Granville Sewell

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 by going on deepening the trenches already dug and continuing along the lines of researches already marked out? But this is where we must remind ourselves that our successes, amazing as they are, leave the formidable riddles of life itself almost intact. The three cardinal problems of biology—the problem of how a living creature grows, the problem of how species evolve, the problem of how 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 matter that there were no natural causes before Nature came into existence, so he cannot hope to ever explain the sudden creation of time, space, matter and energy and our universe in the big bang. It doesn’t matter that quantum mechanics is based on a “principle of indeterminacy” that tells us that every “natural” phenomenon has a component that is forever beyond the ability of 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 could cause a biology teacher to lose his/her job. The Times writer assures us, however, that all of this does not suggest “weakness in the fact of evolution”, only in the “perceived mechanism.” He says it actually “reflects significant progress toward a much deeper understanding of the history of life on Earth,” a statement I would certainly agree with! A photocopy of the article as 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 have authored one of the first “peer-reviewed” ID writings in 1985) so I want to share. It consists of two main parts 1) Why evolution is different—so different it requires a very different type of explanation, and 2) Why similarities do not prove the absence of design. The second part begins at about 14:10. If you’re looking for something that shows off a profound knowledge 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 print a copy of itself, which… A page which can be photocopied does not count, because it is the photocopier which actually makes the copy, unless the photocopy machine also makes a copy of itself; a computer program which duplicates itself does not count unless the computer it runs on makes a copy of itself also. The prize: the right to speculate about how life 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 the title and main theme of the book. Although every other known natural (unintelligent) process tends to turn order into disorder, Darwinists have always believed that natural selection is the one natural process which can create spectacular order out of disorder. In my 2012 video Evolution is a Natural Process Running Backward I cited examples (beginning at the 10:50 mark) from Behe’s 2007 book The 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 the Geological Society of America, helps us understand why this is so. Of the fossil record, Le Conte writes: [S]pecies seem to come in suddenly, with all their specific characters perfect, remain substantially unchanged as long as they last, and then die out and are replaced by others. Certainly this looks much like immutability of specific forms, and supernaturalism of specific origin.  According to a 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 into encyclopedias and science texts and computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones. In a 2017 Physics Essays article “On ‘Compensating’ Entropy Decreases,” I argued that this spectacular increase in order seems to violate the more general statements of the second law of thermodynamics; at least that you cannot dismiss this claim, as is always done, by simply saying, the Earth is an open system and Read More ›

Everyone understands that the only conceivable alternative to Darwinism is intelligent design, and everyone understands that ID is a religious idea. Thus if you criticize Darwinism on any minor point you are promoting ID, and promoting religion in the classroom is forbidden by the “freedom from religion” amendment. That is why, no matter how many scientific problems you see with Darwin’s explanation for the causes of evolution, it is unconstitutional to criticize his theory in the classroom. Nevertheless, in case any of you biology teachers want to try this, I have an idea on how you might be able to point out some problems with Darwinism in your classroom without violating the U.S. Constitution, by sharing the following New York Read More ›

I posted a link to the W.E.Loennig interview with English subtitles here July 20, with comments off. Dr. Loennig recently wrote me saying, “At Uncommon Descent, there is generally a civilized discussion, so I would not have closed the comments there. Would it be advisable to repost the link at Uncommon Descent with open comments?” Sure, and I will also repeat the intro from July 20. I think you can assume that Dr. Loennig will read and appreciate your comments. Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, who worked for 25 years as a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany, is now retired but still writes often on the topic of Darwinism and Intelligent Design. You can Read More ›

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, who worked for 25 years as a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany, is now retired but still writes often on the topic of Darwinism and Intelligent Design. You can find links to his CV and many of his research publications here, and Beautiful Facts is his most recent writing, on orchids and evolution. On July 2 a German TV station ran a 42-minute interview with Dr. Loennig entitled Paleontology and Evolution, but the interview actually covers a wide range of topics related to the Darwinism/ID debate. For me, one of the most interesting segments begins at 23:48, where he recounts attempts to speed up evolution by bombarding plant chromosomes Read More ›

Wolf Ekkehard Loennig is certainly one of the leading ID biologists in the world, he studied mutations for 32 years, 25 at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Koeln, and has written many well-researched documents on intelligent design. You can see some of them here, as well as several peer-reviewed scientific publications favorable to ID. As the prototype of the biologist who should not exist, he has naturally endured a lot of persecution, but has survived and is more prolific than ever in retirement. Many of his writings are long and characterized by great attention to detail, loaded with technical references and footnotes, so they unfortunately tend to be a little difficult for the layman to follow. Read More ›

Wipf and Stock has generously agreed to let me post my 2016 book Christianity for Doubters on my website now, so you can download the entire book here. Although I tried to avoid theology as much as possible in my 2015 Discovery Institute Press book, In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design, second edition, in a section entitled “A Theological Supplement” I explained my motivation for wanting to write (later) the more theological “Christianity for Doubters”: It is widely believed that Darwinism is based on good science, and that those who oppose it simply do not like its philosophical and religious implications. The truth is exactly the opposite. In a June 15, 2012 post at www.evolutionnews.org, Max Planck Read More ›

When someone asks you “Do you believe in evolution?” they probably won’t take the time to listen to your 15 minute exposition on the different meanings of “evolution” and why you reject one or more of them, and they probably won’t read “Darwin’s Black Box” if you gave them a copy, so what do you say? Here’s my short answer: “I believe in the evolution of life and in the evolution of automobiles, but I don’t believe either could have come about without design.” When someone tells you “The theory of evolution is well-established science, only ignorant people still doubt it,” again, they probably won’t give you 30 minutes to respond, and won’t have time to read anything you refer Read More ›