This is an interesting collection of articles that deserves some general comments. It surely isn't meant to discuss flat earth theories. Intelligent design should be seen most of all as a legitimate conclusion derived from the application to nature of generally accepted means to detect design everywhere else. ~
One should notice the deliberate attempt to link the intelligent design movement with creationism. This attempt is misguided at least for three reasons:
1) it ignores that for many theistic evolutionists, evolutionism is also a form of creationism, since they believe that God created matter and life and then put the evolutionary process in motion. So why not speak also of evolutionistic creationism? Evolutionists have not yet provided a convincing case of spontaneus generation of matter and life, from nothing and non-life respectively;
2) it ignores the fact that the intelligent design movement is very different from biblical creationism, since it doesn't start from the biblical model of creation / fall / curse / flood / Babel / etc., but merely attempts to detect design when it sees irreducible complexity or complex specified information, by means of generally accepted ways (v.g explanatory filters) of detecting and measuring design in multiple fields of life. If matter shows indeed signs of design, it is unscientific not to account for those signs. There is no truly scientific a priori requirement to keep turning our heads pretending we just don't see design in nature.
3) it assumes that biblical creationism is all about religion and not about science. One has only to read Gish, Morris, Humpreys, Ham, Safarti, among many others, to realize that this assumption is false. The biblical model starts with clear religious assumptions, states them openly (many evolutionists have for decades tried to hide their anti-religious naturalistic agenda, without success, builds a model that interpretes the facts consistently, makes predictions and draws on the various internal contradictions of evolutionary theory (v.g. molecules v. fossils; arboreal v. cursorial; regional v. out of Africa). In fact, it must be said that after books from non creationist authors such as Werner Gitt, William Dembski, Michael Denton, Michael Behe and Lee Spetner, just to quote a few, biblical creationism has been much reinforced.
Pennocks' book shows articles by authors such as Philip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski. Richard Dawkins insists on his bluff of an "intelectually fulfilling atheism" (autism?), without resolving his dead end debate with Steven Jay Gould. At the same time, some articles discuss the alleged shortcommings of biblical creationism, by focusing on the "manipulative" debating technics of Duane Gish and the ICR, a convenient charge when one is not able to respond to Gish. To the authors of this criticism I just say: please just try to answer convincingly the various creationists' true arguments, and not some "straw man" versions of them. Scientific debate would much benefit from that attempt.
The alleged difficulties of the Flood (v.g. dispersion; rapid speciation), pointed out in the book, have been answered persuasively by creationists, much earlier then this book, even using arguments of Ernst Mayr and some experiences made by Darwin himself on snails and seeds. Before discounting the Flood, modern science should humbly remember that if we were only to trust its explanatory models and predictions the Pyramids would be an historical impossibility. But there they are, for all to see, still driving evolutionary scientists crazy after all these years. So are the evidences of creation, curse and flood. They just won't go away. That's why creationism will always remain with us. In fact, I'm glad it will, in the name of science, because most ot the most daring challgenges to evolutionary theories have come from creationists, and so far, science has only proved them right.