Author: Granville Sewell

At this Evolution News post I discussed the following section from W.E.Loennig’s 1971 MS Thesis. (He would go on to complete a PhD in genetics at the University of Bonn and work for 25 years at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research as a geneticist.) Although every analogy breaks down when extended beyond Read More…

The whole design debate could not be simpler, and neither side’s viewpoint really requires much scientific expertise to understand: On the one hand, most scientists say, nothing can possibly be beyond the reach of our science, so if we can’t explain where the designer came from, there CAN’T be any design in Nature. (See last Read More…

Here is an interview Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig did recently with Marco Respinti of the Centro Italiano Intelligent Design organization (https://www.ciid.science), in English with Italian subtitles. A couple of quotes from the interview: after describing his PhD thesis work in the first 10 minutes he summarizes “The outcome was in full agreement with one of the more Read More…

At the suggestion of a pastor friend, I have developed a study guide to go along with the video “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design,” which was highlighted in an article by Brian Miller at Evolution News. The study guide is here. Although there is only one section (4b) that relates ID to Read More…

W.E.Loennig’s latest manuscript, “Are Birds Living Dinosaurs?” is, like all his earlier writings, characterized by great attention to scientific detail and willingness to engage with scientific critics (one in particular, in this case). I recommend not only this work, but many of his earlier works, which can be browsed here. I also highly recommend the Read More…

Here are two mathematical problems for you to work on in your spare time, and one problem from biology: Find positive integers x,y, z and n>2, such that xn+yn=zn. Remove two diagonally opposite corner squares from a chess board, and cover the remaining 62 squares with 31 dominoes, each of which covers two adjacent squares. Read More…

Science has been so successful explaining other phenomena in terms of purely unintelligent natural forces, why should evolution be so different? That is the primary argument against intelligent design, and it is the reason that Darwinism, an extremely implausible theory which becomes even more implausible with every new biological and biochemical discovery—but the best theory Read More…

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…