Intelligent Design

In the Beginning…

Spread the love

Discovery has produced a nice promo video for my book In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design. The video is of course not designed to make a serious argument for ID, but just to pique the viewer’s interest enough to consider buying the book, and that is of course my reason for posting it here.

If you want to discuss the point made in the video, I hope you will first read the Postscript to my 1985 Springer-Verlag book (now Chapter 4 in the new book), where the point is made in more detail, or my 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article which is now Chapter 3.

Actually, the similarities between the development of software and the development of life go beyond the points made in the above-linked video and articles. In Chapter 5 I briefly discuss evolutionary “convergence”, where similar designs arise independently in distant branches of the evolutionary tree—this phenomenon is often seen in software development, and points to common design rather than common descent. (Though, of course, common descent does explain many similarities, between software versions as well as between species.) Also, in Chapter 9 I have a short discussion of “front-loading”, where our “programmer” has apparently embedded genetic code in primitive animals, in anticipation of a need for it in later “versions”!

The Springer-Verlag editor, by the way, told me he first objected to the inclusion of the “Postscript” in my 1985 book, but consulted with someone else who convinced him it was ok. So does that make this one of the first “peer-reviewed” articles on ID? 🙂 (Despite the last sentence, it is clearly a pro-ID article.)

5 Replies to “In the Beginning…

  1. 1
    Granville Sewell says:


    I tried to embed the youtube version of this video in my post, but the embedded script I copied and pasted from youtube was simply erased when I previewed or posted it. Maybe you can embed it, the youtube URL is

  2. 2
    niwrad says:

    Compliments Professor Sewell for your new ID book!

    I have always been convinced that no mathematician can consistently be Darwinist. I hope that your courageous example can attract other mathematicians towards the ID side. Darwin didn’t love math.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    This biblical creationist thanks the thread author here for pushing design but insists that convergent evolution is not evidence for design.
    There is no convergent evolution from branches of the tree of life.
    Yes common design and yes like need produces like parts.
    yet convergent evolution has a history of drawing conclusions about biological relationships that are simply false.
    For example they say marsupials have same shaped creatures as placentals because niche forced mutation and selection on them to a like end.
    Yet in fact marsupials are just the same creatures as placentals with a pouch.
    A marsupial lion, wolf, bear, mole, mouse is just the same thing as elsewhere on the planet save for a few minor details due to the area they moved into after the flood. Not evolution upon some rodent like thing and presto same shaped creatures. Likewise this error is invoked by evolution in many orders etc of creatures.
    I believe Mr Berlinski also brought up about the likeness of the marsupial wolf with other wolves on the planet. He also seems to see it from some common design system yet the important point is that they are so alike.
    So why segregate? just accept minor adaptation options in biology before major adaptations from rejected mechanisms of evolution.
    If it looks like a horse its probably a horse.

  4. 4
    NZer says:

    I was about to complain about the lack on EMBED code for the video too…

    If ID people want to win the media battle, these sorts of things need to be done better.

    Anyways, the embed code is available on YouTube here:

  5. 5
    NZer says:

    Nice video btw!

Leave a Reply