RE: Pennock's book

From: Hofmann, Jim (jhofmann@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU)
Date: Thu Mar 09 2000 - 12:38:30 EST

  • Next message: Moorad Alexanian: "Re: ID (fwd)"

    I thought of using Pennock's book for some classes I teach but decided not
    to mainly because of the book's poor organization. You never know quite
    where you are and the Chapter titles don't help any. Also, for my taste,
    there are too many adjectives like "stupid" and "absurd" used to label
    creationist arguments or interpretations. I prefer to simply present
    arguments and assess their validity without the invective.
            All that aside, I thought some of the analysis was very good. I
    particularly liked the analogy Pennock drew between Phillip Johnson and a
    Star Trek episode. In this episode the Enterprise encounters an alien
    civilization that thinks that after death each individual soul enjoys an
    afterlife in the vicinity of a particular asteroid. Spock of course finds
    this "curious" and after much investigation, it is determined that there is
    an "energy destabilization" or some such trekkie babble near the asteroid
    and this is interpreted as scientific confirmation of the existence of alien
    "souls" there.
            I haven't seen this episode (I would love to have a copy), so I'm
    not sure how the crew reacted. On the one hand, the discovery would seem to
    confirm the existence of the alien souls and their religious beliefs. On the
    other hand, the discovery might be seen as showing that what the aliens
    thought were supernatural entities, namely their souls, were actually simply
    complicated physical phenomena.
           Pennock points out that Johnson's insistence that the God he believes
    in is one who "has left his fingerprints all over the evidence" and is not
    one who would create through natural evolutionary processes places Johnson
    in the position of demanding scientific confirmation for the existence of a
    supernatural entity. Pennock thus labels Johnson a "super-naturalist" in the
    sense that he is in effect demanding that God be brought into the domain of
    material processes in the same way that the alien "souls" were in the Star
    Trek episode. Pennock isn't the first one to notice this of course, but I
    thought his analogy was clever and useful.

    Jim Hofmann
    Cal State Fullerton

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Ted Davis [mailto:TDavis@messiah.edu]
                    Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 5:21 AM
                    To: Asa@calvin.edu
                    Subject: Pennock's book

                    In response to questions about Robert Pennock's book, Tower
    of Babel: The
                    Evidence Against the New Creationism, I offer the following
    comments,
                    reflecting views I will express in a review forthcoming in
    the British
                    journal, Endeavor. I will not be posting the review itself
    in advance of
                    publication, though I am seeking permission to reprint it in
    the next
                    ASA/HPS newsletter.

                    (1) The book does cover "the whole range" of creationsim,
    from YEC to ID.
                    TE is however not much mentioned. The "new creationism"
    mentioned in the
                    title is ID.

                    (2) The objections given by Pennock closely parallel those I
    have given in
                    my own review of ID in various venues mentioned several
    times in earlier
                    posts; I won't repeat them here. Of course additional
    objections are also
                    made, as one would expect in a book of this length. The
    most original
                    objection, IMO, is the argument related to the book's title,
    namely that the
                    evolution of human language is an example of evolution that
    we can actually
                    observe in operation through the short span of known
    history. A clever and
                    effective argument, IMO.

                    (3) The book's weakest feature, IMO, is its failure to
    suggest a solution
                    to the educational problems that shows appropriate respect
    for the citizens
                    who believe in various forms of creationism. Here my
    comments are identical
                    to those made elsewhere, namely that we need to include
    religious
                    perspectives within what counts as publicly funded
    education. In other
                    words, we need to recognize that "separation" of church and
    state is not
                    what the first amendment meant by barring the
    "establishment" of religion.
                    In other words, parents ought to have the right to use their
    own money (in
                    the form of their tax dollars) to send their children to
    schools of their
                    own choice. I could go on at great length here but this
    would be politics,
                    not sci/religion, so I'll give it a rest.

                    Ted Davis



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 09 2000 - 12:34:12 EST