Rating: 
Summary: Evolution Confronts Existential Angst
Review: I hope that heading doesn't turn you off, but the novelty of this book is that its author debates creationism philosophically. Please bear with me a bit. Pennock hasn't written a book that will cause drowsiness in the average lay reader, rather he has penned one that skips the usual biological nuts and bolts arguments, and covers some interestingly different territory. RTP spends time acquainting the reader with the beliefs of the young world creationists, and then spends a major amount of time discussing the approach of the newer Intelligent Design Creationists (IDC). These creationists avoid old weary arguments such as the one that evolution would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and focus more directly on intelligent design versus the randomness of evolution. Essential to most creationist arguments for inclusion of their views in science education is the argument that creationism is a viable alternate to evolution and thus should be given equal time in the classroom. Pennock, a philosopher of science, points out that such a point is a logical fallacy, creating a false dilemma. The creationists are implying (or sometimes stating) that there are only two alternatives. In fact there are a wide variety of religious views on the subject, ranging from the Native American Modoc tribe to practioners of Shintoism. One researcher has noted that there are 23,000 different religious denominations in America. Which one has the truth? Many Christian denominations accept that evolution is not a threat to their religious beliefs. Pope John Paul II made a statement supporting evolutionary theory. So what we have are religious fundamentalists deciding that their religious views on the subject are the only tenable ones, and that their beliefs should be the only acceptable alternative to evolution. The author spends some time discussing the evolution of languages. If one takes the bible seriously you believe that the current variety of languages is a result of the tower of Babel incident. This is an interesting topic, but is not the major subject of the book. Pennock believes that the strong, hostile opposition to evolution is not about science, but involves the search for meaning in life. Some believers cannot accept the possibility that there may not be a God directed purpose to life. They feel that without God their lives would be meaningless. Perhaps they should observe the many people who lead happy, productive lives even thought they don't share theological principles with creationists. This is a wonderful book If you are new to the evolution-creation debate I would recommend that you read a book on the basics of evolutionary theory first. Good ones to start with are Phillip Kitcher's "Abusing Science", or Douglas Futuyama's "Science on Trial". One of the stars awarded this book is for some great quotations. Here's a sampling:
1. "It's good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out." Bertrand Russell (I think)
2. "For every complex problem there is a simple, easy to understand, incorrect answer".
Rating:
Summary: The Bible of Logic
Review: By the end of Chapter six, Pennock is beating a dead horse. He systematically subverts the very foundation of Intelligent Design "Theory" without attacking religion or denying the existence of God. Biology professors should read this book if they want to be able to counter seemingly difficult questions from indoctrinated creationist students such as, "Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if evolutionary theory is right?" and "How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?". Pennock ingeniously points out the consistent flaws of Intelligent Design Theory and the tactics used by its adherents in their attempt to circumvent Judge Overton's decision on the issue. While Creationists are busy trying to determine whether or not Adam had a belly button, Pennock is busy illustrating the nature of science and the elegance of evolutionary theory. The Creationists book, "Of Pandas and People" is analyzed and undermined thoroughly, as Pennock explains its dual-model tactic and negative argumentation against evolution. If you've encountered a vocal creationist and were unable to defend against their offensive rhetoric, this book is a must. Creationist absurdities pointed out in this book will give you a good laugh too. Definitely a fun and educational read. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: Intelligent review of Intelligent Design
Review: When reading about the evolution/creationism controversy, I take notes on stuff that is both interesting and new. I read a lot in this area, so I usually don't find much in a single book anymore that meets both criteria, but after finishing Pennock, I had fourteen pages of notes! Hence the five-star rating. Pennock's own analogies and his puncturing others' analogies (e.g., Michael Behe's) made difficult concepts easier to understand; but this is still a densely detailed, closely analyzed, college-level review of Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC), so be prepared for an intellectual workout. Chapter 1 reviews the historical development of and differences between a variety of creationist factions: traditional "young-Earth" creationism; more liberal "old-Earth" creationism and its "gap," "day-age," "revelatory day," and "progressive" factions; and distinguishing them from IDC. Pennock distinguishes between internal and external questions about the material world, questions respectively about operational characteristics