Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism

Rating:
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:
Summary: Enlightenment
Review: Many good books have been written on this subject and 'Tower of Babel' is no exception. Pennock gives us something of a fresh perspective on the threat of creationist ignorance. He uses the Tower of Babel as a metaphor of sorts to describe the confusion and squabbling among anti-evolutionists themselves, detailing the various positions of intelligent-design creationists, young earthers, old earthers, progressive creationists and others. Phillip Johnson and other creationist leaders try hard to hide theological differences in and outside their camp, claiming that such "details" as the age of the earth, Noah's Flood and the like should be set aside until theism triumphs over the evils of materialist science. Intelligent-design creationists try to 'keep the peace' by avoiding any specific empirical claim about what the designer might have done, relying instead on bashing evolution. In this way, the movement shows its inheritance from its creation science ancestor, which specialized in the negative argument of "if evolution is wrong, then creationism is right."

All in all, this book is a must for anyone who seeks more understanding of the creationist agenda and its threat to our society.

Rating:
Summary: Same Old, Same Old
Review: Robert T. Pennock has written a book that is full of the same old tired arguments against Creation Science, or to use the new term, Intelligent Design. To claim that the argument against organic evolution (i.e. life from non-life) was closed shortly after Darwin became published is completely false. The most brilliant scientific minds today cannot duplicate this alleged process under strict laboratory conditions - yet it all happened in nature by accident. His attack on non-creationist Michael Behe's assertion of "irreducible complexity" is rubbish, and bad rubbish at that. Behe, a REAL scientist, proved that if just one component of a single cell organism stopped working, then the whole cell could not function. Therefore every single part of that cell had to be functioning in the beginning if it is to function at all. It simply could not have happened step-by-step and Pennock knows it. Pennock further uses the argument that a stone bridge, while built piece by piece, could function quite happily after it is complete. He does not seem to realize that the bridge is the result of intelligent design (i.e. structural engineers).

In short Pennock's arguments against the "New Creationism" is tired and out-of-date. his book is really no better than the clever fairly stories touted under the disguise of science by Richard Dawkins, which are full of "just so" stories and thin on hard science. Little wonder that Pennock, Dawkins, and other prominent evolutionists will not debate scientifically qualified creationists. The very idea of humiliating oneself publicly by attempting to defend organic evolution without a shred of evidence is hard to take.

As Behe himself pointed out, as far as fools like Dawkins and Pennock are concerned, the evidence for organic evolution will never be in as long as it points to Intelligent Design.

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: Splendid Refutation of "Intelligent Design" Creationism
Review: TOWER OF BABEL is both an elegant history of creationism in the United States and a splendid rebuttal of creationism in all of its varieties, especially, intelligent design. Much to Pennock's credit he takes the novel approach of drawing analogies between linguistic and biological evolution. Not surprisingly, he notes that creationist critics of evolution are also quite critical of linguistics viewed from an evolutiuonary perspective. He notes how languages can be viewed as linguistic equivalents of species, with individual "subspecies" - dialects - gradually evolving into new languages. He also does an elegant job stating the evidence for evolution and why Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection remains the great explanatory theory for biology.

Pennock makes a very persuasive case for the religious origins of "Intelligent Design" creationism, noting that its major proponents - Michael Behe, Willaim Dembski, and Phillip Johnson - are more interested in replacing "naturalistic" science with a theistic science that accepts Divine intervention than in determining the scientific validity - or lack thereof - of "Intelligent Design". Pennock states in the concluding chapter of TOWER OF BABEL that "intelligent-design creationists are wrong to say that evolution is just a 'loaded story" or assumed point of view; rather, it is as well confirmed by the scientific evidence as any of the great explanatory theories. More important, they are wrong to say that scientific naturalism is metaphysical dogma; rather, it is a methodology that is rationally justified and that is accessible to all." Like their biblical creationist kin, "Intelligent Design" creationists regard evolution as the source of all evils associated with modern American society, ranging from the spread of AIDS (For example, Pennock notes Johnson's support of a disreputable AIDS researcher who thinks AIDS is more the result of a degenerate homosexual lifestyle rather than its sexual transmission via HIV/AIDS viruses.) to liberalism.

Pennock concludes with an overview of ongoing battles between "Intelligent Design" advocates and scientists for control of the content of scientific learning in public school classrooms across the country. He notes that the injection of religious doctrine into classrooms through the introduction of "Intelligent Design" is a dangerous assault on American liberties and values, and one that should not be taken lightly by its adherents or potential supporters. Along with Kenneth Miller's FINDING DARWIN'S GOD and Philip Kitcher's ABUSING SCIENCE, this splendid book is one of the finest critiques of creationism and among the most eloquent defenses on behalf of not only biological evolution, but indeed, all of science.

