Activism

• Michigan Citizens for Science.  I founded this citizens' action group together with Ed Brayton in 2001 to help respond to two intelligent design bills that had been proposed in the Michigan legislature that would have changed the state's science curriculum standards to include ID.  MCFS assists legislators and school administrators in maintaining the integrity of science education in Michigan.   I was president MCFS from 2001-2008.

• I testified before the Texas State Board of Education in 1997 during the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) public hearings in support of their inclusion of evolution.  I also testified in 2005 at the Texas State Board of Education science textbook hearings to help fight lobbying by intelligent design creationists who were trying to get proposed biology rejected for not including "weaknesses" of evolution.

• In 2002, biologist Ken Miller and I rebutted ID creationists William Dembski and Michael Behe at a symposium on Evolution or Intelligent Design: Examining the Intelligent Design Issue at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City in 2002.  A transcript is posted.

Books

• You can read my criticisms of Intelligent Design Creationism in my book Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, published by the MIT Press.

Tower of Babel has been reviewed and praised in over fifty publications.  The New York Review of Books called it "the best book opposing creationism in all of its guises."

• For the most complete collection of primary materials, I edited: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Perspectives published by the MIT Press. 

It includes representative essays from ID advocates (Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Alvin Plantinga and Paul Nelson) giving their key arguments in their own words.  Critical responses includes ones from philosophers and historians (Evan Fales, Brandon Fitelson, Barbara Forrest, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Philip Kitcher, Robert T. Pennock, Michael Ruse, Kelly Smith, Elliot Sober) and scientists (Matthew J. Brauer, Daniel R. Brumbaugh, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and George C. Williams).  There are also critical essays from various theological perspectives (Roy Clouser, Ernan McMullin, Nancey Murphy, Arthur Peacocke, and Howard J. Van Till).

It has been reviewed and praised in over a dozen publications including Science, The New York Times Book Review, BioScience, Quarterly Review of Biology, Evolution, Endeavour, Scientific American, Bridges, National Center for Science Education Reports, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Philosophy in Review, Science & Theology News, and Philosophy of Science.

Essays

1. Overviews & General Philosophical Issues

• Creationism and Intelligent Design  Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics. (Vol. 4: 143-163, Sept. 2003) [Download pdf file.]

Abstract:  This review article gives a thorough overview of the published literature regarding the creationism, especially intelligent design, and its key arguments.

• Should Creationism be Taught in the Public Schools?   Science & Education (Vol.11 no.2, March 2002, pp. 111-133)
[Also available online]

Abstract: I consider what it might mean to teach creationism and offer a variety of educational, legal, religious, and philosophical arguments for why it is improper to teach it in public school  science classes and possibly elsewhere as well.  I rebut the standard creationist arguments for inclusion.  I also rebut Rawlsian arguments offered by philosopher of religion Alvin Plantinga.

• The Pre-Modern Sins of Intelligent Design   Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2006, pp. 732-748)
[pdf]

Abstract: Intelligent Design creationists cite Scripture to show that God may be detected in Creation and to suggest that scientists who deny this are idolaters who are commiting a pre-modern sin.  Yet in the public square they deny that their movement is creationist or religious.  This review article rebuts common arguments made by ID advocates such as Philip Johnson and William Dembski, documenting how ID improperly tries to wedge the transcendent into science and showing why their form of creationism is opposed both on scientific and theological grounds.

2. Rebutting Michael Behe & Irreducible Complexity

• Still waiting. ID creationists mostly ignore substantive criticisms of their arguments, but Micheal Behe has conceded in print that a counterexample I made in Tower of Babel undermined his definition of irreducible complexity.  Behe promised "to repair this defect in future work"  ("Reply to my Critics" Philosophy of Science 2001, p. 695), but it is over four years later and he has yet to do so.

• The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features. by Richard Lenski, Charles Ofria, Robert T. Pennock, Christoph Adami.  Nature. (2003, Vol. 423. 8 May, pp. 139-144)  [pdf]

Abstract:  An experimental demonstration of how the Darwinian mechanism can produce complex functional traits.  Though not discussed explicitly in the paper, the experiment refutes Behe's claim that evolution cannot produce "irreducible complexity" and Dembski's claim that it cannot produce "complex specified information."

