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: One of the better books refuting Intelligent Design
Review: I openly wonder if many of the negative reviews come from people who have never read the book but feel it is their Christian duty to defend their creation myths. The sad reality is that people whose search for truth is based upon faith, will struggle with science because the world views are so different.
As for the book itself, I thought the author was effective on several levels at explaining the different and contradictory factions within the "Creation Science" community. The thing that distinguishes them is how much of the biblical story they are willing to give up to preserve even the impression that they are scientists.
Obviously young earth creationists have the most difficulty and are the easiest to dismiss. However those pushing the Intelligent Design theories can be dismissed with a little more thought and analysis.
The author's analogous use of linguistic evolution to organic evolution and the implications to the mythical "Tower of Babel" is certainly effective. A reason why linguists don't get the ire of Christians is that the Tower is not as central to their mythology as the creation is. The Christ of the New Testament came to redeem Adam and his posterity for his fall in the garden. Rejecting the creation story has far reaching implications for Christians and is why Darwinian evolution is so threatening to their belief system.
Scientists owe people like Pennock a big thank you. Unfortunately, scientists go on doing science forgetting that society may not care what the evidence leads to. The implications for the United States was appropriately discussed by the author and gives cause for real concern regarding science education in this country.
Rating:
Summary: The Courage to Be
Review: I'm about 3/4 through this book and loving it. Where Pennock excels in supporting his refutation of the ID and Creationist claims to legitimacy, far exceeds where his argument is less-than-illuminating of his own views. He succeeds overwhelmingly in his overall argument.
For those who argue (quite angrily in their reviews of books that support evolution) for support of ID or Creationism, the question remains, who are you making this argument for? Why this angry, vociferous push to be accepted into the realm of science? Religious belief is a matter of faith, not proof.
On page 274 of Pennock's book he makes a statement:
"Indeed, for many Christian believers, one's true faith is only proven when it survives in the face of events that would naturally cause one to doubt God's presence. To hold on to belief come what may is a sign of religious virtue. Contrarily, science takes it to be a virtue that one witholds belief in the truth of a proposition until it is supported by the weight of evidence."
It's clear that if one has no need, as the majority of Christians do not, to cleave to a literalist reading of scripture, then one has no need to refute scientific reasoning. Contrarily, it's impossible for a scriptural literalist to objectively review scientific arguments for the soundness of their experimental processes because scientific methodology threatens their need for absolutism.
It takes moral and intellectual courage, as Tillich wrote, to live in a world full of ambiguity and uncertainty. The absence of that courage requires reliance on some ideology of absolute answers.
Absolute answers are beyond verification using scientific methodology. They require faith. Those with the courage to maintain that faith in the face of all evidence to the contrary are comforted in their anxiety about an uncertain world.
ID arguments are intellectually dishonest, their attempt to distance themselves from Creationists is a disingenuous faint, and their ends are morally suspect.
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
