Home :: Books :: Christianity  

Arts & Photography
Audio CDs
Audiocassettes
Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Children's Books
Christianity

Comics & Graphic Novels
Computers & Internet
Cooking, Food & Wine
Entertainment
Gay & Lesbian
Health, Mind & Body
History
Home & Garden
Horror
Literature & Fiction
Mystery & Thrillers
Nonfiction
Outdoors & Nature
Parenting & Families
Professional & Technical
Reference
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Sports
Teens
Travel
Women's Fiction
Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism

Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism

List Price: $55.00
Your Price: $55.00
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: An important and timely work
Review: I first heard about "Tower of Babel" because of its discussion of linguistic evolution, and I have to say when I read that fine section I thought it would be the high point of the book. Pennock, however, has much more in mind when he takes on Phillip Johnson and the other Intelligent Design Creationists (IDC). His criticism of Johnson's slippery conception of "naturalism" is devastating, and shows not just how damaging a theistic science would be to all of science, but how it would impoverish theology at the same time. Despite predictable complaints that he is biased against religion, Pennock is clearly sympathetic to religious beliefs.

Pennock shows the deep similarities in argument between IDC and more "traditional" creationists, and makes a good case that their shared fears of evolution are based a shared sense of existential angst. He argues that this is essential for understanding why creationists are so concerned about the teaching of evolution.

This is an important book that shows a thorough understanding of creationist views. People who are tired of the same old arguments will find much valuable insight here.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Checking for the devil in the lettuce
Review: I heard Robert Pennock's vivid and powerful presentation at a theism and science philosophy conference in 1997, where I first heard of "the problem of the devil lettuce". St. Gregory reported a case of a woman who ate a devil in the form of a lettuce, or invisibly hiding therein. Pennock questioned how we can know this to be true, and demonstrated that "theistic science" shares the same problem. "We can observe mutation, recombination, inheritance, natural selection, and the resultant changes in gene frequencies in populations. Can the creationist do as well with the Creation hypothesis? On this point, I now issue another challenge to [UC Berkeley professor of law Phillip E.] Johnson to come clean: Are divine interventions occurring today in particular cases? If so, which ones, and how do we tell? If not, why not, and again, how do we check?" (pp.297-298.) In discussions afterward, he spoke of writing a book that would broaden and strengthen his arguments from the conference, which is now available as the incisive and compelling "Tower of Babel". There are both compatibilist and anti-evolutionary creationists, where the compatibilists accept the findings of modern science as unthreatening to their spiritual beliefs. Pennock authoritatively describes a variety of factions within anti-evolutionary creationism whose tenets are mutually incompatible severally amongst themselves, but who share an adversarial stance against both modern evolutionary biology and their compatibilist brethren. Pennock's main subjects are the "Intelligent Design Creationists" (IDC), a recent offshoot which comprises the "New Creationism" of the book's subtitle. "Intelligent design" proposes that certain systems are simply too complex and functional to have come about without an intelligent designer, and that science will be better off once its reliance upon "naturalism" is discarded. The IDC group seeks on one hand to distance themselves from the legal entanglements raised by young-earth creationist factions in Alabama and Louisiana in the 1980s, and on the other to provide a non-denominational anti-evolutionary bandwagon that everyone can climb aboard. IDCs look forward to the quick collapse of naturalistic biology and the establishment of a richer and more productive "theistic science" to take its place. But the IDCs present a God-of-the-gaps apologetic and rely upon negative argumentation rather than specifying that new approach for scientific investigation and pedagogy. As Pennock notes, "If intelligent-design theorists were to wear their religious colors openly, they could not hope to gain a foothold in the public school classrooms." (p.276.) Although Pennock provides many cogent criticisms of anti-evolutionary stances and arguments, he is not simply taking up a knee-jerk anti-creation stance. His discussion of the core concerns of creationists of all stripes -- the desire for moral conduct and the need to have purpose -- specifically addresses how acceptance of science as it is currently constituted does not displace or threaten those values, despite the misappropriation of science for promotion of atheism by some authors. Pennock offers a spirited defense of "methodological naturalism" as a necessary part of scientific method, along the way pointing out the consequences of re-admitting supernatural explanation into the law (remember witches and the devil lettuce), as IDC and law professor Phillip E. Johnson wishes science to re-admit supernatural explanation. A theistic science also runs the risk of "naturalizing" God, with the result being a God who is not really very godly. Pennock employs analogy to clarify and educate, as seen in his example of the creationist theory of origin of languages (God's fiat creation of the world's languages at the Tower of Babel) versus linguistic evolution and its parallels with creationism and biological evolution. Various anti-evolutionary creationists do reject linguistic evolution on just those grounds, and Pennock argues that a consistent literalist creationism must do so. But there is less ego-involvement in the concept of change in languages than there is in consideration of one's ancestry, and so Pennock hopes that examination of the parallel case may help those who accept the anti-evolutionary arguments see where those arguments have weaknesses. Another analogy comes in the form of the Raelian movement and its anti-evolutionary creation story of UFO-using alien biologists producing life on earth. IDCs invoke the SETI project as a case in which an unknown designer of a message can be recognized, and promote a conjecture of intelligent design of life on earth. "If so, then it looks as though the conclusion we should draw is that we were designed and created by intelligent extraterrestrials." (p.233.) It would seem that the IDCs should merge with the Raelians, who claim special revelation of just such extraterrestrial design of life on earth and who also claim that evolutionary biology is misconceived. But these two groups are, in practice, also inimical to each other, despite the similarities in argument and mode of argumentation. "Tower of Babel" advocates a robust science that works for everyone, and opposes the substitution of bad theology posing as science in our classrooms. I recommend it highly as a detailed overview of a complex and controversial topic.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: A Great Introduction to Problems with Creationism
Review: Having just completed a survey of contemporary creationist literature, I was struck by how little serious scientific response there is to Intelligent Design Creationism, the latest incarnation of Biblical creationism. I guess this is because scientists generally don't take it seriously and they have better things to do. This is unfortunate, since creationism is very widely believed in this country and a number of recent books by creationists have been big sellers. This book should remedy that situation, at least in part. Pennock methodically shows the problems with the creationist positions. He concentrates on logical errors in their arguments and inconsistencies in their positions. He makes a very good case against creationism. Sadly, responses to specific pieces of negative evidence (the complexity of hemoglobin, for example) are beyond the scope of this book and the curious reader will have to go elsewhere to supplement that portion of the argument. The book is careful and neutral in style, lacking the bombast of a number of the popular writers on both side of this issue. Highly recommended.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Save your money.
Review: The book gets one star for the author having read the material hecritiques -- an innovative approach for his position. But reading does't mean understanding. Quick take: the book's language may make Darwinians feel good, but will ill-prepare them for actual issues. It systematically misrepresents Darwin's critics. Don't believe me? It's your money.

