 |
| |
| |
|
Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives
|
|
|
Average Rating:  out of 16 Reviews
|
Price: $49.95
|
|
Sale: $14.00
|
| |
|
Manufacturer: The MIT Press
|
|
EAN (European Article Number): 9780262661249
|
|
Number of Items: 1
|
| |
|
|
|
Binding: Paperback
|
|
Publisher: The MIT Press
|
|
Dewey Decimal Number: 231.7652
|
|
Publication Date: 2001-12-01
|
|
Reading Level: 825
|
|
|
| |
Description: The last decade saw the arrival of a new player in the creation/evolution debate—the intelligent design creationism (IDC) movement, whose strategy is to act as "the wedge" to overturn Darwinism and scientific naturalism. This anthology of writings by prominent creationists and their critics focuses on what is novel about the new movement. It serves as a companion to Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel, in which he criticizes the wedge movement, as well as other new varieties of creationism.
The book contains articles previously published in specialized, hard-to-find journals, as well as new contributions. Each section contains introductory background information, articles by influential creationists and their critics, and in some cases responses by the creationists. The discussions cover IDC as a political movement, IDC's philosophical attack on evolution, the theological debate over the apparent conflict between evolution and the Bible, IDC's scientific claims, and philosopher Alvin Plantinga's critique of naturalism and evolution. The book concludes with Pennock's "Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught in the Public Schools."
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
Customer Reviews
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Persecution, with a dash of fairness |
Date: 2007-04-11 |
|
| |
Details: 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. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Pretty Good ... or Pretty Bad .... Depending ..... |
Date: 2007-03-21 |
|
| |
Details: 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. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives |
Date: 2005-09-19 |
|
| |
|
Details: 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. |
| |
|
Review Summary: This again? |
Date: 2005-08-18 |
|
|
| |
Details: This book is bound to give every science fundie a boner. I got to watch Pennock at work last year in Pasadena at the Pacific Division APA conference where he "responded" to an ID paper presented there. His response was structured in accordance to the same principles by which this book was - he handed out a photocopy of a list of statements made by his "opponent" in the past which had nothing to do with the present paper but which effectively smeared him - "guilt by association." He then read a pre-prepared list of points against traditional ID which had, seriously, nothing to do with the paper to which he was supposed to be replying. This is classic Duane Gish only with the perspective reversed. The IDer kept trying to steer Pennock on topic but Pennock, the professional speaker, was far too slippery for that sort of order. My favorite moment was when Pennock refferred to Margaret Masterman's mid-sixties objection to Kuhn's use of "paradigm" by placing both his hands in front of his face and wiggling his fingers to indicate Kuhn's "big jumble of a mess." Pennock was actually laughed at out loud.
I'm no ID or Creationist fan, but the sort of treatment they get from folk of Pennock's ilk kind of makes me embarrassed. This book is no exception - the reviewers here who have pointed out the publication bias are right on the mark. And it remains to be seen if Pennock will have any more luck in tying IDers to good 'ol Creationists than, say, Robert Schadewald has had tying good 'ol Creationists to Flat Earthers.
The book does deserve more than one star though because it at least pretends to include some contemporary thinkers in the "debate." If you have a bug up your arse toward those nutty IDers, AND you have a remedial exposure to contemporary philosophy of science, then this book is an excellent resource and is bound to give you a few zingers to throw at the fellow on the other barstool.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Intelligent Design Creationism Versus Darwinian Orthodoxy. |
Date: 2004-06-03 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: 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. |
| |
|
| |
Similar Products
|
|
|
| |
This Product is similar to and may be found in the Following Categories:
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
