Rating: 
Summary: To correct some of the negative reviews
Review: <<In fact of 37 chapters just a dozen were written by proponents of Intelligent Design >>None of the books written by proponents of IDC have EVER included so much as a chapter to the ideas of the opposition. Also, it often takes twice as long to refute cranks as it does to hear them out. Pennock allowed the best and brightest of IDs and creationists to contribute (Phillip Johnson, Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, Paul Nelson, Alvin Plantinga(who is a great philosopher regardless of the success of IDC)). <The editor of the book is not a scientist and even the very title "Intelligent Design Creationism" makes clear that this book does not contain a scientific discussion but rather a religious argument.>
This is the most absurd argument possible. Pennock is a philosopher of science, and a good one. He does not make straw man attacks (unlike the IDCs, who employ that, argument of doggedness, and the inflation of conflict fallacy, amongst others). To say that he makes a religious argument is to attempt to deny the legitimate efforts of the book: to argue against the mathematical, biological, and philosophical arguments of IDC, while exposing the ulterior religious motives of the alleged "Scientific" movement. I only wish he would have brought in some theologians (aside from the esteemed Ernan McMullin, who contributes as a philosopher) to attack the theological presuppositions of those who support IDC. <<I was going to buy this book--I confess I've only skimmed it, but wanted to first find out what the Intelligent Design people quoted in the book thought about it. William Dembski, one of these, says in a letter at arn.org, that Pennock and MIT Press took outdated, popular (not technical) essays without his knowledge or permission (legally), then gave critics the opportunity to fire shots without a rebuttal from him. >>
Dembski pulls this card every time he is rebutted. The funny thing is, he will go so far as to say at conferences that he will not accept questions after papers that he presents. He complains CONSTANTLY about the prejudice against him, yet manages to evade all chances available to him to respond to his "unfair" critics. Consistent with most IDC advocates, when his arguments fail, he reverts to appeals to sympathy by complaining about the "dogma" of the scientific community. Perhaps he is right; the scientific community is indeed prejudiced against those who not only fail to provide legitimate arguments, but would also seek to undermine the entire enterprise in order to advance their own theologically problematic world views.
Rating:
Summary: To correct some of the negative reviews
Review: <>None of the books written by proponents of IDC have EVER included so much as a chapter to the ideas of the opposition. Also, it often takes twice as long to refute cranks as it does to hear them out. Pennock allowed the best and brightest of IDs and creationists to contribute (Phillip Johnson, Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, Paul Nelson, Alvin Plantinga(who is a great philosopher regardless of the success of IDC)).
This is the most absurd argument possible. Pennock is a philosopher of science, and a good one. He does not make straw man attacks (unlike the IDCs, who employ that, argument of doggedness, and the inflation of conflict fallacy, amongst others). To say that he makes a religious argument is to attempt to deny the legitimate efforts of the book: to argue against the mathematical, biological, and philosophical arguments of IDC, while exposing the ulterior religious motives of the alleged "Scientific" movement. I only wish he would have brought in some theologians (aside from the esteemed Ernan McMullin, who contributes as a philosopher) to attack the theological presuppositions of those who support IDC. <>
Dembski pulls this card every time he is rebutted. The funny thing is, he will go so far as to say at conferences that he will not accept questions after papers that he presents. He complains CONSTANTLY about the prejudice against him, yet manages to evade all chances available to him to respond to his "unfair" critics. Consistent with most IDC advocates, when his arguments fail, he reverts to appeals to sympathy by complaining about the "dogma" of the scientific community. Perhaps he is right; the scientific community is indeed prejudiced against those who not only fail to provide legitimate arguments, but would also seek to undermine the entire enterprise in order to advance their own theologically problematic world views.
Rating: 
Summary: Is this the best case for Darwinism?