and history on one hand, and origin, value, and purpose on the other; and argues that science properly deals only with internal questions, not external questions, a distinction some creationists and social Darwinists ignore. Chapter 2 describes how some creationists use the Bible as "proof," a procedure antithetical to conventional science; however, Pennock (jokingly, I think) identifies several "proof texts" supporting evolution. He also examines the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, comparing them to buckets and flashlights. He says creationists fill buckets with isolated facts, but seldom examine the relationships between the facts they are collecting; while evolutionists collect facts too, but then analyze them to identify relationships that can function as flashlights to illuminate the path ahead and reveal even more facts. Creationist failures to "connect the dots" this way is a recurring theme. Pennock defines evolution, an important exercise, since creationist definitions are often incomplete and misleading, e.g., defining evolution as a purely random process or as being limited to natural selection. He also examines the claim that "survival of the fittest" is a meaningless tautology, comparing it to "May the best team win." Chapter 3 analogizes biological evolution to the evolution of language. Some reviewers didn't like this particular analogy. Having a substantial background in linguistics, I found it interesting. Pennock shows how the English version of The Lord's Prayer evolved over several centuries, compares "designed" Esperanto and natural languages, and discusses Cavalli-Sforza's research comparing human DNA differences to language differences. Pennock examines the misguided creationist complaint that individual dogs don't evolve into cats, and points out that evolution works on populations, not individuals. He shows how Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" made essentially the same blunder of analogizing evolution to individual actions. Behe's Blunder comes up very frequently in creationist literature, so knowing how to rebut it is very useful. The creationist "arrow" analogy is similarly flawed; Pennock's analysis makes that analogy miss its target as well. Pennock's view of the difference between fact and theory was both new and enlightening. Chapter 4 is one of the most helpful chapters I have ever read on creationism, whether IDC, old-Earth, or young-Earth. Creationism relies VERY heavily on a debating trick called "false dichotomy." Pennock exposes the trick and shows how to rebut it. Anyone who wants to understand why creationist arguments can be so wrong and yet sound so right should read this chapter. Chapter 5 discusses some common, hilarious (or pathetic) creationist blunders, such as Henry Morris' mistranslation of "behemoth's tail" (Job 40:15), lunar dust, Paluxy "man-tracks," and population growth rates as young-Earth evidence. Pennock shows that Behe's rebuttal of Gould's "Panda's Thumb" was exactly right, then shows that Behe's rebuttal is just as devastating to IDC itself. He also analyzes the difference between information and intelligence and shows how IDC's confuse the two concepts. He details how Behe's concept of irreducible complexity at the molecular level was refuted - in 1918! The details here are just wonderful. He also questions the power of a concept that has generated exactly ZERO professional research articles. Chapter 6 analyzes the common, creationist error of arguing that naturalist methodology amounts to naturalist philosophy, i.e., atheism. The analogies used to illustrate the error are amusing, memorable, and right on target. His comments about chaos and also the "poor in spirit" made me laugh. Chapter 7 discusses the alleged moral relationships of evolution, atheism, existentialism, absolute truth, etc., especially as used by Phillip Johnson. These are key issues, but I've seen them discussed elsewhere, so I'll just say that Pennock's treatment is as good as the others I've read, more thorough than many, and more specifically focused on IDC. Chapter 8 specifically discusses public school education. Pennock includes a very brief summary of some recent court cases, highlighting their concern over viewpoint discrimination and pointing out how creationists discriminate by demanding special treatment for the Biblical creation myth, while refusing to grant similar status to other creation myths from Greek mythology, American Indian mythology, etc. Some earlier reviewers seem to have missed the point. An Oxford reader decries alleged typos and factual errors, but his review contains three misspellings and a few factual errors itself. "Mathematics has been a thorn in Darwinism's side for decades." Really? R.A. Fisher, one of the giants of 20th century mathematics was also a VERY prominent evolutionist. Regressive analysis, a powerful, mathematical tool was recently invented - by evolutionists. So much for factual errors! A Boca Raton reader asks" Is neo-Darwinism in such trouble that its only defenders are philosophers who don't know much about science?" As Pennock points out, we could ask whether IDC is in such trouble that its primary defender is Phillip Johnson, who openly boasts that he doesn't know much about science! A Charlotte reader says Pennock falsely accuses creationists of "demonizing" evolutionists. But a Pasadena reader blames Darwin for, ". . . Marx to Freud to Lenin to Stalin to Hitler to WW II to moral and cultural relativism. . . ." Gee. No demonizing there, is there! Pennock's book is outstanding. I recommend it highly!
