Edward Granville
Sewell is a mathematician, intelligent design advocate, and currently a
Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas, El Paso. He does
presumably know math.
His understanding of science is, however, sorely deficient.
Sewell is
signatory to the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
petition and has had (in 2000) an anti-evolutionary article published in The
Mathematical Intelligencer. This is cited by the Discovery Institute as one of
the “Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the
Theory of Intelligent Design”, an assertion rejected by people who actually
manage to distinguish science from delusional rants,
including Judge Jones in the Dover trial.
In this and
other articles the main claim reiterated ad nauseam is the claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics (more here).
It isn’t better supported than it sounds,
and even Sewell’s attempts to battle strawmen is somewhat quixotic.
Jason Rosenhouse’s Intelligencer article “How Anti-evolutionists Abuse
Mathematics” is directly targeted at Sewell, as is his “Does Evolution Have a Thermodynamics
Problem?”.
Mark Perakh called Sewell’s work “depressingly fallacious”.
Sewell’s “experiments” are, well, not exactly what scientists would call
experiments,
and his proposed “laws” aren’t what scientists would count as scientific laws.
And as most creationist Sewell doesn’t see that even if evolution were to fail,
it wouldn’t mean that Intelligent Design creationism is correct
unless someone had actually formulated a theory, some predictions, and garnered
independent support through testing.
Sewell also
writes for Dembski’s blog “Uncommon Descent” (no link to the actual blog provided).
Diagnosis:
“Sewell is to thermodynamics as Sal Cordova is to a) biochemistry, b)
information theory, c) classical mechanics, d) all of the above” (Blake
Stacey). He is also a professional but not very successful bane of strawmen. A
pawn in the denialist movement.
Since we’re
covering the fallacious second law arguments against evolution, it might be
timely to bring up the all time classic quote on the issue.
“Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of MAGIC”
ReplyDeleteSewell presents his "Argument from Rushmore, another new creationist talking point of almost legendary levels of idiocy.
ReplyDeleteHereSewell fails to understand basic concepts in the study of evolution and thereby miserably misunderstands a 34-year old article in the NY Times (more here).
Maths. What is x/o. Or x÷o
DeleteYour a maths man what is x/o. or x÷o. Thanks
Delete