Review: As a professor (I teach cell and molecular biology), this volume was of much interest to me and contains much good material. Conversely, as a whole, I consider this book deceptive, to say the least. Looking at the dates of the articles, it appears that a set of older early articles written by the intelligent design side were selected and their critics were then allowed to respond (and given the last word). The thinking and evidence of the ID theorists has progressed far beyond the articles printed in this volume. Why was this work not more balanced? The reason is because, although giving the illusion of balance, it is actually a hatchet job more like a political debate and not science. One example: Dawkins says "when I open a page of Darwin I immediately sense that I have been ushered into the presence of a great mind. I have the same feeling with RA Fisher and with GC Williams. When I read Phillip Johnson, I feel that I have been ushered into the presence of a Lawyer." He then goes into a tirade against lawyers. First of all, Johnson, as far as I know, has not practiced as a lawyer in decades. Secondly, he is, in fact, a college professor and legal scholar. The attempt to paint him as a lawyer is a put down that is sure to work, given the lack of respect for lawyers in America (they are often considered by many as slightly above rapists or worse). The inference is that Johnson is as immoral as many people believe most lawyers are. Dawkins concludes that "with a true lawyer's instinct" Johnson misleads his readers and Dawkins wonders if Johnson really believes the stuff he writes or "is just a good lawyer" (i.e. liar). Name calling is found throughout the book from the pens of critics of ID. Why can't the Darwinists engage in debates on the merits of the evidence like gentlemen without resorting to such tactics, as Dawkins and others did repeatedly? I cannot see how this unethical behavior helps the cause of Neo-Darwinism.
Rating:
Summary: Is this the best case for Darwinism?
Review: I was going to buy this book--I confess I've only skimmed it, but wanted to first find out what the Intelligent Design people quoted in the book thought about it. William Dembski, one of these, says in a letter at arn.org, that Pennock and MIT Press took outdated, popular (not technical) essays without his knowledge or permission (legally), then gave critics the opportunity to fire shots without a rebuttal from him. I was hoping for a book of this kind that didn't present a rigged debate, but gives each side the chance to present their case fairly. It doesn't appear this is that book. Too bad.
Rating:
Summary: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics
Review: I was going to buy this book--I confess I've only skimmed it, but wanted to first find out what the Intelligent Design people quoted in the book thought about it. William Dembski, one of these, says in a letter at arn.org, that Pennock and MIT Press took outdated, popular (not technical) essays without his knowledge or permission (legally), then gave critics the opportunity to fire shots without a rebuttal from him. I was hoping for a book of this kind that didn't present a rigged debate, but gives each side the chance to present their case fairly. It doesn't appear this is that book. Too bad.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent resource
Review: Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) is the latest manifestation of anti-evolutionism, a social movement which owes it's roots to pre-Darwinian opposition to the idea of transmutation of species. As with Victorian opposition to evolution, IDC is more concerned with the (putative) social implications of the acceptance of evolution than with the fact that the theory is both scientifically and philosophically sound. The acceptance of evolution is seen as a manifestation of the rampant materialism and naturalism of modern Western culture, and IDC advocates ask practising scientists to replace methodological naturalism (the idea that, while the supernatural may exist, one must exclude supernatural explanation within _scientific_ discourse) with a view that allows the Divine to be used as an explanation whenerver science cannot explain a phenomenon. Rob Pennock - a philosopher at Michigan State University - has followed his extremely useful "Tower of Babel" with this collection of IDC pieces and responses from more "mainstream" scientists, philosophers and theologians. Pennock is unbiased, allowing both sides to present their case, and the collection contains many articles that were previously only found in academic journals. As such, the volume will be highly useful to individuals on _both_ sides of this issue. As an educator, I have used Pennock's first book in class and both students and I have profited from his insights and clarity. I only regret that this volume was not in print when I ordered books for the coming semester. He, and MIT Press, are to be congratulated for making this resource available to educators and the general public.