Rating:
Summary: Much-Needed Antidote to Intelligent Design Creationism
Review: Bashing Darwin has never gone out of style, but creationists seem to be taking it to new heights. This book will not convert any creationists, but it will allow those who accept the Darwin's theory of evolution as the best scientific explanation for the origin and development to better understand the bewildering array of anti-scientific and pseudoscientific arguments presented by Darwin's critics. Anyone who is a scientist or who wants to become one needs to read this book to hone their critical thinking skills in the face of those who don't want us to do science but rather want us to be done with science.
Rating: 
Summary: Undisguised hatch job
Review: Any book that purportedly "refutes creationists" will get five stars from dogamtic atheists, even if that book is as riddled with typos, misquotations, factual errors, and sloppy logic as Pennock's "Tower of Babel." Pennock is a philosopher of science (not a working scientist) who takes issue with the so-called "new creationism." The "new creationism" he castigates is really a branch of mathematical science that is rapidly formulating theorums to formally distinguish between randomness and design. This branch of science was universally recognized as valid and legitimate until orthodox Darwinists realized that its conclusions effectively negated the theory that biological evolution happens purely by chance. (Mathematics has been a thorn in Darwinism's side for decades.) So how does Pennock refute this "new creationism?" First, he spends most of his book refuting the Old Creationism, i.e., Young-Earthers. It's pretty easy to show that the earth is old, and for the most part, this is taken as de facto proof that life is the product of mindless natural selection. Then he makes the most startingly intellectual failure I have ever seen: he says that language "evolved," and this evolution proves by analogy that life evolved without conscious direction or planning. I have a background in linguistics. The first thing that any linguist learns is that language changes through the principle of common usage. In short, languages change because people change them. People qualify as intelligent agents - even people like Pennock. In fact, outside of the minds of intelligent agents, language does not even exist. That's why languages die with their last speakers. Moreover, there is absolutely no "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection" mechanism in linguistics. It's all simply common usage. For example, the rampant use of the word "like" is hardly an evolutionary advancement. It degrades language; the usage of "like" isn't survival of the fittest in any sense. Intelligent design is an important contribution to science with deep roots in information and complexity theories. As the science advances, it will have an important role in biotechnology, encryption, genetics, and other fields - even linguistics, since we're increasingly moving into an age of "designer language." To condemn and kill a branch of science because it doesn't fit with one's speculation about how life evolved is pure dogmatism, period. The Big Bang also tends to weigh in on the side of theism rather than atheism, but the Big Bang is a fruitful model of science that has served us well. (And the atheists have been able to sleep better at night by supposing, without a shred of evidence, that we're a "bubble universe" and that there are all kinds of "parallel universes" without life, so we can continue to suppose that there is no God to whom we owe anything.) In the same way, atheists can accept Intelligent Design theory with other creative evasions - e.g., life on earth was designed by aliens, life "designs itself" on a cellular level, information from the future comes back to the past and shapes life, etc. Pennock's book - and its positive reviewers - are just another example of adherents of an old paradigm fighting to preserve their theory, their religion (Evolutionary Humanism), and their funding.
Rating:
Summary: Darwin needs better defenders....
