Of Pandas and People, The Central Question of Biological Origins [Hardcover]

Percival Davis & Dean Keynyon (Author), Charles B Thaxton (Editor)

Book Description

Publication Date: 1989

by Percival Davis (Author), Dean H. Kenyon (Author) "There was a time when people believed some animals arose on their own, full-blown, from non-living matter. Key Phrases: adaptational package, breeding chain, design proponents, New York, North American, Charles Darwin.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 166 pages
• Publisher: Haughton Publishing Company (1989)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0685459039
• ISBN-13: 978-0685459034
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 7.3 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 2.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (123 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,784,843 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

774 of 875 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Poor, incomprehensible science lives on, January 29, 2004

By 

Matthew J. Brauer (Princeton, NJ United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (Textbook Binding)

I finally got around to reading this book, and was astonished to find that nearly all of Michael Denton's impossibly wrong account of hierarchies in taxonomy was included as chapter six. Denton, in his "Evolution: A theory in crisis" bases the whole of his argument against common descent on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of molecular data. The error is so egregious that, had he submitted it to any organismal biologist for review, it would have been obvious enough to warrant the cutting of the chapter. Denton himself has acknowledged the error, and retracted his attack against common descent.

So what does it say that this "textbook" accepts with an uncritical eye the argument, verbatim, and makes it the foundation of its discussion on molecular systematics? Only that the authors were ill-informed about the field.

It is unfathomable that any student will get anything of scientific substance from this book. The arguments are incoherent, and the data are woefully out of date. The representations of modern biology are laughably simplistic.

As a propoganda tool, Of Pandas and People is of marginal value, as its muddy arguments are not likely to make much of an impression on thoughtful students. As a "science textbook" it is downright shameful.

485 of 570 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Where's the Science in this Book?, February 19, 2003

By 

Rook Andalus (Venice, CA, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (Textbook Binding)

This book engages in simple false alternative negative argumentation against evolutionary theory and provides no positive arguments in support of intelligent design.

The book opens stating, "...we will present interpretations of the data proposed by those today who hold the two alternative concepts: those with a Darwinian frame of reference, as well as those who adhere to intelligent design.", yet research scientist George Gilchrist of the University of Washington was able to find only 37 instances of the keyword "intelligent design" in over 6,000 scientific and academic journals worldwide. Of the 37, most were irrelevant dealing with computer software or hardware, architectural or engineering design, advertising art, literature, fertilizer manufacture, or welding technology. Only 7 had anything to do with biology, and of these, 5 were discussions of the debate over using the Pandas textbook by various school boards and 2 were comments on Behe's book in a Christian magazine.

There is not a single instance of biological research using intelligent-design theory to explain life's diversity, and though both Davis and Keynon are professional scientists, neither has apparently published anything in the professional literature about their theory.

This book is systematically dismantled by Robert T. Pennock in his book, "Tower of Babel" and has been criticized by creationist, Norman L. Geisler, professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, because the book "appeas[es our] enemies [by] avoiding the word 'creation' like the plague" and for not clearly distinguishing their view from that of "naturalistic (pantheistic) 'creationsits' who see the creator within the universe."

Pandas is guilty of violating every fallacy of argumentation outlined in chapter six of David Kelley's book, "The Art of Reasoning" ...lessons learned by first-year philosophy students, and amounts to little more than vague and ad hoc negative argumentation based on a false dichotomy with frequent hyperbolic congratulatory statements epitomizing delusions of grandeur.

Two stars because it makes an excellent example of what not to do when arguing in support of a theory, and makes excellent dissection material for students of the philosophy of science. It clearly illustrates the difference between the religious and scientific attitude: To hold on to belief come what may is a sign of religious virtue. Contrarily, science takes it to be a virtue that one withholds belief in the truth of a proposition until it is supported by the weight of evidence. And there's the basic theme of the book: To believe in Intelligent Design Theory in the absence of good evidence is a matter not of science, but of faith.

102 of 119 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars baaaaaaaad science, August 14, 2005

By 

Darby M'Graw (Treasure Island) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (Textbook Binding)

This review is based on the original 1989 edition. I have not seen the later revised edition.

The "science" in this book is extremely bad. For a school board member to recommend this book as a supplementary science text is evidence of incompetence.

One long example of this, which I am glad to see has been covered by other reviewers, is the account of taxonomy based on genetic sequence data. Their account of the standard evolutionary interpretation is wrong, wrong, wrong! Having also read Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", I know where they got this seriously incorrect understanding of evolutionary genetics. A correct understanding of evolutionary genetics would reveal that the sequence-based taxonomy is in remarkably good agreement with the fossil-based taxonomy.

In the acknowledgments, it is stated that "First came a round [of review] by scientists engaged in teaching and research, then a round by high school teachers, then a second round by scientists." Apparently by "scientists" they mean "Creation scientists", because it is clear that no one competent in molecular biology ever approved the content of this book.

Another error: "For instance, in skeletal structure, the North American wolf and the now-extincet Tasmanian wolf are nearly indistinguishable. If found as fossils, they would surely be counted as members of the same species." I am not a qualified paleontologist, so I asked one. They told me (as I expected), that this is just plain wrong. Find a qualified paleontologist and try this experiment yourself.

A shortcoming: the section on the origin of life gives short shrift to the RNA World Theory, which has held up remarkably well and which is backed up by evidence such as the discovery of catalytic RNA and the discovery that the core catalytic component of the ribosome consists of RNA.

Outdated: 'Arguments from ignorance' are used (science has yet to explain X, therefore the 'intelligent designer' must have done it), and some of these point out gaps in the fossil record (e.g. whale ancestor fossils) which have now been filled. Science marches on.

In addition to the factual errors, omissions and archaisms, logical errors are prominent, chiefly the 'argument from design'.

Boiling it all down, when the bad science and bad logic are excised, not much remains except for the cute picture of a panda on the cover. Really, it is cute.

I regret that the Amazon rating system does not allow the awarding of zero stars. One picture of a panda is not worth a whole star.