Customer Reviews

In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Although the author is a mathematician (his PhD is from Purdue University in math) and is a full Professor of Math, he has worked as a scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and at other major scientific research centers. This wide science background is reflected in this book, which covers many topics related to Intelligent Design, including not just the second law of thermodynamics, but also the expanding universe, the fine tuning laws of physics, irreducible complexity, and he even gets into some theological questions at the end of the book. I know that some persons interested in Intelligent Design are intimidated at the length of some recent popular books on the subject, but this book was an easy 147 page read even for a non math major such as me. One interesting topic covered was "is there design in mathematics?" a subject rarely covered in books about ID and raises new questions related to the whole area of design. A common charge is that ID supporters have not published material in the peer reviewed literature in support of ID, a false charge. Many chapters in this book are reprints from peer reviewed literature and all are excellent. One point that I found of interest was Sewell noted that he has found much more support for the view that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is incomplete in the hard sciences than compared to the life sciences (p. 48). He then explains why this is found. All in all an excellent book!

Dr. Sewell's book is a collection of essays penned by the author over many years and refined into the current edition. Unlike some reviewers, I have actually read the book, albeit in pre-published form (when the author had the collection available as a PDF download.)

Dr. Sewell generally writes in an understandable tone, making complex mathematical and scientific concepts clear to the general public. He provides interesting insights and new points of view in the ID debate. Especially valuable is Dr. Sewell's contribution dealing with order and boundary conditions (such as in his "Can ANYTHING happen in an open system?" essay). The material and arguments presented by Sewell are unique to him and provide the next logical discussion point in the debate over the second law of thermodynamics and biotic formation.

His views on faith issues are not typical, biblical-literalist/conservative and some might find his departures from strict traditional views troubling. However, he is a competent and humble thinker, and consequently his views do not come across as dogmatic or offensive. If you enjoy thinking about faith issues from a slightly different vantage point, Dr. Sewell's writings on those issues are food for thought, though some might suffer from indigestion.

All in all, Dr. Sewell's book will introduce you to a few more arguments in the ID debate and possibly allow you to view some faith related issues in a different light. I enjoyed the book and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to a friend or colleague. From someone who has read many, many ID related books I can without hesitation say that Dr. Sewell's new book provides a set of distinct, new arguments while also expanding on some more well-known ones.

As always, if you have a visceral hatred for ID, then you probably should stay away from this book. If, however, you're not afraid to interact with actual ID arguments as presented by ID proponents themselves, then this book will be a valuable addition to your library.

After the disastrous implications to Darwinism that were presented at the `Wistar Symposium, April 25 and 26, 1966", Darwinist's have decided to ignore a statistical analysis of the theory. This has led the Darwinists to ignore any honest statistical analysis of the theory. Question or offer an alternative analysis of life's origin and what get you get from those who support the Darwinism are juvenile personal attacks. This implies that Darwinists will not evaluate their theory critically. If you have any questions or honest doubts about Darwinism this book presents an honest evaluation of what the theory lacks, common sense.

Granville Sewell's book is a wonderful collection of colorful beads connected with a shiny thread of intelligent design and apologetics.

Many mathematicians (like the author), physicists, and engineers (like me) who daily wade waist-deep in mathematics have a special affinity for implications of our nerdy disciplines on why we are here. Dr. Sewell speaks to such things on a level understandable to many.

I saw a copy of the manuscript of the book before publication and enjoyed it. When the book was released, I purchased a copy from Amazon for my library. It was fun perusing the contents again; like meeting a few old friends.

Granville Sewell has encapsulated his last 30 years of thinking about design in nature in this short and readable book. His mathematical background comes through strongly in some technical supplements, easily passed over by mathematical newbies, but helpful for the numerically inclined. He uses his background in software development to draw an analogy with the development of the genetic code, and he opens up his personal life to explain how as a scientist, one can rationally understand how God works in our lives. This is perhaps the greatest strength of the book as he concludes with a chapter on "Is God Really Good?"

The first few chapters provide a concise summary of cosmic evolution, fine-tuning, complexity, and perhaps the most surprising idea in the book, that biological evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Obviously the earth receives its share of radiation from the sun, and that energy source plus the four forces of nature is a necessary requirement of the rearrangement of atoms we observe in the world today. Whether that is sufficient is another question, but to state that the high degree of order observed today is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics seems to be overstating it and is an argument from personal incredulity.

