Customer Reviews

Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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.

This is a truly useful and comprehensive compendium of articles on both sides of the divide between evolution and ID/creationism. It isn't a fair, evenly split group of articles, a point made openly and up front by the Editor, Robert Pennock. Nonetheless, both sides are presented in their own words with no editing or rewriting of essays, allowing you to judge for yourself. The various articles range from detailed philosophical analyses of ID/creationist positions, to (sometimes contentious) give and take between writers on each side. The articles are telling in their description and analyses of the foundations of the ID/creationist positions and readily show how shallow they are. What comes through from most of the opponents of evolution is their truly shallow understanding of the incredible depth of evidence from multiple disciplines that supports the basic idea of evolution. Even the scientists on the ID side seem to have only a single idea from which they develop their criticism but which never addresses the breadth of data available. Unfortunately, neither here nor elsewhere have I found a really accessible discussion of the total evidence from all disciplines that bears on evolution. Perhaps the closest is Carl Zimmer's book based on the PBS series. The highlights of the book include the opening article by Barbara Forrest that clearly outlines the "Wedge" strategy and the totally religious basis of ID/creationism and does so virtually completely in the words those who favor ID/creationist views. It's rather hard for ID/creationist proponents to deny its religious basis when they themselves state it explicitly. Another is the article by Nancey Murphy critiquing Philip Johnson's arguments. Finally, there is an excellent article by Pennock followed by an exchange between Pennock and the theologian and creationist proponent Alvin Plantinga that very effectively dissects and destroys the argument for teaching ID/creationism in science class and does so not primarily from a scientific point of view but from a religious point of view. Many articles are reprints but from (for most of us) rather obscure journals. This compendium is an enormous service in the debate over ID/creationism. Thank you, Robert Pennock.

<<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.

I want to restate from the product description (and from Pennock's own introduction to this volume): It serves as a companion to Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism For those pretending on either side that this volume should be "balanced" either didn't bother to read the product description (and the introduction) or are internally deluded as to what a book should be. I know of few books, films, articles that are in fact 'balanced', and typically the over emphasis on balance makes a work typically not useful.

I freely admit that I have not read the work that this was intended to be a companion to, namely Pennock's Tower of Babel. So I am not quite sure that I can say that this volume is useful in that arena. Unfortunately though, most reviews of this volume seem to be reviewing the content (namely the ISSUE of ID/Creationism vs Critics) rather than the utility of this volume.

As the title of my review suggests, this volume is NOT for the weak. It is a long, hard read. One truly needs to be dedicated to going through all the essays giving them a fair reading and thoughtful digesting to actually get out of this book what it offers.

Particularly difficult was section VII, ID and Information. I struggled for hours upon hours trying to decode the essays in this section. The arcana of Information Theory left me feeling as if the authors (on BOTH sides) were trying to prove (or disprove) God's existence through statistics, reminding me of the joke about statisticians going hunting:

"One hunter shot at the duck 1 yard too high. One hunter shot at the duck 1 yard too low. The third statistician yelled "We got him!"

This volume is probably good as a study supplement on the topic of ID and Criticism, but I am not too sure it is great for the average lay person trying to get an easy handle on the topic.

There is one bias in this volume that I have not seen addressed in the reviews here (and one could well be misinformed about it by reading the reviews): Fully 2/3 of this book is filled with essays by theists: Evolutionary Theists arguing with ID/Creationism Theists. To be honest, after reading their respective essays, I have to say that the ID/Creationism Theists SEEM more honest and convincing. The pretzel twisting, logic looping, scripture reinterpretation of the Evolutionary Theists is dizzying. I say this as an Evolutionary Atheist. One thing that I did take away from these arguments, is that I am more and more convinced by Richard Dawkin's proposition that Evolution does lead to atheism.

The quality of the writing in this volume is all over the place in all honesty. Some of it is clear, straightforward and understandable. Phillip Johnson (whom I totally disagree with the conclusions he draws, and the 'honesty' of his arguments) writes cogently and understandable. Similarly, Barbara Forest writes a strong and coherent essay. As for the bulk of the essays in this volume, I am not so willing to be so generous.

Ultimately, if You wade through this volume, You WILL be rewarded with a broad overview of the general complexity of the issues of ID/Creationism and It's Critics. It does seem, at times, a very long way to get there though!

As someone who reads these reviews, I will do what I look for and keep it short. I have read Pennock's book (I wonder if some of the other reviewers actually have). I have found it to be an enjoyable read and full of useful information. It gives a very thoughtful over view of the current Creationist argument. It explains the background of the proponents of intelligent design and their methods of arguing. It then systematically shows where the flaws in their reasons lie. Pennock doesn't berate the creationists but does show that their reasoning, although perhaps seemingly persuasive in the courtroom of public opinion, really is not supported scientifically.

