Although he’s not a Discoveroid “fellow,” Granville writes for their blog. Wikipedia informs us that he’s a signatory to the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” petition. He’s known around here for arguing that the Second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution — see Discovery Institute Gives Us Their Best Argument.
Here are some excerpts from Granville’s new post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Writing for The American Spectator, Jay Homnick has observed:
[Granville quotes from Accidents Happen:] It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
Who the flaming [*bleep*] is Homnick? Granville quoted the guy in a Discoveroid post a few years ago — see Granville Sewell: Intelligent Design Is So Obvious. We Googled on his name and came up with some bio info at The American Spectator. It doesn’t matter much. Granville says:
Before Darwin, nearly everyone, in every corner of the world, believed in some type of ‘‘intelligent design,” and the majority still do. [Hooray!] That is for good reasons. Since the publication of Origin of Species, science has discovered that living things are far more complex and clever than Darwin ever could have imagined. So how did it happen that the majority of our scientists “lost their minds” and are unable to see the design in living things that is so blindingly obvious to the layman?
How did you lose your mind, dear reader? Granville tells us:
I believe there are two primary reasons. First, when one becomes a scientist, one learns that science can now explain, without appealing directly to design, so many previously inexplicable phenomena that one comes to believe that nothing can escape the explanatory power of our science. Why should evolutionary biology be so different, why should it be the only scientific discipline where we cannot explain everything by appealing only to more fundamental laws of nature? (Though these fundamental laws of nature are actually themselves fine-tuned for life, as we are discovering.)
Very insightful! And here’s the next reason:
Second, when one becomes a biologist, or a paleontologist, one discovers many things about the origin of species, particularly the evidence for common descent from homologies (similarities), that give the impression of natural causes. [Ooooooooooooh! The mere impression of natural causes!] “This just doesn’t look like the way God would create things” is an argument used frequently by Darwinists, and by Darwin himself.
That’s how you became a fool! Granville continues by describing a video that’s embedded in his post:
Part I of the video below (a much improved version of a video I have highlighted in the past) shows why evolution is different. Part II shows why similarities do not prove the absence of design. These two themes were central to my 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article, “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution” [link omitted], and have been the focus of most of my writings on intelligent design since then.
In Granville’s final paragraph, he informs us that his video is being translated into Polish — which has got to be one of the least important factoids in the universe. Then he finishes with this:
… I think you will find that the current version shows very convincingly “Why Evolution Is Different,” and “Why Similarities Do Not Prove Absence of Design.”
So there you are, dear reader. If you’re looking for some genuine intellectual adventure, we suggest that you look elsewhere.
Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.