Sewell makes several statements that might expose his lack of biology background. He asks the question, "What is the selective advantage of an incomplete vacuum chamber?" in reference to the carnivorous feature of the aquatic bladderwort (p. 76). This is not much different than asking "What is the selective advantage of an incomplete eye?", a question that has been answered many times. Another statement - "I don't see any reason why all living organisms do not constantly decay into simpler components - as, in fact, they do as soon as they die." (p. 77). Surely someone as intimate with the second law of thermodynamics should recognize the equation of oxygen and food energy input that balances the normal degradation of living organisms. Further, he argues that "the phenomenon, known as "convergence," suggests a common design rather than common descent." (p. 79), whereas someone like Simon Conway Morris argues convincingly that convergence is strongly suggestive of common descent. Finally on page 126 Sewell states that "Darwinism is based on very bad science". Assuming by Darwinism he means the mechanisms of random mutations, natural selection and heredity, this statement is sure to alienate the majority of biologists in the world today, both theistic and atheistic.

There is however a gem of a statement on p. 84 proclaiming the wonder of how it is possible that we as humans have evolved. "When you ask [the modern scientist] how a mechanical process such as natural selection could cause human consciousness to arise out of inanimate matter, he doesn't understand what the problem is, and he talks about human evolution as if he were an outside observer, and never seems to wonder how he got inside one of the animals he is studying."

The analogy that Sewell draws between the software development process and the development of the genetic code suffers from the over-reliance on randomness as the driver of change. Sewell is critical of the ability of random mutations to generate novelty, but as a software developer myself, I recognize the significant role played by natural selection as the decision maker analogical to my role.

Sewell identifies himself with the Intelligent Design movement, although he has some sympathy with "theistic evolution". He has an interesting characterization of three worldviews on p. 120. "The atheistic evolutionist has decided a priori that there can be no design in Nature; the theistic evolutionist has decided a priori that there can be design only in the original laws of Nature. ID proponents argue that we should look at the evidence before deciding where there is design." This statement is misleading because theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary creationists) do not attribute design to the laws of Nature but to the author of the laws. Another problem with the statement is that all worldviews recognize design; what the ID worldview is actually attempting to confirm empirically is the evidence of intelligent purpose.

The material in the book was written over a range of many years, and shows a surprising lack of recent references of popular writing in evolutionary biology. Sewell (and the reader) would benefit from pertinent books like Simon Conway Morris's Life's Solutions: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, Harold Morowitz's The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex and Marc Kirschner's The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma.

Sewell has highlighted several problems of undirected naturalism, starting with the origin of mass and energy. He points out that since science now recognizes this Universe had a beginning, both theistic and non-theistic origin speculations involve a non-natural cause, since before time, nature didn't exist. The question is only whether that cause was intelligent or non-intelligent. He recounts the fine-tuning that clearly makes a non-intelligent cause infeasible.
In his mathematical analysis, Sewell points out that entropy, among other phenomena, are tied to the math of probability. He also points out that the front-loading of the genomic complexity to produce characteristics that could produce a possible selective advantage is completely fatal to the purposeless Darwinian scenario.

I highly recommend Sewell's essays for their clear insightful discussion of the key issues that must be grappled with when exploring our origin and the scientific basis of Darwinism and Intelligent Design (ID). His elegant tour de force reveals deep insight.
Sewell summarizes evidence for the "big bang" and the philosophical challenge of whether an intelligent or unintelligent supernatural force created everything out of nothing. Under the "anthropic principle", the parameters of the laws of physics and initial conditions must be extremely finely tuned for our "lush" universe to exist and our "privileged planet" to be habitable.
Mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists clearly see strong probabilistic evidence for Behe's "irreducible complexity" in biochemical systems, indicating "design" rather than nature under the 2nd law. From 2nd law boundary conditions, Sewell shows that "order in an open system cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary."
Sewell exposes the numerous logical fallacies in common objections to ID. E.g., Le Conte's axiom that "everything must have a natural explanation" is commonly applied, but circularly illogical, (by presuming materialism.) With key insight, he challenges critics with - if a irreducibly complex biological feature were found, would the design hypothesis then be justified?
He observes that "front loading" of genes in species prior to their later "evolutionary" use is fatal to Darwinism. Resort to intimidation and suppression and reliance on philosophical and theological objections exposes the vacuity of Darwinian arguments. Sewell explores the greatest objection to ID: the problem of pain. He finds it "an inevitable accompaniment" of natural law, free will, interdependence, and imperfect conditions.

I agree with the excellent three star review by Arnie Berg above and add the following.

