Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (A Bradford Book) Paperback – February 28, 2000
See the Best Books of 2017 So Far
Looking for something great to read? Browse our editors' picks for the best books of the year so far in fiction, nonfiction, mysteries, children's books, and much more.
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
The face of creationism has been through some major plastic surgery in the past decade or so. The leading proponents of "intelligent design theory" have left the ranting flat-earth types behind and found respected positions in the academic world from which to launch attacks on mainstream science. Philosopher of science Robert T. Pennock has explored all sides of the ongoing debate, which remains (despite the protestations of many creationists) more about biblical inerrancy than scientific evidence. His book Tower of Babel examines the new directions antievolutionists have taken lately, but goes beyond a mere recounting of recent history by proposing a new avenue of counterattack: linguistics.
The parallels are striking once we look closely: Genesis proclaims that God created all human languages at one stroke, while modern scientific thought proposes linguistic evolution similar in form to genetics. Best of all for scientists, though, linguistic change is much more rapid than biological change, and we have actually observed what might be called "speciation events" to have occurred historically in languages. While not meant to supplant traditional arguments against creationism, Pennock's ideas certainly supplement them and will be useful to educators and researchers alike. His sense of urgency is compelling; he sees the future of scientific education and freedom at stake and argues strongly for a separation between private beliefs and public knowledge. --Rob Lightner --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
From Publishers Weekly
According to University of Texas philosopher Pennock, creationism has been evolving, changing from an unsophisticated attack on biological evolution to a more refined and polished assault on the nature of science itself. Rather than offering sophomoric arguments and forged archeological displays, he contends, the new creationists are attempting to promulgate a philosophical construct, theistic science, that is both more subtle and more insidious. With great insight and good humor, Pennock catalogues the wide range of creationist beliefs, dissects their main arguments and highlights what he sees as their internal inconsistencies. He focuses most of his attention on explicating the alleged weakness of the premises of theistic science and its reliance on an "intelligent designer," contending that its incorporation of miracles into its explanatory sphere undermines all aspects of science. In clear, direct prose, Pennock uses the basics of linguistic evolution to go after the foundation of the new creationism while employing sound philosophical arguments to demonstrate that an evolutionary worldview is neither immoral nor the first step toward the acceptance of atheism. With the new creationists claiming that an evolutionary perspective is responsible for virtually all of the world's ills and their desire to make amends by restructuring public education and the legal system, the stakes are huge. Pennock's response, thoughtful, thorough and respectful, deserves to be widely read.
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Top customer reviews
He wrote in the Preface to this 1999 book, "In the battle over the teaching of creationism in school science classes, creationists unite against their common foe---but what about the great confusion within the Tower? I will call attention to this confusion but I do not mean thereby to follow the creationists' own fallacious strategy and urge that we should reject creationism simply because creationists find fault with the details of each other's views... The point is to look at what each side... offers in the way of arguments and evidence for its particular point of view and against its rivals... I do not mean to attack the sincerity or intentions of creationist believers... Indeed, as a member of the Society of Friends (Quakers) ... I believe strongly in the freedom of religious belief (or unbelief)." (Pg. xi, xviii)
About the 2nd Law/Entropy argument of creationists, he says, "even if the earth WERE a closed system, evolution would still be possible since... some objects in the insulated box may (at least temporarily) decrease in entropy though the system AS A WHOLE moves towards equilibrium. Thus in neither case is there a contradiction between evolution and the second law." (Pg. 80)
He critiques Philip Johnson: "...it is usually difficult to pin him down to any specific positive view... When he equates scientific naturalism with 'scientism' he is repeating the name-calling led by antiscientific cultural relativists... When he describes the scientific community as a 'priesthood' that 'guards the door' of knowledge, he is making the central postmodern point that knowledge is simply that story whose authors have the power to suppress other stories." (Pg. 210-211)
Against Michael Behe, he says, "Behe tells us that he cannot imagine any way around the apparent irreducibility in his examples, but even just upon reviewing his book other biologists have been able to suggest some specific biochemical pathways that might work. Only future research will tell. Thus, it is simply premature to say that these systems are irreducibly complex... [Still] it at least seems possible from a conceptual standpoint to suppose that such systems could exist..." (Pg. 266-267) He adds, "Although Behe derides Darwinists for not having given specific explanations for the visual cascade or the bacterial flagellum, his own 'explanation' of each complexity he describes is the same---an (unidentified) intelligence designed it that way. Such an explanation is vacuous." (Pg. 274)
This book will be of considerable interest to anyone studying the Creation/Evolution or Intelligent Design controversies.
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.
Most recent customer reviews
The more I learn from science, the more amazing I find God, The souce of...Read more
1) Scientists like to argue about anything that can rationally be argued about.Read more