• Whose God? What Science? Reply to Michael Behe.  In Reports of the National Center for Science Education. (Vol. 21 No. 3-4 pp. 16-19, May-Aug. 2001) [Also available online]

Abstract:  I reply to ID leader Micheal Behe's criticisms of Tower of Babel.  Behe fails to reply to my criticisms in Tower of his arguments, but does try to defend Philip Johnson.  I rebut Behe's claim that ID is not a form of creationism and his argument that evidence evidence against Darwinism does count as evidence of an active God.  I discuss other errors in Behe's paper, including  his improper appeal to Positivist philosopher Percy Bridgman.

• Lions and Tigers and APES, Oh My!: Creationism vs. Evolution in Kansas   Science Teaching & The Search for Origin: Kansas Teach-In. AAAS Dialogue on Science and Religion. (2000) [Available online]

Abstract: This paper is based on talks I gave in 1999 and 2000 about the creationist controversy in Kansas and alerting audiences to the new threat from intelligent design creationism.  Using an example of the construction of arches, I rebut Michael Behe's claim that so-called"irreducibly complex" system cannot arise by gradual processes.

---

3. Rebutting Dembski & Specified Complexity

• The Pre-Modern Sins of Intelligent Design   Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2006, pp. 732-748)
[pdf]

Abstract: Intelligent Design creationists cite Scripture to show that God may be detected in Creation and to suggest that scientists who deny this are idolaters who are commiting a pre-modern sin.  Yet in the public square they deny that their movement is creationist or religious.  This review article rebuts common arguments made by ID advocates such as Philip Johnson and William Dembski, documenting how ID improperly tries to wedge the transcendent into science and showing why their form of creationism is opposed both on scientific and theological grounds.

• The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features. by Richard Lenski, Charles Ofria, Robert T. Pennock, Christoph Adami.  Nature. (2003, Vol. 423. 8 May, pp. 139-144)  [pdf]

Abstract:  An experimental demonstration of how the Darwinian mechanism can produce complex functional traits.  Though not discussed explicitly in the paper, the experiment refutes Behe's claim that evolution cannot produce "irreducible complexity" and Dembski's claim that it cannot produce "complex specified information."

• Mystery Science Theater: The Case of the Secret Agent"
Natural History (April, 2002, p. 77)  [Available online]

Abstract:  Rebuttal to William Dembski's SETI and archery analogies, his explanatory filter, and his claims that complex specified information cannot be produced by natural processes.  His argument is simply a recasting of the old creationist argument that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

• The Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski.  Metanexus (No. 089, Oct. 11, 2000) [Available online]

Abstract: ID creationist William Dembski has failed to respond to any of my substantive criticisms in Tower of Babel of his work, but he did write an article challenging my objection to the ID appeal to supernatural explanations, claiming that it was not ID but rather evolution that engaged in "magic". In my reply, I document that ID is indeed a form of supernnaturism and fails to offer a scientific account.  I include a new counter-example to show again that his "explanatory filter" to detect design does produce false positives, and show how, conta his claim, natural processes can produce what he calls "complex specificed information."

---

4. Rebutting Philip Johnson

• Untitled – Response to Phillip Johnson's Reply to Tower of Babel.  Books and Culture (Sept./Oct. 1999)  [pdf]

Abstract:  Johnson fails to address any of the substantive criticisms I made of his claims.  This reply corrects some of his additional errors and misreadings.

• Johnson’s Defeating Darwinism.  Reports of the Nat. Center for Sci. Ed. (Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 36-38, Nov/Dec 1998)

Abstract:  A review essay of Johnson's book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.

• Naturalism, Creationism and the Meaning of Life: The Case of Phillip Johnson Revisited.  Creation/Evolution (Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 10-30, Winter 1996)

Abstract: The creationism/evolution controversy is not a scientific controversy but a religious and cultural one.  This examines and responds to the moral and religious issues that creationists take to be at stake in the debate.  It won a Templeton Prize for examplary paper in theology and the natural sciences.

• Reply to Johnson - Johnson's Reason in the Balance
Biology & Philosophy (Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 565-568, 1996)

Abstract: This replies to Johnson's response to the previous article. It also updates that article by discussing Johnson's 1995 book Reason in the Balance, that appeared a year after the above article was accepted for publication.

• Naturalism, Evidence and Creationism: The Case of Phillip Johnson
Biology and Philosophy (Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 543-559, 1996)

Abstract: Phillip Johnson claims that Creationism is a better explanation of the existence and characteristics of biological species than is evolutionary theory. He argues that the only reason biologists do not recognize that Creationist's negative arguments against Darwinism have proven this is that they are wedded to a biased ideological philosophy-Naturalism-which dogmatically denies the possibility of an intervening creative god. However, Johnson fails to distinguish Ontological Naturalism from Methodological Naturalism. Science makes use of the latter and I show how it is not dogmatic but follows from sound requirements for empirical evidential testing. Furthermore, Johnson has no serious alternative type of positive evidence to offer for Creationism, and purely negative argumentation, despite his attempt to legitimate it, will not suffice.

---

5. Rebutting Stephen Meyer

• DNA by Design?: Stephen Meyer and the Return of the God Hypothesis.  In Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (eds) Debating Design. New York: Cambridge University Press, (pp. 130 - 148, 2004) [Download pdf file]

Abstract: Focussing on the writings of ID leader Stephen Meyer, this paper demonstrates how ID is a sectarian religious view.  I review and critique Meyer's claim that ID has confirmed "the God Hypothesis" through an inference to the best explanation.  The ID design inference is a God-of-the-gaps argument combined with a kind of Christian presuppositionalism.

---

6. Rebutting Alvin Plantinga

• Should Creationism be Taught in the Public Schools?   Science & Education (Vol.11 no.2, March 2002, pp. 111-133)
[Also available online]

Abstract: I consider what it might mean to teach creationism and offer a variety of educational, legal, religious, and philosophical arguments for why it is improper to teach it in public school  science classes and possibly elsewhere as well.  I rebut the standard creationist arguments for inclusion.  I also rebut Rawlsian arguments offered by philosopher of religion Alvin Plantinga.

---

7. Rebutting Jonathan Wells

• ID’s War: What is it Good For?  Science & Theology News (Vol 2, No. 11/12, July/August 2002 pp. 33-34)

Abstract:  Discusses ID and peer review.  Rebuts ID creationist Jonathan Wells' charge that scientific journals are biased against intelligent design.  Also considers how ID perpetuates the war between science and religion.

---

8. Theological & Cultural Issues

Abstract:  The new common slogan one hears from creationists trying to get their views into the public schools is "teach the controversy" together with the curriculum proposals that schools should teach "arguments for and against evolution."  Creationists are using this kind of approach as an indirect way of bringing in standard Creation Science and Intelligent Design arguments without mentioning those terms explicitly.  This article examines this latest political strategy and the misleading rhetoric that it uses.  The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board Federal court decision against teaching Intelligent Design also ruled against this strategy at the same time.

• God of the Gaps: The Argument from Ignorance and the Limits of Methodological Naturalism. In Petto, Andrew & Laurie Godfrey (editors) Scientists Confront Creationism, Revised edition. (In press)

Abstract:  This paper demonstrates how the design inference as put forward by ID creationists is simply another version of the God-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance.  It also rebuts the ID claim that science is not religiously neutral.

• God and Nature Revisited. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. (Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 8 – 9, January 2004).

Abstract:  A review of historians David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers’ edited anthology When Science and Christianity Meet.

• A Bridgewater Treatise for the 21st Century. Science. (Vol 301, p. 1051, 22 Aug. 2003)

Abstract:  A review of philosopher of science Michael Ruse's book Darwin & Design.

• ID’s War: What is it Good For?  Science & Theology News (Vol 2, No. 11/12, July/August 2002 pp. 33-34)

Abstract:  Discusses ID and peer review.  Rebuts ID creationist Jonathan Wells' charge that scientific journals are biased against intelligent design.  Also considers how ID perpetuates the war between science and religion.

• Of Design and Desception: Kansas, Conflict & Creationism  Science & Spirit (Nov./Dec. 1999) [Also available online]

Abstract: Creationists claim that evolution is a "deception" and "a lie."  But, starting with Phillip Henry Gosse in the 19th century, creationists have had to deny the empirical evidence in ways that seems to make God into a deceiver.  Who is deceiving whom?  This paper looks at the misuses of enchantment.

---

9. Op-Editorials

Abstract: Discusses the deceptions behind the ID creationst movie Expelled and its connection to the new ID creationist strategy of sponsoring bills that would allow their arguments against evolution to be taught under the guise of "academic freedom."

 

Projects

• I am editing a collection of essays from scientists rebutting the claims of ID creationist Jonathan Wells in his book Icons of Evolution.

• I am also editing a guidebook to help citizen activists defend the integrity of science against creationist attacks.

• The Avida-ED Project: I am the PI for 3-year NSF grant to develop an educational software platform for undergraduate biology lab courses that will allow students to test evolutionary hypotheses experimentally using digital organisms.

Public and Professional Invited Talks

• In addition to talks at professional conferences, I have given over a hundred invited talks about evolution education and the creationism controversy for…

• Professional Societies including:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Geophysical Union
• American Museum of Natural History
• American Philosophical Association
• Artificial Life
• Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO)
• International Association for Computing and Philosophy
• International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems
• International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
• International Society for History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Biology
• International Wittgenstein Symposium
• Joint Atlantic Seminar for History of Biology
• National Association of Biology Teachers
• National Evolutionary Synthesis Center
• National Institutes of Health
• North American Computing and Philosophy Conference
• Michigan Osteopathic Association
• Midwest Conference of Parasitology
• Midwest Junto for History of Science
• Model Based Reasoning Conference
• National Science Teachers Association
• New York Academy of Sciences
• Phi Beta Kappa Society
• Philosophy of Science Association
• Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society
• Society for the Study of Evolution

• University biology, philosophy and other departments including:

• Bethany College
• Binghamton University
• California Institute of Technology (CalTech)
• Central Michigan University
• Colby College
• Duke University
• Florida State University
• Grinnell College
• Guilford College
• Illinois State University
• Indiana University
• Hope College
• Juniata College
• Kansas State University
• Lamar University
• Michigan State University
• Miami University, Middletown
• Michigan Tech University
• Northwest University Medical School
• Notre Dame University
• Ohio State University
• Ohio State University, Newark
• Ohio Wesleyan University
• Oxford University
• Rice University
• Roche Research
• Southern Methodist University
• Southeastern Louisiana University
• Texas Tech University
• The College of New Jersey
• Trinity College
• University of Akron
• University of California, San Diego
• University of Colorado, Boulder
• University of Dayton
• University of Idaho
• University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
• University of Kansas
• University of Michigan, Dearborn
• University of Minnesota
• University of Minnesota, Duluth
• University of Montevallo
• University of Nebraska, Lincoln
• University of North Dakota
• University of Northern Iowa
• University of Pittsburgh
• University of Puget Sound
• University of South Carolina
• University of Texas
• University of Washington
• University of Wisconsi, Marshfield
• Virginia Commonwealth University
• Washburn University
• West Virginia University

• The General Public

• American Atheists National Conference
• Darwin Day
• Freethought Association of Western Michigan
• Torch Club
• Mensa
• MSU Freethinker's Alliance
• Presbyerian Church of Okemos
• Science & Religion Study Group, University Lutheran Church
• Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship

• To arrange speaking engagements contact me at <pennock5 AT msu.edu> or find complete contact information for me at Dr. Robert T. Pennock's Home Page at MSU

Press & Media

• As a national expert on the evolution / creationism controversy in general and intelligent design creationism in particular, I have given dozens of interviews for stories in national and international newspapers and magazines, as well as television and radio. 

• In 1999, I appeared as an invited author for Author's Night at the National Press Club in Washington DC.

• A video of my talk The New Creationism as part of the Skeptics Lecture Series at Caltech is available from the Skeptics Society (Video #AV96).  In the talk I discuss the now infamous Wedge Strategy document leaked from the Discovery Institute.

• Reporters requesting interviews can call (517-432-7701) or find complete contact information for me at Dr. Robert T. Pennock's Home Page at MSU

© Robert T. Pennock.  Page created: 9/18/05. Last updated: 6/6/08