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).