Discovery Institute: Math Disproves Evolution

WE have thrilling news from the blog of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). They announce: A Mathematician Looks at Darwin’s Theory and Discovers It Doesn’t Add Up. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

“Darwin’s attempt to explain the origins of all the magnificent species in the living world in terms of the struggle for survival is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science,” writes Dr. Granville Sewell in his new book In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design published by Discovery Institute Press.

With a quality publisher like Discovery Institute Press, we can be certain that this new work is a major scientific milestone. To the great credit of the courageous publisher, the author wasn’t Expelled because of his anti-Darwinist views.

Here’s the Amazon listing for the book. The date of publication is given as February 15, 2010, almost three weeks from now, but although the list price is $14.96, the offering price is $10.76.

There are no customer reviews yet, but this is the “product description,” presumably provided by the publisher:

In this wide-ranging collection of essays on origins, mathematician Granville Sewell looks at the big bang, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, and the evolution of life. He concludes that while there is much in the history of life that seems to suggest natural causes, there is nothing to support Charles Darwin’s idea that natural selection of random variations can explain major evolutionary advances (“easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science,” he calls it).

Sewell explains why evolution is a fundamentally different and much more difficult problem than others solved by science, and why increasing numbers of scientists are now recognizing what has long been obvious to the layman, that there is no explanation possible without design. This book summarizes many of the traditional arguments for intelligent design, but presents some powerful new arguments as well.

Let’s leave Amazon and read one more excerpt from the Discoveroid blog:

In The Beginning provides delightful and wide-ranging commentary on the origins debate and intelligent design,” says biophysicist Dr. Cornelius Hunter. “Sewell provides much needed clarity on topics that are too often misunderstood, like his discussion of the commonly confused problem of entropy, which is a must read.”

Naturally we checked out Cornelius Hunter. Wikipedia says:

Cornelius G. Hunter, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of biophysics at Biola University and is a proponent of intelligent design. Hunter is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement.

So it’s a Discoveroid reviewer praising the work of a creationist book published by the Discoveroids. How very incestuous. Oh, Biola University was originally named Bible Institute Of Los Angeles.

So there you are. We suspect that this outstanding new book offered by a prestigious publisher will soon find its way into Louisiana science classes in the form of “supplementary material” authorized by their new creationism law.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “Discovery Institute: Math Disproves Evolution

  1. So it’s a Discoveroid reviewer praising the work of a creationist book published by the Discoveroids.

    That’s how they define “peer review.”

    Sewell made similar arguments years ago. The DI is really into recycling old arguments by non-biologists lately (Meyer, Dembski, Marks, Sewell).

  2. James F says: “The DI is really into recycling old arguments by non-biologists lately …”

    Creationists recycling old arguments? By people who don’t understand biology? Jeepers!

  3. Happy New Year, your Curmudgeonlyness! I’m sorry that you have to start out the new year with the likes of the odious and stupifyingly ignorant Cornelius Hunter and his cronies.
    Still, we watch in admiration as you soldier on bringing us the very best of creationist wisdom.

  4. I thought Rev. William A. Williams settled once and for all that mathematics disproves evolution, in The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved by William A. Williams, published almost 100 years ago.

    It’s a masterpiece. Absolutely fascinating, my woed! I would be inclined to call it “The Creationist’s Bible”, but they already have one. “The Creationists Catechism” should do, I guess.

    I have yet to find some “modern” creationist “argument” (emphasis on mystic math!) that Williams didn’t mention in the first place. Every probability calculus misuse (from the chance of all falling together to the countless bazillions that should inhaibt Earth if evolution were true—over and over again, covering several chapters), the whole range of “evolution leads to atheism” arguments, “evolution=communism” (Hitler was still busy playing hide-and-seek), “only a theory”, souls, sin, immorality, vestigial organs, missing links, the Piltdown Man (and a fixation with H. neanderthalensis), “law of nature means a law-giver”, no new species observed, blind chance—you just name it. He even has the crocoduck! (Well, he doesn’t use the word, but he demands a fossil “part reptile, part bird” several times.)

    The only creationist lines of argument that are notably absent are babbles about “tired light” (I suspect Einstein’s Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies was too recent, and Eddington’s observational confirmation of General Relativity even more so), the DNA code and variable decay rate for radioactive isotopes. The latter two for obvious reasons.

  5. Armand K. says: “I thought Rev. William A. Williams settled once and for all …”

    Yup. He’s a classic. I’ve got a different link to him in the List-O-Links, here.

  6. I’ve got a different link to him in the List-O-Links, here.

    Ups, missed that page. Nice “collection”.

    I bumped into his book while looking for another Williams on the site. And I’m glad I did. It’s a precious resource of humor.

  7. I wonder whether this book presents those long-awaited arguments for “intelligent design”, or even a description of what ID is, other than “whatever happened, whenever it happened, it must have involved something other than evolution”.

  8. This is genuine review by a peer.
    If you are so lacking in wisdom that you ignore your limitations, but still believe in your omniscience, or so lacking in conscience that you will do anything for a buck, then your peer is someone of like mind.
    btw, as a retired Chemist I conclude that current number theory is untenable. Any layman can see the evidence of Intelligence in numbers. This means I have the solution to Goldbach’s conjecture (Goddidit: QED).

  9. This means I have the solution to Goldbach’s conjecture (Goddidit: QED).

    Nice Poe until that last sentence. Actual creationists don’t use ‘goddidit.’

  10. Great posting I will be sharing this one, be careful you might receive some rabid evolutionary theory people after I post it LOL they cling to a book over one hundred years old and deny new discoveries

  11. Good of you to drop in, prophetlady. But I suspect you don’t understand what this blog is all about.

  12. Interestingly enough, math disproves Noah’s ark as well. There is no way the Earth’s biodiversity could fit into a boat that is a few hundred cubits by a few hundred cubits…

    You can’t have it both ways, creationists!!!

  13. But LRA, haven’t you kept up on the Baramin’s hypothesis? They are on the verge of classifying every animal into their original “kinds” which will reduce the numbers greatly. Who can dispute their work on… Or their research into uhmm… Anyway, soon they will eliminate the pure numbers problem of the arc, and move onto how did 8 people care for thousands of animals, how did it carry the food for them for a year, where did all the water come from, and where did it go, what did they eat after getting out of the arc, how did the “kinds” and people diversify without massive lethal inbreeding killing off the whole mess… Simple.