Review: Is neo-Darwinism in such trouble that the only defenders of the theory are philosophers who don't know much about science? Judging from the bombastic offerings of men like Pennock, I think we're in for a major paradigm shift SOON. Pennock's rant is against the so-called "New Creationism." By this, he means a movement called "Intelligent Design" that has made some inroads in various circles in recent years. Rather than refuting the movement's science, he simply takes cheap shots. The book's sub-title, "The New Creationism," equates ID with the young-earth creationism of 50 years ago, implying that ID is just an offshoot of junk science. That said, the book may as well end. But Pennock continues. He says that evolution happened through blind chance, without any need of a guiding intelligent agent, because language has also evolved. Since Latin can evolve into Spanish, we're told, then bacteria can evolve in squirrels and blueberries. He goes after ID supporter Phillip Johnson, a lawyer, by saying that if intelligent design were introduced into the field of law, the results would be disasterous. Criminals would just say that God or the Devil did their crimes, and who could disprove them? Pennock's errors are so profound that I'm sure a whole new class of fallacy will be named after him in future years. Let me sum them up: 1. Human language evolves. That is beyond question. But how does it evolve? It evolves because human beings use language and change it. Therefore, language evolution counts as intelligent design, not random, chance-driven evolution. Phillip Johnson posed this argument to Pennock in a debate in a magazine called Books and Culture, and Pennock was either unable or unwilling to reply to it in his rebuttal, which consisted mostly of a personal attack on Johnson. 2. The truth is that law - and most fields outside evolutionary biology - readily operate on the principles of intelligent design. For example, if a car hits a pole and the driver dies of blunt trauma consistent with the impact, it is readily concluded that the death was a random, chance event. It the driver is found with a butcher knife shoved into his heart and a bullet in his brain, it is readily concluded that he was murdered by an intelligent agent. Law couldn't function if it operated on the principles of evolutionary biology - instead, we'd have to consider that the axe in the Sharon Tate's skull was put there through a gradual, random process. Again, Johnson himself posed this argument to Pennock, who failed to rebut it. Pennock fails because he mistakenly thinks that ID requires a "supernatural" creator who creates his animals through miracles. "Poof," says God, and an antelope bounds the plains. If ID did say this, Pennock may have some grounds. But ID says no such thing. ID can be considered a form of intelligence-guided evolution. Most ID proponents readily admit that life evolved through a common ancestor - they just say the process was guided. Pennock has no argument against this, so he substitutes angry, emotional rhetoric. I'm not saying ID is right; perhaps in the future we'l discover that cells are intelligent themselves, and guide their own evolution. IN that event, our happy, complacent atheism will remain intact, and we can continue with our abortions, gay sex, Capitalism, and pornography without worrying about whether there is a creator who might judge us. But let's face it - neo-Darwinism is a sham. It's time for a new paradigm.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Refutation of Creationism
Review: Pennock's book is a lively, readable and current account of the ideas and recent history of creationism, or "creation science". It is comprehensive in its scope and provides an excellent introduction to the issues and events of modern anti-Darwinism. Pennock's book has three virtues: he brings the subject up to date; he provides another way to deal with anti-evolutionism through a nice discussion of the evolution of languages; and more than any other book, he deals with the "Intelligent Design" movement that is currently having some success resurrecting Paleyesque arguments from design in the intellectual arena in America. Increasingly, that influence is being felt elsewhere, particularly in Catholic circles. Pennock takes an unusual tack. Rather than trying, yet again, to explain Darwinian theory in biology and its implications and uses, he chooses instead to discuss another story from Genesis, from which the book gets its name. The biblical etiology of language at the tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9 immediately follows the Noachian flood stories that figure so prominently in creationist accounts. The parallels are instructive. Languages were realised to be the result of an evolutionary process of common descent long before Darwin, when "homological" words showed the affinity of Sanskrit to modern European languages. A "higher taxon" was diagnosed, the Indo-European family of languages, and its discoverer, Sir William Jones, supposed in 1786 that the best explanation was that all had evolved from a common ancestral tongue, which he called Indo-European, thus founding comparative linguistics. Like species and higher biological taxa, languages blur at the edges, and like them too, there are sub-taxon variants, dialects. And like biological evolution, linguistic evolution contradicts the biblical account, and has been similarly attacked by biblical literalists. Pennock uses August Schleicher's elaboration of Jones' hypothesis to illustrate common difficulties some have with evolution such as the "missing link" objection and the heuristic issues of a science dealing with past events, particularly the lack of direct observation and the status of (linguistic) evolution as both factual and theoretical, the latter being an explanation of the former. Creationists often claim that evolutionary theory is "just a faith", uncannily echoing the views of postmodern critics of science. Indeed, the more erudite creationists often cite Kuhn and, more rarely but more appropriately, Feyerabend. Pennock discusses the "faith objection", but I would have liked to see creationism placed in the broader context of late twentieth century anti-science reaction. One point he does make is that what distinguishes postmodern and relativistic sociological accounts of science from creationism is that the latter is ultimately absolutist. They do not think, as Feyerabend does, that a thousand flowers should bloom. They think that they have it right - their faith is the True Faith and all else, particularly evolution, is Bad Faith. But apart from this, the similarities are instructive. Both rely upon textual discourse in preference to empirical data, both exhibit ahistorical interpretation of texts, both deny that unaided human cognitive enterprise can approach the truth. Still, is it fair to place the "new creationists", the IDCs, in the same boat as the rest? Here we have respectable philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, Paul Nelson and William Dembski, along with scientists like Michael Behe, and a professor of law at Berkeley, Philip Johnson, all