The book starts out explaining it won't question sincerity or intent of people who criticize Darwinian theory. (Questioning Darwinism is automatically taken ascreationism). Thereafter, such people are characterized as doing things slyly and being disingenuous. People with Ph.D's and publication history in fields the author has no background in are described as "slightly less cartoonish" than others.

The author is a philosophy professor, defending claims of biology from critiques by others with backgrounds in biology and mathematics.

At echnique the author uses is to put quote marks around words. This negates what someone says without having to address content. For example, he might report another author says "by definition"the "empirical evidence" shows the "truth" is X. By putting positive words like "by definition" and"truth" in quotes, it negates them without analysis.

It creates a sense in the reader's mind that it's NOT truth being discussed, but only what some other person THINKS is truth. It associates an emotion of doubt, in the reader's mind, with the wordbeing quoted. When the reader is done, he is left with the sense something has been refuted, when it's only typography. Quotation of single words should red-flag any reader. "Tower of Babel" is filled with quote negation, sometimes a dozen per page. It's partly why the book may make Darwinians feel good, but will ill-prepare them for actual issues.

The author enjoys differences between groups critiquing Darwinism; some analysis has changed over time. I guessthat's unusual. The practical upshot is it allows the author to make a point, then pick the group that can be made to look most absurd in contrast. Raelions, a UFO cult, are grouped with all other Darwin-doubters. Never heard of them before, but they make good foils.

The author tries to lump Darwin-doubters in withpost-modernism, Kuhnianism, relativism and so on. Christian writers have written powerful, devastating analytical critiques of such humanist follies for years. Now, as these systems come to a close, with error undeniable, the evolutionary position that developed and nourished them tries to associate the failure with the very position that has single-handedly fought them all along. Expect next book from author claiming Reagan was a Marxist.

The critique of naturalism he contests comes from the observation there is now a dual aspect to modern science: the method ("testing ideas") and the philosophical assumption ("there are only undirected, naturalcauses"). The METHOD is common-sense and biblical. The PHILOSOPHYis problematic and cannot be proven (think about it). While it can force the search for material cause, it cannot recognize non-material cause since it's excluded a-priori. A-priori categorical exclusion is unscientific.

Intelligent design studies address a small piece of this problem through an addition to the scientist's toolkit that will allow rigorous mathematical recognition of design. Have you driven down the road and seen a billboard ad? Do you spend time wondering whether it was designed or is a natural feature? How do you make the determination? At present, scientists can only do what everyone does: appeal to hand-waving and common-sense. OK for billboards, not less-everyday things.

Attacks on design studies (such as this book and Baylor faculty voting to cancel an ID research center) seek to deflect scientists from a tool that has wide relevance. For example,determining whether a transmission is noise or an encrypted message.ID analysis wouldn't break the code, but would indicate its presence.

The author is upset that ID researchers refuse to speculate on the designer, if such classification is made of biological systems. He doesn't know what to make of scientists unwilling to go beyond what the data says, being acclimated to Darwinists answering every question confidently with a myth-story that seems plausible, whether or not there is evidence.

One badly needs to understand that, prior to Darwin, the dominant view was that humans were subordinate to God. Made in his image, but self-corrupted by freely made choice. Darwin seemed to provide an alternate path that made human desire and power the effective pivot around which the universe revolves. Humans were mechanically derived, thus subordinate only to others who achieved power over them. With Original Sin gone,it seemed possible to perfect human nature and build a Utopian society.

