There’s a new post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog by Granville Sewell. 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. The last time we discussed him was a few months ago — see Granville Sewell: Why Evolution Is Impossible.
Granville is known for arguing that the Second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution — see Discovery Institute Gives Us Their Best Argument, and we’ve written about some of his other creationist arguments in The Genius of Granville Sewell.
Granville’s new post is titled What Can a Mathematician Contribute to the Evolution Debate? Interesting question. We know that there are uses for math in evolution, e.g., Mathematical and theoretical biology, but the real question is: “What can a creationist mathematician contribute to evolution?” This should be fun. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
My [article published in 2000, link omitted] presented two arguments against Darwinian evolution. The first was the more traditional argument from “irreducible complexity” showing that, contrary to what Darwin believed, major advances in the evolution of life, like major advances in the evolution of software (I focused on my own partial differential equation solving software), cannot be built up through many very small improvements. I have since written several [Discoveroid] posts on this topic, most recently [link omitted].
The second point was that the development of an advanced civilization on a previously barren planet seems to violate — in a most spectacular way — the more general statements of the second law of thermodynamics, at least the basic principle underlying this law, even if the Earth is an open system.
We’re all impressed. Then he says:
Although many other mathematicians and physicists find these arguments persuasive [Hee hee!], the understandable reaction of most biologists seems to be, “How can you possibly say anything important about evolution without even discussing the details of evolutionary theory?” But it is important to remember that this is not a new argument I invented. It is the age-old, intuitive observation that there is something very “unnatural” about advanced civilizations arising spontaneously on barren planets.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! There’s something unnatural — even supernatural — about an advanced civilization that arises spontaneously on a barren body like the Moon, but Earth is a different story. As we’ve remarked before, Granville’s “barren planet” argument is his own version of the tornado in a junkyard argument. After that he tells us:
Since I am not a biologist, my contributions to the debate about intelligent design versus Darwinism have been limited. Nearly everything I have written since the 2000 [link omitted] article has just expanded on one of the two points made there. My latest and clearest such contribution is a video (above) that I produced with the help of my brother Kirk. It presents these same two points, in reverse order: the second law argument is presented in the first 13 minutes.
The video is available at the Discoveroid post. If you care to watch the thing, click over there and go right ahead. Granville concludes with this:
But I believe anyone who takes the time to watch this video will realize that you can indeed draw some important conclusions about evolution without becoming an expert on evolutionary theory. In fact I think he or she will realize that sometimes it helps to step back from the details and look at the bigger picture, which is what I have always tried to do.
So there you are, dear reader. Granville has been making momentous contributions to our understanding of evolution since 2000. Verily, he’s a legend in the history of creationism, and his stature can only increase as time goes by.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.