I give this book three stars. In reality, it deserves only one ... or a full five ... depending on who you, the reader, are.

Why do I say this? First, a little discussion:

The book's title is a bit misleading; it should really be "Intelligent Design Creationism AND ITS CRITICS." Editor Robert Pennock has an agenda about as obvious as an orange flag in a St. Patrick's Day parade, namely, trying to organize a gang tackle on intelligent design theorists. I won't take this opportunity to opine on whether this is a laudable goal or not. It's just clear that Pennock is not merely moderating a discussion here, but has approached this project with the goal of stacking the debate deck in favor of Darwinism. This is clear from the amount of space Pennock gives to Darwinist critics, and the fact that the ID work he includes here is all a little dated, as noted by other reviewers. His convictions are also clear from his own contribution to this volume, a set of reviews in which he critiques the work of ID champion Philip Johnson. Pennock spends an unhelpful amount of space impuning Johnson's character, while his material response to Johnson's ideas is rather facile. What's not clear is whether Pennock actually recognizes the presence of his own agenda, or whether he honestly considers himself to be "objective" here.

But, still, this book does represent a discussion of sorts between several scholars on both sides of the ID divide. This is something that hasn't been done anywhere else, and that makes it a potentially positive contribution to the discussion, Pennock's own goals notwithstanding.

Now back to the original question of how many stars to give it: If you're a committed IDer, already familiar with Johnson, Behe, Dembski, etc., you probably need to read this book to learn what the most highly regarded ID opponents have to say about ID. So, if you are an IDer, this book gets five stars. But, if you are already a committed Darwinist, you need to understand that this book simply does not carry the debate on an equal footing. It does not allow the ID theorists to articulate their views in the best manner possible. Pennock's book will not teach you anything new, and will probably just reinforce some comfortable stereotypes for you. So, if you are a committed Darwinist, this book gets only one.

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).

This rather large book consists of a series of essays detailing the perspective of Intelligent Design Theory from the Christian point of view and a series of contrasting essays from Darwinian orthodoxy opposing this theory. One unfortunate aspect of this book, which consists otherwise of some rather interesting essays, is that the essays are selected in such a manner so as to make the ID perspective look ridiculous at every point. Thus, after every issue is dealt with from the perspective of ID two subsequent essays appear which are supposed to refute the ID perspective from the Darwinian. In practice, this amounts to little more than overkill which makes one wonder, what is the point of having a debate if you are going to stack the cards beforehand. Also, many of these so- called "objective" scientists and philosophers seem to be engaging in little more than name calling and credential comparing. One example of this is the essay of the popularizer Richard Dawkins who appears to be interested very little in the actual content of an essay by Philip Johnson and more interested in the fact that this individual happens to be a lawyer, cashing in on the near universal animosity felt towards lawyers among the populist masses. This isn't to say that Johnson's essay is particularly good or rings true, but the fact that Dawkins cannot control his juvenile tendencies here is really a good indication of the knee jerk reactionism of the Darwinian Left. Of course, the issue of Intelligent Design is a complicated one, one that is not fully worked out here. In addition, the compiler Pennock seems to be under the impression that "creationism" is strictly a Protestant phenomenon. This may be the case for "liberal Catholicism" however many traditionalists within the Catholic church have offered an alternative interpretation of Creation. In fact, the writings of Jesuit priest and evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin were placed on the Index and can hardly be taken to constitute orthodoxy within the church. Also the "process theologies" proposed by certain clergymen within this volume can hardly be taken for Christian orthodoxy either. The issues involving Darwinism include a conspicuous absence of intermediate evolutionary forms within the fossil record, a problem concerning the probabilities involved (being miniscule, making it difficult to reconcile Darwinism with reality, at least in one interpretation), and other issues dealing with absent data regarding (supposed) speciation. Intelligent Design Theory differs from classical Creationism in that it is not "young Earth" and that it does not take the actual Genesis account overliterally, merely arguing for an intelligent designer. Also, it should be noted that Creationism proper need not be solely Christian; for example, there exist Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist "creationists" who challenge the Darwinist hegemony. Thus, the issues involved are rather complex and really it requires a careful reading to fully understand. Certainly they cannot be passed over in the manner they are in the naïve Darwinism taught for example in public schools. Even within the scientific community of evolutionary biologists different evolutionary theories exist - contrast the (standard) Darwinist theory of Mayr with the punctuated equilibrium proposal of Gould. These issues in fact may touch on the very nature of the scientific endeavor, and the contrast that exists between materialism (today called "physicalism", given the interchangeability of matter-energy) and theistic realism. This book is decent in that it presents many essays from a wide variety of points of view even though one must sort through the compiler's own bias in his presentation of them. It is to be recommended to both the scientist and philosopher as well as the theologian and layman.