The 20th century, from Marx to Freud to Lenin to Stalin to Hitler to WW II to the moral and cultural relativism that distinguishes political parties, was energized by the Utopian schemes Darwin seemed to justify scientifically, by redefining what a humanis. Christians recognize humans cannot create Utopia and act accordingly.

Not being able to indoctrinate children with Darwin's definition of a human is worrisome to people such as the author. Never mind Darwinian science is stitched with fraud and deception (see"Icons of Evolution", Wells). This does not concern them when they speak of education.

Those who are are trying to lead us toa Utopia imagined by flawed and corrupt humans are most worried about this: if people are subordinate to God, who will listen to university philosophy professors? And if there is an ultimate authority, other than myself, then ...uh-oh...

One can try conforming desire to truth, or truth to desire. Darwinians have tried warping truth to fit their desires and are now being called on it. Not much more to it than that, folks. Save your money for popcorn. END

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Ignoring Facts, begging questions
Review: Another unintellectual book from a natrualist who obviously hasn't looked into is subject very much. As usual, he centers around young-earthers, whom are irrational as he. He also attacks "new creationists" like Johnson, Behe, and Ross. Nevermind he never really addresses their detailed, intellectual and scientific works on Intelligent Design Theory, which unlike naturalism, isn't illogical or irrational.

The book boils down to the author's irrational a priori claim that there must be a natural explanation for everything. That isn't science, that's psuedo/junk/tabloid science! One can't make a conlcusion about what science will say before it says it. That's rationalization as opposed to the reason and logic that science is based on. For a book that explains in detail the flawed philosophy that this author spouts, see Phillip Johnson's "The WEdge of Truth." Pennock and others like him give science a bad name by practicing their religion of nonscience.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Well composed yet I'm not impressed by his "evidence."
Review: The TOWER OF BABEL (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999) claims itself to contain "the evidence against new creationism" yet when I reflect upon the evidence given in this books 400+ pages, I am still not nearly convinced of either the overall evidence against "new" creationism or the evidence FOR evolution.

Right now I would call myself a deist. I have no idea what happened 'back then' and this is one of the first books I've read on the subject. As it was given the book of the month by Internet Infidels, I was expecting some good arguments. While the book is clearly well-written (an interesting read), I was sorely disapointed by the evidence provided. chapter three is actually titled, "The Evidence For Evolution" and while Pennock gives a mightily good defense of the possibility for linguistical evolution (contra John Morris) and some other small bits (such as the Bonobos monkeys), overall I found his evidence far from convincing me that macro evolution occured which caused sea-goo to become conscious (over billions of years).

His evidence against creationism was also not extremely powerful. I should rephrase that: the bits of creationistic arguments he attacks are well done, but the overall "creation" isn't taken down by this book (and probably never will be). What Pennock does respond to he does so well, detailed, and carefully.

Being a new-comer to the debate, and having read little, I have no extended 'frame-of-reference' upon which to compare this book to. 4 stars.

institutemr@hotmail.com

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Straining to accommodate believers
Review: I have read the book and I suppose it will help die-hard materialists sleep at night, but frankly why would a true believer want to engage in this discussion at the level he pitches it?

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: A Fine Overview...
Review: This book is required reading for those of us who are struggling to keep the folly of "Creationism" out of our public schools. Want to prevent the Kansas School Board mentality from denying your children a modern education? Read this book. See also Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World".

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Closely Argued Case Against the New Creationists
Review: In this well-argued book, Robert T. Pennock provides a compelling analysis of exactly how and why so-called "intelligent design", far from being the new paradigm of science its champions proclaim it to be, is actually a rather old wine in a new bottle-namely, creationism. His central metaphor, the tower of babel, represents the confusion and anti-scientific bias presented by a bewildering host of creationist viewpoints-new-earth creationists, old-earth creationists and, more recently, intelligent design creationists. As his argument develops, he shows how seriously many of the new ID creationists, and particularly, Phillip Johnson, completely misrepresent science and its methods. Johnson's central charge that the tenets of evolutionary biology are built upon a "dogma" of naturalism is shown to be inherently fallacious because, as Pennock shows, he consistently confuses or equates metaphysical ontological naturalism with the methodological naturalism of science. Pennock speculates that the current social climate which finds the teaching of evolution challenged in public schools need not be defined by the sort of legalistic, win-lose, either-or proposition posed by new ID creationists like Johnson. Rather, he shows how and why public education, as the responsibility of an engaged citizenry, can and must provide a framework where real science (a distinctly public enterprise itself) can be taught without threatening the privately held beliefs and values of individuals. Tower of Babel is highly readable and provides a soundly argued case for defending the true nature of science and its role in public education.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Tower of Babel
Review: I didn't understand what he was talking about. Didn't he misspell babble? Did I misspell misspell?...Oh! Now I get it. Tower of Babel! I see. He's clever. But, now that I think about it, it doesn't exactly work. Oh well, it doesn't have to -- his field is philosophy.


<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates