Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism

by Robert T. Pennock

In Tower of Babel , philosopher Robert Pennock compares the views of the new creationists with those of the old and reveals the insubstantiality of their arguments. One of Pennock's major innovations is to turn from biological evolution to the less-charged subject of linguistic evolution, which has strong theoretical parallels with biological evolution both in content and in the sort of evidence scientists use to draw conclusions about origins Several chapters deal with the work of Phillip Johnson, a highly influential leader of the new creationists. Pennock explains how science uses naturalism and discusses the relationship between factual and moral issues in the creationism-evolution controversy. The book also includes a discussion of Darwin's own shift from creationist to evolutionist and an extended argument for keeping private religious beliefs separate from public scientific knowledge.

Genres: Science, Religion, Evolution, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Politics

452 pages, Paperback

First published February 16, 1999

Reviews

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

(Reposted from my 2002 Amazon review)

[Skallagrimsen]

I read Tower of Babel around 1997 or 1998. I was more interested in debunking creationism back then than I am now, a holdover from my college years, when I developed a robust interest in the subject. Not that I grew to find creationism, or "intelligent design," any more plausible in the succeeding decades. I just became more tolerant, perhaps, of what seems to be a natural human tendency to project volition into self-organizing systems. I remember liking Tower of Babel well enough at the time, though not enough for a copy to find its way into my permanent collection; nor can I swear I ever finished the whole thing. Indeed, I'd forgotten about the book until it popped up on a Goodreads friend's timeline today (one of the charms and benefits of Goodreads). I do remember that it had an arresting first line, however, which I think I recall verbatim: "Creationism is evolving."

[Marc · Rating 5 out of 5]

I liked this book a lot...but after all I guess I am part of the choir. The book uses the evolution of culture and language in particular as a model to question the motives/logic of the Deniers. They readily embrace all of the tenants of evolution, just not organic evolution.

I am always dumbfounded by the convoluted logic/arguments put up by creationists. I have my own thesis on what they are up to, at least the brain trust and leadership of these groups. But the regular folks that repeat the really gratuitously silly arguments and pseudo-data do confound common sense to me. Mainly because they generally actually believe this stuff, unlike their leaders who are just self-serving celebrati, who don't for a minute believe any of it. The conflict and strife they foment is just a tool to building their power.

The book deconstructs the various cults, and various is an understatement. The basic creationist notion has been atomized into more sects than a brothel (OK my metaphore, sucks...ooops) These folks can't even agree on what elements of their nonsense are dogma. It's great fodder but for the most part I have read most of this elsewhere too. Here it takes them all on in detail so it makes a great reference.

Readers who want get a sense of what followership is about read Joe Bageant, Deerhunting with Jesus (check my bookshelves). It describes their world view but it surely doesn't make it any more sensible to me.

Another good work on the rational side of the fence includes:
Denying Evolution; Massimo Pigliucci (not reviewed yet)

[Héctor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I realy enjoyed the book, it was especially interesting reading the last part where the author tries to somehow reconciliate the scientific enterprise with the search for meaning that is normally considered as exclusively philosophical or religious.

[Gary Parker · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author is as correct as he is insufferable. Read any other book on the subject.

[Dave Diehl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anything that gets you thinking from a new angle and analyzing your own beliefs and understandings is an opportunity to better yourself and sharpen your powers of reason. This book delivers!

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A PHILOSOPHER CRITIQUES INTELLIIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM

Robert Pennock is professor of philosophy at Michigan State University; he has also edited the collection, 'Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives.'

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.

[Avery Northern · Rating 2 out of 5]

Robert T. Pennock is an impeccable researcher. Unfortunately, he appears to have the writing skills of a homeless guy scrawling a manifesto on the back of a receipt.

This is one of the most disorganized, rambling, poorly edited books that I have read. It is as if Pennock just wrote out everything he knew about creationism and evolution in one go.

Is this book about the various factions in creationism? The parallels between linguistic evolution and biological evolution? The ways that creationists have ironically adapted to their academic and legal environments? Refuting pseudo scientific arguments against evolution? Refuting pseudo philosophical arguments against evolution? Darwin himself? The threat of pseudo science like intelligent design theory spreading to other sciences? The threat of creationism in the classroom? Is this a scientific book? A legal one? A historical one? A philosophical one? A pedagogical one? I don't know, and neither does Pennock. Any one of these subjects could be a book on its own, but Pennock decided to cram them all into one book and made only a half assed attempt to divide them into different sections. The parallels between linguistic evolution and biological evolution are - for some god damned reason - discussed in the same chapter as missing links in the biological evolutionary chain. The sections also bleed into each other so much that I wondered why he bothered trying to separate them at all. Often, several of these arguments are crammed into the same page long paragraph.

Since this book is discussing so many subjects at once, it never really goes particularly deep into any of them. For example, I was interested to learn about the factions within creationism, but there was only a quick pass over hydroplate theory and several brief mentions that there is a difference between YECs and OECs (something I already knew). If Pennock had picked a topic and stuck to it, I have no doubt that he'd offer valuable information on any of them. But he was too busy trying to discuss all of them at once, as well as going off on several tangents. (At one point, during his discussion of linguistic evolution, he goes off on a tangent about the owner of a Texas dance hall for a page long paragraph.)

It wasn't incomprehensible, exactly. All of the information in it is presented in a way that I could comprehend. It's more accurate to say that it was unprocessable.

There is a lot of good information in Pennock's brain, clearly. I only wish that he could communicate it succinctly and clearly.

[Juan Pablo · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very good book. The author uses facts of linguistic evolution as opposed biological evolution to demonstrate flaws in creationism. It goes into the history of the creationist movement from the beginning up to the it's current form in the Intelligent Design movement. The book also brings up the topic of philosophy of science & the nature of scientific "revolutions". Even the little bit of information provided on the topic of the philosophy of science is eye-opening & illuminating because it helps you better understand the nature of science & it's underlying methodology & by extension how it works. That is something that is grossly misunderstood by a lot of people, especially in the U.S. This books is a gem & I learned a lot from it. I definitely recommend it.

[Leigh · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I've read all year. I highly recommend to anyone who wants a solid understanding of evolutionary theory. It includes a fascinating essay on linguistic evolution - I do wish this section had been a bit longer! My only other complaint is that Pennock often assumes that the reader has the same general knowledge of philosophy terms that he does. All in all, Tower of Babel was a challenging read, but one I thoroughly enjoyed. It was worth the effort.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book makes some good points, and is very interesting in places, but it's so long-winded that I gave up halfway. The basic point about language evolution is a good one (and reflects conclusions I'd already come to), but it's a shame the chapter focuses on Chomskyan linguistics rather than variationist linguistics (which connects much better with evolution).

[Paige McLoughlin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this during the New Atheist fad of the early 2000s. We got far bigger fish to fry in end-stage capitalism than creationism basically beating back Maga fascism is a bigger problem today although I am sure creationists and Trump chuds are overlapping circles.

[Richard Williams]

Tower of Babel; the evidence against the New Creationism. by Robert T. PENNOCK (1999)

[Joseph · Rating 3 out of 5]

I reviewed this one.

[Dave Peticolas · Rating 3 out of 5]

An analysis of the philosophy, methods, and aims of the Creationism movement, contrasting it with those of science.