While I am not an IDer or one who otherwise finds supernaturalistic explanations interesting or appropriate in the search for naturalistic truths, I do find myself quite aligned with some of Sewell's thinking and find his book otherwise quite thought provoking. The theistic position Sewell discusses, but rejects as inadequate, is much the same view that allows those in many mainstream Christian denominations, such as Presbyterian that was the denomination of my youth, to accept a supernatural causation of the origins of the Universe without interference with natural science studies and thus Evolution or the Naturalistic Parallelism that I have come to accept and have been developing. Sewell writes (p.119):

"'Theistic evolutionists' argue that God created the universe and its laws, and that these laws are sufficient to explain everything we see today. I have no philosophical or theological problem with such a view: the laws God created are very cleverly designed, and they alone probably are sufficient to explain all of chemistry, geology, astronomy and atmospheric science, for example, so it is not surprising that many would insist that it must be possible to explain all of biology using these laws as well. The problem I have with this view is logical: the known laws of physics are indeed very cleverly designed, and may explain everything that has happened on OTHER planets, but they are obviously NOT clever enough to explain all of biology. The atheistic evolutionist has decided a priori that there can be no design in Nature; the theistic evolutionist has decided a priori that there can be design only in the origrinal laws of Nature. ID proponents argue that we should look at the evidence before deciding where there is design."

Actually, it seems that Sewell (and many mainstream Presbyterians) have been using an inappropriate definition of theism. Apparently we should have studied more theology. According to Webster, "theism" is defined as:

"3. a belief in one God who is creator and ruler of the universe and known by revelation: distinguished from deism."

Webster's definition is somewhat similar to what the Evolutionists, Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, of the Biologos Foundation (see at www-biologos-org) write in their THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE AND FAITH (2011):

"BioLogos embraces theism, the belief in a God who cares for and interacts with creation. Theism is different than deism, the belief in a distant, uninvolved creator who is often little more than the sum total of the laws of nature and who is usually not viewed as personal. BioLogos also embraces science as a reliable way to understand the world. [....]

"Theistic evolution is the belief that God created life using natural processes, working within the natural order, in harmony with its laws. [....]"

Clearly, the differing understandings regards "God" and nature as explicated by I.D.ers as Sewell and theists at BioLogos is very nuanced, if there are any. As a student of these matters, it seems to me that both camps need to explain better and demonstrate how they believe God does what God is attributed to doing and having done. How did God naturalistically intervene "in harmony with" the world and how did these hypothesized interactions differ from those that Evolutionsts have historically rebelled against: entelechy, vitalism / elan vital, philosophical idealism, etc.? What exactly is "mind" and "intelligence"? Is "mind" a naturalistic entity that can be properly investigated by science? Or, are "mind" and "spirit" soley supernaturalistic entities beyond the realm of natural science? How does "God" the creator differ from "God" the "interactor"? Are these two separate concepts needing separate words and definitions? Or is just one English language word enough? Note that Dr. Giberson, like Dr. Sewell, is trained as a physicist. Thus, by Dr. Giberson's own lights (but not necessarily mine) he isn't qualified to comment beyond that discipline and thus regards biological or theological matters. One wonders if anyone is so qualified and how such inquiries would fit into natural science. Perhaps an exploration of quantum physics is in order!

While I no longer find Evolution and its required hypotheticals of numerous singularities of common ancestors to be scientifically parsimonious, unlike Sewell (and apparently Evolutionists at Biologos?) I find it unnecessary to interject supernaturalistic causation beyond the fundamental assumptions of natural science. I disagree with the basic position of IDers as Sewell that an intelligent, unknowable agent is a necessary assumption needed to account for the appearance of seemingly designed complexities of nature in the natural history of life on Earth and even regards human intelligence. But I do believe that a position similar to Sewell's regards ultimate origins of the Universe makes more sense, or at least as much sense, than does the multiple universes speculation and its wave function precursor advocated by Atheists (and some non-Atheists) which seems to me also to be no solution at all. Skepticism against the mathematical certitude regards any wave equation is well established by Kurt Godel's proof. I.e., R.B. Braithwaite, in his Introduction to Godel's ON FORMALLY UNDECIDABLE PROPOSITIONS OF PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA AND RELATED SYSTEMS ([1931], 1992) writes that "even in elementary arithmetic there exist propositions which cannot be proved or disproved within the system." While we certainly can't say we can know for sure, it seems to me that this Universe that we live in is the only Universe we can possibly ever know and, due to the great distances light must travel and the rapid expansion of the universe, even knowing this universe is problematical. I.e., we are unable to know or even predict where the starlight that we currently see (from beyond our own galaxy) originates and whether or not those originating stars even currently exist.

