is a picture of three children in 1954. One of them is me, the other two are not. I saw the world from inside one of these children. Darwinists believe they can explain how these children evolved, but how did I end up inside one of them? This is a question that rarely seems Read More…

The following is an overview of the evidence for design which I wrote recently for a political journal whose readers have mostly had little exposure to ID arguments. It was rejected. It is a pretty basic summary, nothing here that UD readers have not seen many times, but maybe you may find it useful as Read More…

My final contribution to the ID debate:

Embedded below is a nice new video “When Scientists Ignore Science: The Second Law of Thermodynamics” produced by Mark Champneys.

French biologist Jean Rostand, in his 1956 book Can Man be Modified? wrote: Have not the biologists the right to a little conceit, when they add up what they have achieved in the space of a mere half century? Would they not be justified in believing that to them all things will become possible, simply Read More…

Section 9.3 of my 2015 book In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design summarizes the contents of the book in two paragraphs: Science has been so successful in explaining natural phenomena that the modern scientist is convinced that it can explain everything, and anything that challenges this assumption is simply ignored. It doesn’t Read More…

Below is a New York Times News Service article that appeared Nov 5, 1980, reporting on a meeting at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History. The discussion of micro- and macroevolution and of the fossil record almost sounds like something from the Discovery Institute blog, the kind of honest assessment of Darwinism which today Read More…

I have redone my video “Why Evolution is Different,” the new 23 minute version is embedded below. I apologize for the self-promotion, but what can I say? I think it’s the best thing I’ve written on ID (and maybe the last thing) and summarizes everything I’ve learned in 35 years (I can possibly claim to Read More…

I plan to award a prize to anyone who can invent a non-trivial 3D machine which can replicate itself. The machine must be able to make copies of itself without human intervention, except possibly to supply the raw materials. Basically a 3D printer which can print a copy of itself which retains the ability to Read More…

Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, author of the 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box,  which many consider to have sparked the modern intelligent design movement, is releasing a new book later this month entitled Darwin Devolves. The new book promises to be as revolutionary as his earlier books; here is some background to help readers appreciate Read More…

We all know that the theory of evolution is as well-established as gravity, because we have been taught this in school all our lives. What many people may not know, however, is why evolution is as well-established as gravity.  In his 1888 book Evolution Joseph Le Conte, University of California professor of geology and natural history, and later president of Read More…

In a recent American Spectator article “Evolution—More Certain than Gravity?” I made the point that to not believe in intelligent design, you have to believe that the four fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone (the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces) could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics on our once-barren planet Read More…