Rating: 
Summary: Outstanding
Review: I want to make it short, in the light of the many comments already given here about the book. To add anything to the discussion, i would have to comment or attack certain reviewers remarks, but this seems not the place for that. So only my short summary: Outstanding and definitely worth reading. Feel free to contact me for any further elaboration or discussions.
Rating: 
Summary: Argues against Creationism.
Review: Although Creationists should probably read this book, they obvious won't. This book and two others "ROCK OF AGES" and "THE BIBLE ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN" were recently reviewed by TechDirections.com. The review preferred the "TOWER OF BABEL" over "ROCKS OF AGES" but the most praiseworthy statements were made for "THE BIBLE ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN". Anyone who reads "THE BIBLE ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN" will realize that Creationists are just fooling themselves.
Rating: 
Summary: Not about science, but an interesting expose anyway.
Review: Robert Pennock has an interesting book, but he also shows he doe not know the difference between metaphysics and science. In chapter 5 he describes a science fiction fantasy story written by physicist Fred Heeren and objects that it isn't real science, as if Hereen presented it as scientific evidence. Hereen knows the story is metaphysics, it is Pennock that fails to differentiate the obvious. This is just one of many absurdities in the book, many of them consist of "your mother wears army boots" type arguments [otherwise known as argumentum ad hominum]. He accuses Philip Johnson of induging in "postmodernism" in spite of Johnson's clear writings about the evils of the postmodernist philosophy. The core of the book takes place around page 193 where Pennock tells us that certain phenomena that scientists cannot empirically measure are mechanisms of "methodological naturalism" and are thus scientifically valid whereas other phenomena that science also cannot empirically measure are "ontological naturalism" and thus aren't scientifically valid. Only three people in North America subscribe to this philosophy of science, thus Pennock places himself squarely in the land of the nuts and fruits. Nevertheless the book is worth reading just for the colorful education one gets about the evils of the also nutty creationists. But take his description with a grain of salt; he clearly does not understand the thinking of many of the creationists. But then again, he doesn't understand the workings of science either, so perhaps all is forgivable. I say this latter with the love a physicist has for the empirical and the falsifiable, both topics that Pennock virtually ignores up through chapter 5, which is as far as I am going to waste my time reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Confusions, misunderstandings and fallacies
Review: This book is a bundle of misrepresentations and misunderstandings. I cannot even understand how bad a philosopher the author must be to confuse teleology/design (final causation) and creation (direct causation). These are quite unidentical concepts that cannot be interchanged. And doesn't he know about the Greek philosophers: most of them believed in design / teleology, althought the concept of creation was unknown to them. I will not cover all the fallacies of the book, but they will be obvious to anyone trained in logic and in avoiding fallacies.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent book
Review: First: The customer who calls himself J. Russell, with his references to explicitly and implicitly racist and hate literature, seems to be trolling. Second: This is a superb book. I agree with others who have critiqued the linguistics, but I don't think Pennock is trying to be exact. The weaknesses in the language chapter arise from the fact that he's moving back and forth between a critique of biblical literalism (usually identified with Young Earth Creationism) and a critique of neocreationism (Intelligent Design). His real target is the seemingly more flexible ID camp, and for them he's using the parallel to show that the categories of negative argumentation against evolution (i.e., it's not repeatable, the God of the Gaps story, etc.) don't hold. In this area -- debunking not just the specific arguments of creationists but their characteristic modes of arguing -- Pennock's contribution is extremely important, and as far as I know the first of its kind.
Rating:
Summary: Half-Fundamentalist
Review: Pennock is to be praised for his defense of the truth of evolution against the attacks of the fundamentalists on science. However his defense his far from being complete as he does not defend evolution in politics. I could forgive him if he was a scientist, but being a philosopher he should have defended evolution in politics against the fundamentalist anti-evolutionary and anti-scientific laws that are leading this country towards a genetic catastroph. I recommend reading books defending evolution against fundamentalism, for example: Why Race matters (by Michael Levin), Mein Kampf, The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America (by Jared Taylor.)
Rating:
Summary: i have one addition to the comments of other reviewers..
