We’ve written about Granville Sewell before. He’s not a Discoveroid “fellow,” but they publish him, and Wikipedia informs us that he’s a signatory to the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” petition. Perhaps the most important thing about Sewell is that he’s very keen on using the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an argument for creationism — see Discovery Institute Gives Us Their Best Argument.
He’s also highly regarded for arguing that Mt. Rushmore Is Designed, Therefore …. The last time we wrote about him was Granville Sewell — the Best Discoveroid Thinker. That was a rant against naturalism, in contrast to the superlative explanatory power of supernaturalism — oops, we mean intelligent design — which explains everything by means of the unevidenced and incomprehensible activities of a transcendent agency, i. e., a miracle.
Okay, that’s what we’re dealing with. Here’s Granville’s newest offering: What You Have to Believe to Not Believe in Intelligent Design, which appears at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog. We’re told that it’s “excerpted from the new expanded edition of Granville Sewell’s book In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design (Discovery Institute Press).” Wow — that’s a prestigious publisher! Granville says, with bold font added by us:
Since critics often misrepresent ID, painting its advocates as a fanatical fringe group, it is important to understand what intelligent design is, and what it is not.
Yes, that is important. Granville tells us what we need to understand:
Until Charles Darwin, almost everyone everywhere believed in some form of intelligent design. The majority still do. Not just Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but almost every tribesman in every remote corner of the world drew the obvious conclusion from observing animals and plants that there must have been a mind behind the creation of living things.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:
Darwin thought he could explain all of this apparent design through natural selection of random variations. In spite of the fact that there is no direct evidence that natural selection can explain anything other than very minor adaptations, his theory has gained widespread popularity in the scientific world, simply because no one can come up with a more plausible theory to explain evolution, other than intelligent design, which is dismissed by most scientists as “unscientific.”
That’s an allusion to the micro-macro mambo, which is the first item we discuss in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Granville continues:
But, in recent years, as scientific research has continually revealed the astonishing dimensions of the complexity of life, especially at the microscopic level, support for Darwin’s implausible theory has continued to weaken. Since the publication in 1996 of Darwin’s Black Box by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, a growing minority of scientists have concluded, with Behe, that there is no possible explanation for the complexity of life other than intelligent design.
Michael Behe. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Not only is he a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow, he was the Discoveroids’ star witness in the Kitzmiller case — see Kitzmiller v. Dover: Michael Behe’s Testimony. His colleagues at Lehigh are so impressed by his brilliance that they publicly disassociated themselves from him by issuing this statement: Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”. Here’s more:
But what exactly do these “ID scientists” believe?
Whoa! We weren’t expecting that. Get ready, dear reader, because we’re about to be told what the “theory” of intelligent design says:
There is no general agreement among advocates of intelligent design as to exactly where, when, or how design was manifested in the history of life. Most, but not quite all, accept the standard timeline for the beginning of the universe, of life, and of the major animal groups. Meyer’s book focuses on the sudden appearance of most of the animal phyla in the “Cambrian explosion,” more than 500 million years ago. Many, including Michael Behe, accept common descent. Probably all reject natural selection as an adequate explanation for the complexity of life, but so do many other scientists who are not ID proponents. So what exactly do you have to believe to be an ID proponent?
Don’t keep us in suspense, Granville. Tell us! He does, but in a roundabout way:
Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to state clearly what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design. … The prevailing view in science today is that physics explains all of chemistry, chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus physics alone explains the human mind and all it does. This is what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design: that the origin and evolution of life, and the evolution of human consciousness and intelligence, are due entirely to a few unintelligent forces of physics.
Okay. Moving along:
Thus you must believe that a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into computers and science texts and jet airplanes.
[*Groan*] He expands on that brilliant statement in his final paragraph:
If you believe that a few fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the basic particles of physics into Apple iPhones, you are probably not an ID proponent, even if you believe in God. But if you believe there must have been more than unintelligent forces at work somewhere, somehow, in the whole process: congratulations, you are one of us after all!
So there you are. It’s the tornado in a junkyard. If you think that’s an unlikely way to assemble a Boeing 747, then Granville says you’re a Discoveroid.
See also: Ellis Washington Praises Granville Sewell.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.