Rating:
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" (or ID), 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, UFO 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 points out, 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 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 continued place in public education.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent rebuttal of creationism from a novel angle
Review: Philosopher Robert Pennock's book is a timely rebuttal of the new creationism ('intelligent design theory'): insightful, scholarly and thorough. It has been challenged (not always expertly) on various philosophical points and has inevitably received hostile comments from creationists and others with axes to grind, but Pennock has countered these objections very effectively. One feature of the book which does warrant comment is the linguistic focus; as the title suggests, Pennock exemplifies and discusses the failings of creationism (and the successes of evolutionary theory) chiefly in the context of language change, an area of study which is less 'charged' than biological evolution but is just as relevant to the issue.

The analogy between linguistic and biological evolution is not entirely precise. Pennock (who makes very few mistakes about linguistics) is well aware of this, but might perhaps have been slightly more explicit on this front; I myself initially misperceived his thrust here. Language change (or at least specific changes of the kind normally observed) involves features coded and transmitted culturally rather than genetically, and thus acquired during the user's lifetime rather than inherited. In addition, many changes are not adaptive (the main exceptions are some obviously adaptive vocabulary changes, as exemplified by Pennock). Furthermore, all known languages seem to be of approximately the same type and order of complexity. There are no surviving relics of earlier evolutionary stages.

As this last point suggests, the initial development of human language may well have differed in these respects. However, we have little direct evidence of that period; and in any event it is easy to overstate these differences - for instance, some languages ARE (somewhat) more complex than others. And, at the level Pennock intends, his case against creationism is in no way compromised by the distinctive nature of linguistic change.

I thoroughly recommend this book. A longer version of this review is to appear in The Skeptic; watch the Australian Skeptics web site.

Rating:
Summary: Perceptive, penetrating and persuasive
Review: Pennock's denounces the attempts to incorporate religious dogma into public education. It is the finest of several analogous efforts published over two decades. With penetrating insight, he presents the full range of Christian creationist ideologies, many self contradictory. He examines how slandering Darwin's concept of natural selection ["evolution"] goes beyond biology. The real issue, he assures us, is the curtailing of the liberalisation of American society. In well-crafted prose, the author maintains your interest in a subject at once hilarious and terrifying. He declares that the issue is greater than religion versus science. It is one striking at the very root of American ideals.

The book provides a general history of 20th Century "creationism", its programme and its proponents. The later "Intelligent Design" movement, which declares itself a "science" instead of a religious concept, Pennock declares a sham. Its influence is far too great, yet built from shoddy materials. Tracing the ideas and publications of such figures as Henry Morris and his followers, Pennock describes the propaganda techniques of the Institute for Creation Research and the recent wave material camouflaged under "scientific" or "legal" disguises. Pennock pores over their material, pinpointing their fallacies and exposing their tactics. He shows how evidence is ignored or twisted, explaining how ideology governs speeches, publications and strategy. Through it all, he shows how the Christians are as much at war with each other as they are with "materialism", the label they apply to Darwinian scholars.

Pennock adopts the unique method of showing how the evolution of languages repeats the biological pattern. From an original, lost language, modern tongues evolved in different environments. It continues to evolve today. It's a fitting analogy, one which teachers should note and apply in the classroom. It's appropriate that a scholar of Pennock's stature should thus ally science with the humanities. As he points out, much of the assault on biological evolution could easily be applied to farming, home life and law.

The author examines some of the renowned figures of the IDC cabal with a penetrating gaze. Pennock charitably skims over Michael Behe's ignorance of evolutionary process to focus on lawyer Phil Johnson. Johnson's legal training prompts him to address all questions in absolutes and to create straw men as easily demolished targets. Pennock simply dissects Johnson's writings to demonstrate not only false assumptions, but contradictions so severe as to inspire the reader to wonder how he maintains his academic position. According to Pennock, Johnson's works betray a messianic mentality from which he institutes a project to redeem American society. It's to Pennock's credit that the term "demagogue" doesn't appear in the text. One can only admire his forbearance.

Pennock's patience must have been stretched in undertaking the research to produce this book. He has debated Darwin's defamers, suffered through the morass of creationist publications and endured the assault on evidence unashamedly displayed at the creationists' museum. It can hardly be beaten as an exercise in mental self-flagellation. Yet, this book results in a mine of information, reasoned analysis and fine exposition. Every science or humanities teacher in North America would do well to consider keeping a copy close at hand. It's an invaluable resource. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Rating:
Summary: Quite an achievement
Review: The audience of such a confrontational book will usually fall in three categories: (1) creationists who want to refute the arguments presented, (2) people who don't know much about biology but were told there was a debate between "creationists" and "evolutionists", and (3) biologists who look for simple ways to explain things to a lay public.