Review: Pennock is NOT an atheist or even an agnostic, but a member of the Society of Friends (a Quaker). His discussion of linguistics IS shaky, but the argument is valid despite his mild ignorance of the intricacies of present-day linguistic theorizing. Also, Genesis 11:4-9, neither in the Hebrew or English (JPS), lends itself to the claim made that the worlds languages were created in one day; the only indication of dimension (time, space, etc) in relation to the origin of language is of space; "there", "from thence"..nothing at all to indicate any of it happened over a day ("Yom" occurs nowhere in the Tower/City of Babel narrative), or determinate time period. NOR any indication that languages don't develop into MORE languages. To imply that it is "simply an evolution of language issue", is to imply that evolution, at least for this example, relies on some manner of intelligence of some sort to occur; people do the talking, as it were, and language is manipulated. It doesn't "just happen". The book is not so strong on the linguistics, but is made up for otherwise. Michael Behe reviewed the book in The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999, BTW.
Rating:
Summary: A much-needed critique of Phillip Johnson
Review: Robert Pennock, who before this book was unknown to me, is now one of my personal favorite philosophers. There are other publishings exposing the problems with creationism, so at first glance this book might appear to be a mere reiteration of what has already been stated by other authors. Make no mistake, though - this book proves to be worth its weight in gold (which is about 2.3 pounds). Previously, we have been treated to overall reviews of generic creationist claims. That's all fine and dandy, but a comprehensive assessment of specific claims to new authors (i.e. Johnson, Behe) is what the public has needed for some time now. Pennock's book points out the holes in the 'new creationism,' but mainly this is an expose of Phillip Johnson, and a welcome one at that. Johnson, leader of the "Intelligent Design Theory" (which is nothing more than creationism that does not explicitly refer to God), has caused quite a fracas with his psuedo-profound rhetoric about the nature of science. Before now, creationists tried to battle the "origins debate" out on science's home turf, only to lose desperatly at every turn. Johnson's new strategy is to denounce the whole methodology of scientific inquiry, and bullying readers by referring to science as "dogma" and other such substanceless potshots. Pennock's book deals a devastaing blow to Johnson. His portrayal of creationism is helpful indeed, and the book ends not with the ruins of creationism in its wake, but with suggestions for helping creationists understand that this whole debate does not undermine the fundamental morals or values that Chistianity holds so dear. This is, after all, the prime motivation of creationists, for they fear that "dogmatic naturalism" and "scientific assumptions" destroy morality. This fear is radically misguided, and Pennock shows just how (and how to fix it) better than anyone is recent memory.
Rating:
Summary: A must-read for those interested in the c/e debate.
Review: Pennock's book is the first to respond to some of the newer arguments, tactics, and participants in the changing landscape of creationism. The book is so well-argued that it is difficult to imagine that another one could ever be needed.
Rating: 
Summary: A brilliant offering in this controversial debate.
Review: Creationism is no longer the simple notion it once was taken to be. Its new advocates have become more sophisticated in how they present their views, speaking of "intelligent design" rather than "creation science" and aiming their arguments against the naturalistic philosophical method that underlies science, proposing to replace it with a "theistic science." The creationism controversy is not just about the status of Darwinian evolution--it is a clash of religious and philosophical worldviews, for a common underlying fear among Creationists is that evolution undermines both the basis of morality as they understand it and the possibility of purpose in life. In Tower of Babel, philosopher Robert T. Pennock compares the views of the new creationists with those of the old and reveals the insubstantiality of their arguments. One of Pennock's major innovations is to turn from biological evolution to the less charged subject of linguistic evolution, which has strong theoretical parallels with biological evolution, both in content and in the sort of evidence scientists use to draw conclusions about origins. Of course, an evolutionary view of language does conflict with the Bible, which says that God created the variety of languages at one time as punishment for the Tower of Babel. Several chapters deal with the work of Phillip Johnson, a highly influential leader of the new Creationists. Against his and other views, Pennock explains how science uses naturalism and discusses the relationship between factual and moral issues in the creationism-evolution controversy. The book also includes a discussion of Darwin's own shift from creationist to evolutionist and an extended argument for keeping private religious beliefs separate from public scientific knowledge. Robert T. Pennock is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin.
|