arguing a sophisticated line based on a seemingly good knowledge of history, probability theory, and epistemology, biochemistry, information theory and many other fields. Pennock amply demonstrates that they are in that boat, and how their arguments swerve from being philosophical to explicitly or implicitly theological. Recent claims by Behe that systems that are "irreducibly complex" cannot evolve through Darwinian processes have generated rebuttals from biologists and philosophers alike. Pennock's treatment is clear, although not as sophisticated as theirs, but he reworks one of Behe's parables to good effect. Behe illustrates his views by the probability that a groundhog would mate across an eight-lane highway (rebutting speciation and adaptation). Pennock's version memorably demolishes Behe's, substituting a population of groundhogs, some of whom make it to lane dividers and reproduce before tackling the next lane, illustrating Darwinian processes admirably. Behe's claims are then related to Dembski's notion of "complex specified information" (CSI) which is a reiteration of Aquinas' argument from design and attempts to turn information theory against Darwin. Pennock aims at explaining what is wrong with CSI without overwhelming the reader with calculus or technical terms. The political aspect of creationism in America is crucial to understanding it, and here Pennock is at his best. The various manoeuvres creationists use to avoid being seen as pushing a theological agenda rather than a scientific one are exposed in detail. This is vital for them in the United States, where school boards are democratically elected, not appointed, and have control over the curriculum standards of a state, and where the constitution and several higher court rulings prohibit publicly-funded state schools from favouring a particular religious position. Again and again Pennock shows how the arguments used against science by the creationists resolve to reliance upon biblical hermeneutics or a disavowal of scientific methodology or justification. Elsewhere in the world creationists find this strategy less effective, for example in Australia or Europe, and there their influence is restricted to media exposure or - as in Queensland in the 1980s - personal influence with a government comprised of Protestant conservatives. The creationist movement, and in particular the ID movement, represents a general decline of trust in science and support for it in the western world. Tower of Babel is an excellent documentation of one noisy strand of that decline. Philosophers and historians of science will find it replete with anecdotes and examples illustrating the misuse and abuse of science by the general public and intellectuals alike.
Rating:
Summary: Fair-minded and thoughtful critique of creationism
Review: Pennock achieves the difficult task of exposing the theoretical weaknesses of creationism without taking a shrill or strident tone. He carefully takes apart the arguments of contemporary Intelligent Design Creationists such as Philip Johnson, thereby providing a valuable polemical resource for defenders of evolutionary biology. He keeps the science simple, but he provides enough technical sinew to avoid oversimplification. It's written for a lay audience in clear, elegant prose. Unlike many books in the debunking genre, Babel seeks to reconcile religion and science, to show a path along which people of faith may preserve their cherished values while still accepting the main tenets of evolutionary biology. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Strong on science, weak on philosophy
Review: I have to rate the book highly as I found the discussion of the issues excellent. I also found the discussion of the principles of evolution and the scientific case for it to be excellent. However, I was less impressed with Pennock's philosophical discussions. Pennock uses a few short pages in order to present a case for finding common ground between evolutionists and creationists. My perspective is that I find the strenth of the argument for evolution to be strong, but like a Creationist, I fear that Darwinism leads to a loss of meaning of life and morals. I found Pennock's attempts to dispell such fears and find common ground lacking. Pennock argues that while evolution may show that God isn't required for Man's presense on Earth, it doesn't prove God doesn't exist. Pennock says that there can be other reasons to believe in God, yet he doesn't offer any. Pennock begrudgingly admits that darwinism makes it easier to be an athiest. Without evolution, there isn't another acceptable theory for the existance of Man except creationism. But while Pennock admits that darwinism makes it easier to be an athiest, he seems to deny that it makes it harder to be a Christian. But clearly, if there is no particular requirement for God to exist, there is less reason to believe He does exist. Pennock argues that even if Darwinism does lead to athiesm, that does not directly lead to a loss of meaning or morals. He argues that a Christian knows that God would not order someone to create mass murder. The fact that we know this is evil and therefore God would not order it implies that the concepts of good and moral exist apart from God. Therefore, even someone who believes in God should see that God does things because they are good and moral rather than God makes them good and moral. However, even if this were true in the case of such seemingly obvious moral choices, I believe that there are moral choices that are beyond Man's ability to truly decide. For example, the issue of animal experimentation. Seemingly moral arguments can be made on both sides. Who is to say which is right if there is no God to say which is right? And even in the seemingly obvious moral issues, it isn't as obvious as Pennock would lead us to believe. I agree that the vast majority of people would immediatly argue that Hitler's attempts to exterminate the Jews was immoral. But there are still at least a small minority of people who would argue that it was a great idea and we should finish the job. So seemingly obvious moral choices aren't universal. But why do most people see Hitler as immoral? I believe Pennock would argue that shows the inherit immorality of Hitler's actions. Or, is it simply immoral because we've all been told it is immoral? "It is immoral because it is immoral," a "vacuous tautology" as Pennock would say? And that the only way for it to not be a "vacuous tautology" is for God to say it is not a vacuous tautolgy and it is immoral because God commands it is immoral? Finally, Pennock argues that even if you choose to believe that Darwinism leads to the conclusion that the universe is meaningless, that does not mean one could not choose to find meaning in their lives, family, and friends. In other words, Pennock offers "acting as if" life has meaning is a satisfactory substitute for it actually having meaning. Well, I respectfully disagree with this assessment. In conclusion, I found it a powerful book, at least scientifically. So I have to recommend the book even if I disagree with the authors philosophical arguments.
