So I read a good part of your link, and it is obvious from the give and take on the thread that Sewell is clueless.
Again, explain how the processes involved in evolution are physically different from metabolism, growth, learning. What physical laws are violated, speciffically by variation and selection.
No shell games. Just tell me where the pea is.
I'm having a bad case of deja-vu... (that's a little French for those of you not from Canada or the Bayou). I think you asked that question before and I think I answered, and pointed you to some writers and books who have laid out this argument in far more detail than I can here.
You can come to whatever conclusions you want; it's not my goal to convince anyone of any position here. The science is precise and involved, and too easily misunderstood, caricatured, or plain misrepresented to lend itself to much elucidation in this forum. Science is done best when it is pursued objectively, rationally, without emotional agendas and partisan nastiness. The drive-by potshots taken here by "some" may make the poster's feel smart, but many times it turns out that isn't the final story (to say the least).
If I find a chunk of time I'll read everything that's been published on this topic and reformulate the arguments in such a way that all the knee-jerk evolutionist half-rebuttals about snowflaks and anything-being-possible-as-long-as-you-have-the-sun are addressed and post it here. That is if I can understand it!!! (insert neanderthalic saracastic grunt here)
By the way, good job on clicking on that link and reading some of it. Don't tell everyone though: the RWP's of this world believe that even acknowledging that "the enemies of science" should be given the time of day by reading their stuff is going to bring about the end of all progress. Oops, I guess there's no such thing as progress in strictly evolutionary terms. Never mind. Whatever you people call it when things get better. Hmm, better won't work either. How about less chaotic?
That may or may not be. It's always a shame when the fact that someone has a science PhD from a respectable institution, is a tenured professor, has published peer-reviewed articles and books doesn't mean you should accept everything he has to say, eh?
Just for the sake of completeness, I wonder if you could post just one or two examples to back up your claim that he is clueless. I always prefer it when claims are backed up with evidence. Just a creationist quirk of mine.