PANDA.TXT > At the 1995 annual meeting of the American Scientific affiliation, (ASA) the controversial textbook OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE was discussed. A report of the session appeared in a subsequent ASA newsletter and is reproduced here with the permission of the ASA office. More information on the ASA may be found in the file ASA.TXT elsewhere in the RELIGIOUS ISSUES FORUM library on Compuserve. ----------------------------------------------------------- Burgy: Here is the article on Pandas from the Nov/Dec ASA newsletter. --------------------------------------------------------- ASA Annual Meeting Symposium: Should Pandas Be Recommended? The 1995 ASA Annual Meeting Symposium addressed the question: "Should ASA members support the use of the textbook, Of Pandas and People, as a supplement to standard high school biology textbooks?" The session was chaired by Creation Commission chairperson David Wilcox. Nelson Introduces Issue Philosopher of science Paul Nelson introduced the symposium. Paul defended the intelligent design thesis with its design ideas in biology. Teleological language, Paul observed, is already a part of biology literature and teleological reasoning is found in Darwin when he argued: "Would God have done...?" This is essentially a theological and, consequently, a teleological argument. Paul referred to Neal C. Gillespie's book, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, for further demonstration of teleology in biological arguments. Paul also remarked that Gould and Dawkins "make many reverse teleological arguments." Paul's introduction thereby laid the grounds for why the debate itself had merit. Behe Supports Pandas Contrasts with Biology Michael Behe, prof. of biochemistry at Lehigh U. in Pennsylvania and a symposium participant last year, took the position favoring recommendation of Pandas (P.) He evaluated it according to three criteria: as a (supplemental) textbook, its science, and its pedagogy. Compared to symposium participant Kenneth Miller's popular textbook, Biology (B.), he assessed the terminology and topics covered to be comparable. As for science, P. is "top-notch." perhaps superior to Ken's book, Behe asserted. He discussed Miller's experiment (a different Miller than Ken) of over four decades ago which attempted a laboratory simulation of presumed conditions on early earth. Inorganic chemicals were subjected to pressure, light, electrical discharge (simulated lightning), etc., and some of the amino acids and other chemicals found in living organisms were produced. Mike noted that P. covers biases in these experiments, such as the destruction of DNA bases by ultraviolet light and that much of the resulting material, such as formaldehyde, is not conducive to life. Mike's criticism of B. in contrast to P. is that it treats these experiments as the last word, so far. Mike noted that B. discusses comets and hypothermal vents as serious problems for origins of life. Yet, P. puts forward more detailed criticisms of present origins of life theories. Next, Behe emphasized that 'evolution' has multiple definitions, such as: change over time, common descent, or mutation and natural selection. Behe said P. distinguishes between these meanings while B. shows no hint of such difficulties. This is likely to confuse high-school students. For example, B. talks about peppered moth adaptation immediately before introducing macroevolution. Behe criticized glosses over such difficulties in these theories because it teaches students to unquestioningly accept authority. Finally, Behe opined that P. is mild-mannered and polite in style, and that the hysterical reaction against P. is based on its breaking a taboo: P. does not bend the knee to science; it does not say that the problem of life will be solved by science. Behe contrasted P. again with B., which invites students to write about their understanding of evolution but doesn't say what the fuss is about. Yet it broaches extrascientific issues such as environmentalism, recycling, and the right to cause extinction of species. Behe finished by noting that other areas of science are not as religiophobic. For instance, the Big Bang theory may have religious overtones but hasn't been rejected by science. Miller Lists Errors in Pandas Kenneth Miller is prof. of biology at Brown U. in Providence, Rhode Island, where he was an undergrad. He was an assistant prof. at Harvard U. for six years before returning to Brown. His high-school textbook, Biology, is in its third edition (1990) with 700,000 copies in circulation. His current research involves plant cell membranes and how viruses get from cell to cell in plants. Ken was apprehensive about what his reception before ASAers would be. After all, as he noted at the beginning of his talk, all of the other symposium participants were listed in Pandas as contributing to it in some way! To break the ice, Ken put on his "ASA" cap -- He umpires in his son's sports activities as part of the Amateur Softball Association. After Mike's extensive reference to his book, no introduction was needed, though he too had an essentially identical slide showing its front cover. Ken would like to see P. used; he's not for censoring it, but does not 'endorse' its use. He would say yes to P. if it offered a novel view, a fair summary of life science, corrected any major errors, or stimulated critical scientific thought. Ken began describing his difficulties with the book by noting that, despite reference to the half-life of rubidium and strontium, P. says nothing about the age of the earth. Secondly, its coverage of fossils is in need of correction. Fossils are neither rare nor fragmentary. For instance, there are over a million extant sea urchin fossils. Many fossils are not lacking in detail either. The fossil record shows continuity between present and past life much better than some arguments to the contrary. Furthermore, evolution does not follow continuous or linear descent but shows a branching pattern instead. Ken also gave the example of Mekong River snails to illustrate that there are few gaps in the fossil record. Yet all of this is, according to Ken, rendered invalid by P. which asserts that fossils are no proof of ancestry. Why is it, Ken asked, that the first amphibian to appear in the record is more fish-like than other amphibians? P. says fish appeared early but doesn't say present boned fish appeared late (recently) in the record. Groups appear and disappear (punctuated equilibrium), yet extinction is not discussed in P. And what is extinction evidence of? P. argues for intelligent design in terms of the appearance of new species but does not confront the extinction of species. Ken described transitional forms of the whale and Ambulocetus natans, a critical intermediate between land mammals and present-day whales. Yet P. denies intermediate forms. As for the human fossil record, P.'s prehuman fossils are not antecedent to humans. Furthermore, P.'s chapter on molecular homology distorts the molecular nature of the fossil record: Darwinism does not predict equal distances between organisms. That both humans and apes have the same pseudogenes implies common ancestry. According to Ken, a big error is that the red (or lesser) panda [Finally! Something about pandas!] does not have an opposable thumb. Ken summed up P.'s major errors in facts: as "P. distorts evolutionary theory and mischaracterizes the fossil record." Following these presentations were interactions with the audience. John Wiester quoted from Miller's book, Biology (K. Miller and J. Levine, Prentice-Hall, 1993, p. 658): "In many ways, each animal phylum represents an experiment in the design of body structures to perform the tasks necessary for survival. Of course, there has never been any kind of plan to these experiments because evolution works without either plan or purpose." He then asked Ken if he would consider this science or philosophy. John's point was that B.'s ideological implications are significant and worth considering for revision in the next edition of the book. The tone of the symposium was congenial, lacked vitriol, and yet was hard-hitting and forthright; what many of those attending prayed it would be: a serious exchange of worthwhile ideas about the issues raised by Pandas. Channels of communication also appeared to open for further dialog. Both Mike Behe and Ken Miller impressed some of us with not only their scientific acumen but with their remarkable Christian character. As Ken facetiously pointed out in passing during the interaction time, it is indeed unusual to find a largely Protestant organization hosting a debate between two Catholics! end of the article. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Blessings, Lyn (ASA office) Uploaded to Compuserve's Religious Issues forum by John W. Burgeson (Burgy).