Product 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."

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #303531 in Books
• Published on: 2001-12-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 825 pages

Review
"This book is a terrific one-volume summary of the scientific, philosophical and theological issues."
— Scientific American

About the Author
Robert T. Pennock is Associate Professor at the Lyman Briggs School and in the Department of Philosophy at Michigan State University.

Customer Reviews

Excellent resource
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.

Side-by-Side Comparisons of Evolution and ID/Creationism
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.

To correct some of the negative reviews
<>

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)).

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.

<>
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.