I disagree with Sewell's arguments in regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. While Sewell understands and explains the counter arguments put forth by his critics, I believe Sewell misses the point. The point is, in my view and as a non-expert in this area, the Second Law is irrelevant. Consider the following analogy. If one stands out in an open field and witnesses a mysterious object flying up towards the sky, is one automatically to assume that the Law of Gravity has been violated? Would it not be more reasonable to search for a natural cause, including possible human action? Similarly, the Second Law seems to me not relevant to origins of lives and developments on Earth. Sewell quotes a standard counter argument to his position. Peter Urone in College Physics (2001) writes:

"Some people misuse the second law of thermodynamics, stated in terms of entropy, to say that the existence and evolution of life violate the law and thus require divine intervention.... It is true that the evolution of life from inert matter to its present forms represents a large decrease in entropy for living systems. But it is always possible for the entropy of one part of the universe to decrease, provided the total change in entropy of the universe increases."

Sewell comments on Urone by writing (p.68):

"According to this reasoning, then, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal --- and the door is open. (Or the thermal order in the next room is decreasing --- though I'm not sure what the conversion rate is between computers and thermal order!)"

Absolutely correct! The Second Law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer or anything else. However, the Second Law also does not mandate that scrap metal would do so and this is where the statistical analysis often used by IDers over the years is inappropriate in falsely applying pure chance while ignoring necessity. Similarly, if one sees a baseball lying on the ground the Law of Gravity does not absolutely prevent that ball from flying up into the air. It also does not mandate that it do so. That is, if someone came along and applied an upward force to the ball so as to overcome gravity, there is no reason why the ball might not fly up. Thus, despite all the statistics that Creationists or IDers might put forth suggesting the unlikelihood that a computer might assemble itself out of scrap metal --- this and similar such arguments are irrelevant. A computer might be assembled through some extraordinary effort by humans. Self-assembly isn't required and the decrease in entropy need not be supposed to come from the next room but rather from anywhere in the Universe, e.g., the Earth's sun.

Dr. Sewell similarly wrote the following seemingly unusual interpretation of the Second Law. Here the idea of morphogentic fields comes to mind as put forth by philosophers such as Rupert Sheldrake, Amit Goswami,and others. Sewell writes (p.90):

"As I wrote [Sewell 2001], 'order can increase in an open system, not because the laws of probability are suspended when the door is open, but simply because order may walk in through the door... If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered through the Earth's atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here (it would have been violated somewhere else!). But if all we see entering is radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order observed here.'"

Here the idea of morphogenetic fields, not discussed by Sewell but rather important to the thinking of some philosophers and quantum physicists, is invoked in my mind. In the writings of Rupert Sheldrake, Amit Goswami, Henri Bergson, etc., the distinction between naturalistic but abstract mathematical fields and supernaturalism can easily become blurred. But nevertheless, it seems clear to me that even in accepting such abstract thinking, the manmade materialistic complexities of today's world need not have entered, apparently instantaneously, "through the Earth's atmosphere." Rather man's mind and intellectual capabilities are the results of eons of developments here on planet Earth. It is also interesting to consider, in terms of "mind", individual development factors --- from preconception to the old age of any particular organic being.

In regards to the organic world in general, beyond the usual arguments regards natural selection, there are many avenues that can be explored that have likely relevance to the developments of the complexities and appearances of designs of lives over the eons of their existences on Earth. Mathematical-physics and chemistry are ripe with relevant topics such as Benoit Mandelbrot's fractals; Stuart Newman's dynamic patterning modules; hox genes; the ubiquity of Fibonnaci numbers, the golden ratio, etc.; Stuart Kauffman's complexity theory including autocatalysis; emergence at the edge of chaos; and other complex entities and actions at the atomic, subatomic, and molecular levels of both inorganic and organic molecules. D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson's classic, ON GROWTH AND FORM, is a must read and has been followed up recently by Stuart Pivar's interesting torus theory. Going back to inorganic chemistry, R.J.P. Williams and J.J.R. Frausto da Silva's THE NATURAL SELECTION OF THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS(1996) provides some interesting insights towards possible solution of the origins of bacteria flagella made famous by IDer Michael Behe. There are many books in between regards form and apparent design. We also very much need to consider quantum physics and, especially, electromagnetic energy --- i.e., light --- as being highly relevant. A recent "Nova scienceNow" show on PBS featured a very plausible and laboratory tested idea regards the natural formation of a building block of RNA. The book, BIOLOGY'S FIRST LAW by McShea & Brandon (2010), adds to this discussion regards the parallel developments of lives' complexities over the eons. McShea & Brandon add ZFEL, the zero force evolutionary law, to the list of natural considerations of how we arrived at the ecology of today's world. In sum, I see no reason to exclude the belief that Sewell accepts regards the laws of physics as applying to the non-Earth universe as applying also to the biology of Earth. Suzan Mazur, in her THE ALTENBERG 16: AN EXPOSE OF THE EVOLUTION INDUSTRY <www-suzanmazur-dot-com> writes, and I agree (Mazur 2010; p.V):

"Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations. And that self-assembly and self-organization are real, that is, matter can form without a genetic recipe. The snowflake (non-living) assembles this way. And the hydra (living), for example, can re-assemble its scattered cells even after being forced through a sieve. Yet, many scientists term self-assembly and self-organization 'woo woo'."

There thus are numerous mechanisms known to science suggested as drivers of the developments and appearances of designs associated with organisms over the eons of their lives on Earth. While it might be argued whether or not these developments include or don't include increasing "complexity", there has been in any case no difficulty in providing the energy requirements for said developments and apparent designs.

What are the alternatives offered by IDers such as Sewell regards the appearances of design? Are we to just throw up our hands and say that here is some design that was caused by some unknowable intelligence? While identifying supposed 'irreducible complexities' may help focus research in these areas, if our goal is the search for knowledge, how else are the beliefs of IDers as Sewell helpful? To their credit, Dr. Sewell and his publisher explicitely state (p.126):

"The Discovery Institute CSC [Center for Science and Culture] opposes any effort to require ID in science classes, it only promotes teaching `strengths and weaknesses' of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory."

Such a statement is certainly laudable. I would add to that the need to "teach the controversy" not just in schools but also in regards to public pronouncements by Evolutionists on such programs as PBS's "Nova" and "Nova scienceNow." A recent program, for example, once again left the tv audience with the impression that genomic dating techniques using molecular clocks are uncontroversial. In reality, the scientific literature, including "Nature", demonstrates just the opposite. Contrary to the Max Planck Institute's statement as expressed on the "Nova scienceNow" show, the scientific literature clearly leads one to the conclusion that there are problems both with different rates of mutations along separate DNA sequences and also with calibration of any wished for clock.

Ultimately Sewell's argument raises the classical question, Does mind arise from matter as the philosophy of dualistic realism and classical physics suggest or is mind the underlying entity of the universe from which matter is formed as the philosophy of monistic idealism and quantum physics would suggest? See the works of Amit Goswami, Peter B. Lloyd, George Berkeley, etc. Perhaps it will someday be possible to develop a research program, undoubtedly based on quantum physics, that begins with the assumption of mind first, i.e., of cosmic consciousness underlying all that is, and from this initial assumption make discoveries regards just how it is that the complexities and apparent designs of material life have arisen from this mind. In high energy physics there has been an ongoing search for the Higgs particle (the so-called "God particle".) Beyond this, I am not aware of any program outside of the biblical revelation that Sewell rightly rejects as a useful scientific paradigm. (Would Jesus be a Bible Literalist? For some lively discussions regards theological dogma verses Evolution dogma, see the Biologos Foundation website <www-biologos-org>.)

These are some of the views of Naturalistic Parallelism that I subscribe to and continue to develop and whereby internal mathematical, chemical, and physical laws and necessities coupled with observable facts associated with organic beings are the basis whereby Evolution is falsified. That is, Evolution is naturalistically falsified as being non-parsimonious. Specifically, the numerous singularities required by Evolution at origins of life and afterwards regards common ancestors of all species fails in comparison to the alternative, global biogenesis and parallel developments.

DarwinGuyDan

[See also DarwinGuy's comments regards reviews of Jerry Coyne's WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE. See the 2 star review of "BruceDavidBruce." Click comments, newest first for DarwinGuy. See the 3 star review of "Phospho1". Click comments, newest first for DarwinGuy.]

The western/middle eastern interpretation of religion seems primitive. It presupposes that creator is separate from the creation. There is another point of view as propounded by the seers in Upanishads "You are That", creation is not separate from the creator. The world, the universe itself is divine and is evolving. We are mutually arising in the world.

Just another rehashing of creationist nonsense; pseudoscience dressed up with "sciencey" sounding words is still nothing but quackery. This book contains all the traditional creationist lies and propaganda, e.g. evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, all of which have been refuted ad nauseum. Don't worry, if you are a fan of intelligent design then you aren't going to open your eyes and ears to any of that fancy "evidence" so long as it contradicts your world view, and you will probably love this book.

I'd give this book 5 stars if it were being sold as fiction or comedy. As a science book, however, this is pure drivel.