Ellis Washington Praises Granville Sewell

Buffoon Award

You are probably familiar with Granville Sewell. Wikipedia informs us that he’s a signatory to the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” petition. We’ve written about him a few times before, most recently a month ago: The Genius of Granville Sewell. That was when we discussed his post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog, in which he praised his latest book, In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design, published by the prestigious Discovery Institute Press.

Today, dear reader, you’re in for a rare treat. Sewell and his book are being praised at the RenewAmerica website, which recently won our Buffoon Award, thus the jolly logo above this post.

But that’s not all — to add to your entertainment, what we found was written by Ellis Washington. Our regular readers are familiar with his work from when he was a regular contributor to WorldNetDaily. The best example of his thinking can be found here, Scripture Trumps Darwin, when he informed us of “the syllogism that was a foundation of Western civilization”:

If A = B, then A + B = C

We are delighted to present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Book Review — In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design. The bold font was added by us:

Before I venture into Professor Sewell’s work, I have reviewed this academic’s work in the past which immediately generated nasty attacks from numerous trolls and Darwin sycophants of the cult of evolution atheism, namely Casey Luskin in Sept. 2011. … The major part of Luskin’s attack was his outrage because allegedly Professor Sewell committed “self-plagiarism” by republishing existing essays in the first edition of his book.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Casey’s post at the Discoveroids’ blog was a defense of Sewell. Having botched that up beyond belief, Ellis tells us:

Sewell writes, “The recent success of Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt is evidence that the scientific theory of intelligent design continues to gain momentum. 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.”

We discussed that — and ripped it up — in our last post about Sewell, so although Ellis is thrilled, we’ll ignore it this time around. Ellis then gives us a big quote from Sewell’s book, after which he says:

Since Darwin, the father of evolution himself called his own “theory” of evolution “…a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts,” how can scientists of the twenty first century attribute greater scientific rigor, credibility, and truth to a “hypotheses” than its own creator could ascribe? We can’t, and it is intellectually dishonest to try to do so.

We love it when creationists quote Darwin as evidence against Darwin’s theory. That probably comes from a letter Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley, one of his closest supporters. You can read the relevant portions here: Darwin, C. R. to Huxley, T. H. . We suspect it was a private joke between them, but creationists like to quote it as if it somehow disproves evolution.

Let’s see what other wonders Ellis has for us. Mostly all he does is quote Sewell, but then he says:

Professor Sewell bring great scientific credentials to the ID/evolution debate as Ph.D. educated mathematician from Purdue, and has no agenda other than truth and science which he uses pure logic, scientific and mathematical reason to essentially state in his boon that evolution only produces chaos and randomness while ID produces (or at least explains) order, reason of creation and the invisible, metaphysical mind that of necessity had to put the universe in order and keep it in order for millions of years based transcendent principles, otherwise… Big Bang! We are we all dead, and everything that was ever created was a psychotic allusion that never existed.

No comment is necessary, other than BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We continue:

Since 1859, the year Darwin published On the Origins of Species, the political Left in three different centuries has gotten away with propagating the scientific mythology of evolution as Gospel because of one phrase – ‘good intentions.’ This always gives the socialists and atheists of political Left cover to propagate unworkable policies upon society because of their good intentions or the “common good” cannot be measured using either objective mathematical principles or on scientific grounds. And we know about the famous expression, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Socialism? Atheism? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Utter rubbish. See Marx, Stalin, and Darwin, and then see Atheism, Science, and Darwin. Here’s more from Ellis:

Sewell [sic, presumably he meant Sewell’s] Socratic dialectical reasoning evident throughout this book is irrefutable and thus drives the apologists of evolution atheism insane because these scientists realize that belief in evolution is just a subjective blind faith lacking any verifiable scientific evidence, yet careers are at stake; government funding could be jeopardized if scientists and academics began en masse to deny evolution.

The rest of Ellis’ essay goes on like that. It’s an ark-load of nonsense, and you’ve probably seen enough. We certainly have.

Copyright © 2015. 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 “Ellis Washington Praises Granville Sewell

  1. waldteufel

    If the term “pathologically stupid” cannot be accurately applied to ol’ Ellis, it cannot be applied to anyone.

  2. numerous trolls and Darwin sycophants of the cult of evolution atheism, namely Casey Luskin

    Casey Luskin is numerous trolls[sic] and sycophants[sic] of the cult … that is, of the cult of evolution atheism?

    That has to get some reaction from Casey Luskin and his fellow numerous trolls and sycophants!

  3. Derek Freyberg

    “The man ain’t got no culture” – he can’t think straight, he can’t spell, and he can’t put together logical sentences.
    But my favorite is “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.” – Darn right, that minority is growing more minor every day.

  4. TomS says: “That has to get some reaction from Casey Luskin and his fellow numerous trolls and sycophants!”

    It’ll probably get corrected. But the original will always be here.

  5. there is no other X than Y
    Even if it is true, there is no X other than Y does not mean that Y is an X.
    But Behe has never excluded the Law of Spontaneous Complexity as an explanation of the complexity of life. They all are ignoring it.
    BTW, I trust that no one will be such a pedestrian troll as to ask about the pathetic details, like what the LSC is.

  6. “… numerous trolls and Darwin sycophants of the cult of evolution atheism, namely Casey Luskin in Sept. 2011…”

    Hey — didn’t we kick Casey out of our cult back in ’09?

  7. michaelfugate

    Who let him in, in the first place?

  8. He illustrates a basic stupidity (stupid = willful ignorance) in that science does not care about anything Darwin got wrong or what he thought….modern science has gone so far past Darwin that except as the originator of the the theory he is nearly irrelevant.

  9. The whole truth

    I archived Ellis Washington’s article at the Wayback Machine:


  10. That’s good, The whole truth. I was thinking of making a screenshot of it, but then decided that it’s not worth the bother. Hey — nobody reads Ellis, so maybe it won’t be changed.

  11. I just checked, it’s already been changed (to Wesley Elsberry). Such is life.

  12. @Mark Germano
    And yet it retains the description of an individual: “numerous trolls and Darwin sycophants of the cult of evolution atheism, namely …”. When an editor has attention directed to a phrase, there is no excuse for letting such a solecism pass.
    And: Elsberry is no atheist. He is no “troll”. (Whatever one may think of him, he is not taking a pretended position for the purpose of provoking a reaction.)

  13. I just can’t get over that amazing “syllogism” — every time you post about it I double-check the original post to make sure it isn’t an out-of-context quote-mine. Nope.

    I wonder how come I was never this “syllogism” that in my logic classes? (Or, for that matter, in Western History?)