Rating:
Summary: Fixed match
Review: One reviewer said this book 'amounts to a wrestling-style "smackdown"', and indeed the bout was fixed from the start. In fact of 37 chapters just a dozen were written by proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) (or the critic of methodological naturalism-not the same thing as ID-Alvin Plantinga), and the rest by critics of ID: a better than two-to-one advantage for the critics. While the majority of the critics write in response to the papers by ID proponents, only a handful of the proponents' papers respond directly to these critics. It's not even clear that the ID proponents selected all of their chapters as their most recent or relevant work. Thus, much as in the televised "smackdowns", the bout was organized to ensure a victory by the critics of ID. The editor of the book is not a scientist and even the very title "Intelligent Design Creationism" makes clear that this book does not contain a scientific discussion but rather a religious argument. Those interested in the religious background of the Darwinian theories of evolution should read the book "Darwin's God" by biophysicist Dr. Cornleius G. Hunter.
Rating:
Summary: Intelligent Design is a bogus theory
Review: Rob Pennock has done a great job with this book. Apart from presenting his own philosophical arguments he has brought many scientists into the debate over evolution. Actually the term debate is inaccurate. This is not a squaring off of two schools of thought or opinion; both of whom have done a comparable amount of work on the topic. On the one hand you have the entire corpus of scientific endeavour of most of humankind's recorded history. On the other you have a bunch of naysayers who too lazy to investigate their own claims have taken to brandishing their academis qualifications and belive that that alone is sufficient to establish their flimsy arguments. It is more a case of mudslingers trying to besmirch the moon. The target is too far away; massive (though apparently small); and will result only in their getting besmirched! The pompous Dembski complains that his work has not been given prominence. Unfortunately Dembski has little to say as Ken Miller conclusively demonstrated at the AMNH last year; when Miller left Dembski speechless with his arguments and questions. Plantinga is a big disappointment. I have heard much about this philosopher and was disappointed to see that the best he has to offer is a stubborn "it is wrongheaded theory" etc. The ID Creationists' movement looks like it is ready to draft anyone even one who is utterly incapable of understanding even the basics of biology. Plantinga should return to religious philosophy and arcane debates about how many angels can dance on a pinhead!!
Rating:
Summary: Retreads and Bias
Review: There is virtually nothing new here -- most of the articles are retreads. What's more, many of the articles are readily available online (and not difficult to access as Robert Pennock claims). Intelligent design proponents were not invited to put their strongest foot forward, and intelligent design critics were given the lion's share of the space. These two facts make this a highly biased book. The historical introduction by Barbara Forrest of the intelligent design movement is especially problematic. She makes it all political and agenda driven and ignores that there is a genuine intellectual project here. Worse yet, she distorts the history of the intelligent design movement, placing its beginnings with Phillip Johnson, when in fact people like Polanyi, Schuetzenberger, Thaxton, and Denton were employing design-theoretic arguments well before Johnson. This is a bad and misleading book. Buy it if you must, but supplement it with primary source material from the intelligent design community. Especially recommended here is the work of Behe and Dembski.
Rating: 
Summary: Nice Resource, but not very original or up to date
Review: This collection of essays and commentary on Intelligent Design is a nice resource for those who are following the debate closely. In particular, you get a sense of how many of the people in the Academic world have chosen to respond to the concept of Intelligent Design. This is very insightful to those of us who have been following the debate from the sidelines. However, I have a few complaints. First of all, the material in this volume consists largely of re-used material that is available on the internet. This is especially the case regarding the material that Pennock chooses to use from ID Theorists. In addition, as one who follows the debate pretty closely, I can't help but feel that Pennock rigs the conversation a bit. Most apparent is the fact that most of the ID proponents are not given a chance to respond to their critics. In fact, the material that Pennock uses to present the ID position, in my humble opinion, does not fairly or fully represent the ID Theorists arguments. In closing, I recommend this book to those who want to get an insider's perspective of how the Academic world, has, in large part, decided to respond to the arguments put forth by the Intelligent Design community. However, if one is looking for a good general introduction to ID, or a fairer portrayal, I would wait for the upcoming volume being edited by Michael Ruse (a Darwinist) and William Dembski (an ID theorist).
|