Rating: 
Summary: Tower of Babel
Review: this review pertains to the topic of the Tower of Babylon more than the book its self. There is relevance to Revelation, Genesis and Daniel here in 2,001. How? If you have and know how to use your bible concordance (and are feeling so inclined) you will discover that our space program is very reminiscent of the Tower of Babel (sorry to burst your bubble) and the so called fall of mankind in the garden of Eden (if you are looking for common threads you will find them). If you will recall, the snake promised that the (increased) knowledge that came with the fruit (like the increased knowledge predicted to happen in Earths final(last) days) would enable Eve, and later Adam, to become as the gods who said, come, let US make man in OUR image. Then, after the close call with extinction at the (so-called "flood") (which I am allowing for some possibility in my mind may have occurred in some facsimile) It is said that after repopulating, in BABYLON, that the tower of Babel was constructed which would (enable man to) reach up into the heavens (so they could be with the gods and become as the gods, having their own chariots of fire)(hold this thought). Obviously, humans once again, here seek to become as the gods while trying to work out their own salvation's (preserve themselves from future extinction). Why else build the tower of Babel? A world wide flood with but a few surviving (think of it in symbolic terms, because currently I do, too) is a close call with extinction. Then, fastforward to Babylon, in Daniel. Daniel is said to have interpreted a dream of king Nebucanezzer's(sp?) to which the king erects an image of solid gold (an act of defiance) as a symbol that his (man's) kingdom shall endure forever (a form of denial that persists still as Daniel's interpretation predicts that all subsequent kingdoms shall be inferior to Babylon in splendor). Fastforward to our space program of today. Once again, it appears, we are repeating what those kings of Babylon attempted, as predicted in Revelations, that the Babylon in the last days would do, which is to construct (launch) towers that will enable us to reach up (travel) into the heavens and attempt, you guessed it, a settlement on Mars (we spend billions if not trillions of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on this currently). Why? Ultimately, we know that we are not being good stewards of the Earth (there is a passage that says that God comes to destroy those who destroy the Earth. Funny, conservatives, those who beat others over the head with their bibles, are usually the worst when it comes to being conservationists). So, our space program serves as our foot out the backdoor in case (when) we have trashed the Earth too much or...(don't you wish those trillions of $$$$$$$$$$$$$were being spent on reforestation, alternative fuel sources, cleaning up the environment...maybe even helping other nations to build sustainable economies so they can get out of living next to their sewers and have clean water to drink) Like it or not, there is much relevance here and the (launch) towers of old may have been our early ancestors trying to copy what they saw in their day. Those pharaohs of Egypt may have not been so mistaken when they went to such great lengths to preserve their bodies. With todays scientific minds, it is easy to see that they may have been hoping to have their well preserved cells cloned (when the gods returned) into making a twin (hey, a twin of the king and his family is better than no twins at all). Though Earth's history is long, homo saphiens' history may actually be a little more or less than 100,000 years old (which may explain how homo erectus may have taken a sudden evolutionary leap (the missing link) with the help of the Gods who knew how to genetically engineer homo erectus into the more advanced homo saphien with the help of a "rib bone", or knee bone or...)think about it...Towers of Babel of old=Towers of NASA, today?
| 