This book looks very thorough - how could more than 800 pages of text by 25 authors be anything but thorough? It also looks very balanced: although it consists principally of attacks on ID, it does publish several articles by ID theorists and their admirers. Although Pennock does not give "equal time" to the ID movement, he acknowledges this openly in his introduction.

But why is the book entitled Intelligent Design Creationism, a term never used by either the ID proponents or the creationists? Why is this term repeated throughout the book, as if it was commonly accepted? I would suggest that the word is used to inspire prejudice, because it already stands condemned. Creationism has been designated unconstitutional and unscientific by US Supreme Court. Pennock claims that ID is just a new form of creationism with a name change and an image update. In one sense, he's correct, as all ID proponents believe in creation. However, William Dembski has clearly explained the very significant differences between creationism and ID (the latter does not support a young Earth or 6-day creation, and argues exclusively from science, never from the Bible). Even Pennock himself says he wanted to publish an article by Henry Morris, the father of creation science, expressing disapproval of ID.

Pennock's criticism of Phillip Johnson does a remarkable job of making Johnson's clear and convincing arguments sound confused and muddled. Most of his criticism is based on what he imagines Johnson is trying to say rather than what he actually says. He repeatedly misquotes and distorts Johnson's words; for example, he makes the absurd accusation that Johnson wants scientists to incorporate religious conclusions into their experiments. He quotes Johnson's statement that "It may well be, however, that there are certain questions... that cannot be answered by the methods available to our science. These may include not only broad philosophical issues such as whether the universe has a purpose, but also questions we have become accustomed to think of as empirical, such as how life began or how complex biological systems were put together," then comments: "The sly implication here is that the "sacred books" and "mystical states of mind" may be appropriate ways to answer empirical as well as teleological questions." How can such a complete distortion of Johnson's words, be a "sly implication"?

Over and over, Pennock berates Johnson and his colleagues for making claims without evidence. He also suggests that they have some sort of secret agenda and that they are only revealing a tiny part of it; ironically, he can offer no evidence for this claim. He dismisses the entire design argument with the simplistic assertion that "Darwin showed how simple natural processes could explain such adaptations." Again, he provides no evidence, no page reference to justify this extraordinary over-simplification.

The farcical nature of the book is best shown when Pennock includes a single 16-page article by Michael Behe to represent ID's entire scientific claims. The book claims to be about ID and science, yet only 2% of its length is devoted to this all-important issue.

The article is followed by a criticism by Philip Kitcher of Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. Kitcher ignores most of Behe's arguments and resorts to sarcasm, ridicule and name-calling - the usual tactics of those who have nothing intelligent to say. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that Kitcher has read Behe's book: it appears, rather, that he has dipped into it at a few points to find things to complain about.

Those who have read Behe would be aware of the enormously detailed picture he gives of the operation of the cilium and (to a lesser extent) of the flagellum as examples of irreducible complexity. Ignoring the cilium completely, Kitcher says: "Here's a simple-minded version of the argument. Assume that the flagellum needs 137 proteins. Then Darwinians are required to produce a sequence of 138 organisms, the first having none of the proteins and each one having one more protein than its predecessor. Now, we're supposed to be moved by the plight of organisms numbers 2 to 137, each of which contains proteins that can't serve any function, and is therefore, presumably, a target of selection." This is a complete travesty of Behe's argument, which does not even mention the sequence of 137 proteins! Behe argued that the structure of the flagellum was not only enormously complex but incredibly precise, so that it could not function without every one of its parts perfectly designed and in place. In other words, Kitcher has made a thoroughly dishonest attempt to make the argument look simple-minded; he goes on to compound his dishonesty by insisting that Behe's argument is "just plain silly."

Not surprisingly, Behe is not given a chance to reply to this defamation.

There is a great deal more that could be said about a book this size, but most of it adds up to the same conclusion. There are, admittedly, some bright spots. Some of the articles are reasonable. In particular, there is one criticism of Johnson (by Nancey Murphy) which is not only intelligent and well-argued, but actually fair. It is almost as if this article was included to show that, despite what the rest of the book demonstrates, a real dialogue between Darwinism and ID may be possible.

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 lawyers 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.