I hasten to point out that no, evolution itself is not a controversial scientific subject and hasn't been for a century. However, the public's perception of it clearly still is in certain parts, and that's why such books can be very helpful.

Pennock's book is very well researched, well developed, and most importantly given its target audience, a lot of fun to read! I would recommend it to anyone, put especially to high school biology teachers who want simple material devoid of jargon to explain the principle of evolution to children.

Five stars, and well deserved.

Rating:
Summary: Finding the Creationists' God
Review: In "Finding Darwin's God" (see my Amazon.com review of 8 April 2000 "God Is a Creator, Not a Creationist") Kenneth Miller finds common ground between God and evolution. Mainstream science and most major religions found that long ago, of course, but Miller also criticizes the "mutually contradictory" creationist positions that persist in trying to discredit evolution as an atheistic worldview (with the ironic help of some outspoken atheist scientists). While Miller notes primarily the differences in the creationist approaches, in "Tower of Babel" Robert Pennock traces their "common ancestry," and concentrates on how the new "intelligent design" creationism (IDC) evolved.

Although it is tempting to think that IDC was "designed" to get around the Supreme Court decision that banned the teaching of creationism because it is a religious view, the approach was in fact "pre-adapted," as evidenced by such books as Michael Denton's "Evolution - A Theory In Crisis." Unlike classic creationism, IDC generally avoids stating its own alternative hypotheses and origins models, and does not identify the designer. Rather, IDC recycles long-refuted arguments against evolution, and builds upon them with some original ideas, none of which, however, qualify as science.

Pennock's novel approach uses linguistics, both as an analogy for biological evolution, and as an example of how anti-evolutionists of all stripes try to hide their internal disagreements, such as on the origin of human language diversity. Focusing on Phillip Johnson, but also discussing other prominent Discovery Institute fellows such as Michael Behe and William Dembski, Pennock exposes IDC as a "postmodern" approach that cleverly avoids the pitfalls of classic young-earth and old-earth creationism (YEC, OEC), whose models and hypotheses have been thoroughly discredited. Like Miller, Pennock does not give enough emphasis to the fact that America's poor science literacy is a chief reason that creationists can get away with their misrepresentations of evolution and science in general. But he does note that the general public has been sold on a false dichotomy of design vs. evolution. The logical disconnect between the "arguments for design" and "arguments against evolution" is lost on most audiences.

Pennock also downplays two other features of IDC. First, given his interest in linguistics, I expected more coverage of how the IDC strategy is mainly a semantic one. IDC's chief tactics are to quote scientists out-of-context and to define terms, especially "Darwinism," to suit its bait-and-switch arguments. Second, although he hints at it in places, he stops short of the claim made by Ronald Bailey in his insightful article "Origin of the Specious" (Reason magazine, July, 1997) - that many creationists privately accept evolution, despite their vocal arguments against it. While this may not be true of all creationists - indeed many IDCs may be closet YECs - I am fairly convinced that it applies to most professional IDCs. Their extreme political and philosophical views, however, prevent them from admitting it to a general public that they fear cannot handle the truth. But other than misrepresenting evolution, IDCs avoid bearing false witness by letting the audience do the dirty work of inferring whatever alternative they prefer. The more educated audiences usually infer OEC, sometimes including the common descent that Behe and others have admitted, while general audiences prefer YEC, America's favorite origins myth. But the fact that most audiences do not notice, and if they do, mostly ignore, the mutual contradictions among their alternative positions, is evidence that IDC is much "fitter" than its more slowly evolving creationism cousins. IDC is not "Creationism Lite," it is "Pseudoscience Xtreme."

After detailing their strategy, Pennock tries to "calm the creationists' fears." But surely he knows that Johnson et al have heard his philosophical arguments before and have well-rehearsed rebuttals. Though not often obvious, Pennock's arguments here are for the benefit of third parties who find the ID sound bites convincing, but have not given them much thought. Whether he privately agrees with Pennock or not, Johnson is, in the words of one reviewer, "past praying for." Pennock concludes by defending the counterintuitive claim that teaching only evolution is the fairest option.

Although "Finding Darwin's God" appealed to me more as a scientist, "Tower of Babel" is an excellent reference on the evolution of the anti-evolution strategies, and the parallel evolution of the creationists' "god" (the gap-dwelling designer that they promote, if not the God in which they believe) into a caricature that is unfit for both science and religion.