Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins

by Percival William Davis, Dean H. Kenyon

Of Pandas and People gives evidence for intelligent design from origin-of-life studies, biochemistry, genetics, homology, and paleontology. In a unique manner, Of Pandas and People gives the pros and cons of both the biological-evolution theory and the intelligent-design concept. Pandas promotes a widely recognized goal of science education by fostering a questioning, skeptical and scrutinizing mindset. This supplemental biology textbook provides an extensive index, glossary, references, and suggested reading and resources to help familarize the reader with the material. Pandas is enhanched by the use of numerous diagrams, charts, illustrations and full-color pictures.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Evolution, Biology, Pseudoscience, Philosophy, Religion

170 pages, Hardcover

First published August 1, 1989

About the author

Dr. Percival Davis is Professor of Life Science at Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida since 1968, and Visiting Professor of Biology at Clearwater College since 2006.

Reviews

[Fiver · Rating 1 out of 5]

I knew before reviewing this book that it would either be 1 star (for content) or 5 stars (for infamy and presentation). Of Pandas and People is the infamous flagship book for Intelligent Design which was at the center of the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial in 2005, over whether it was constitutional to teach Intelligent Design (or even reference it) in public school biology class. This is the book in which, on manuscript reviews, the entire textbook was changed from mentioning and focusing on "creation" and "creationists" to "intelligent design", right on the year (1987) that Creationism was outlawed in public schools.


Of Pandas and People is very well written, sounds very scientific, and has long sections of very good biology (clearly explaining important aspects of biochemistry, genetics, etc). This is all, of course, just to water down the fundamental proposition of the book: that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific hypothesis.

As you read it, you might get the hint that the wool is being pulled over your eyes on some points: charts and graphs are remarkably lacking in dates, and the book seems to jump around the meaning of "taxon" a little (one of my favorite quotes: "Nearly every fossil ever found falls into modern taxa." People who understand taxonomy should realize the inanity of this sentence, and why the sentence "Nearly every fossil ever found falls into taxa which are not present today" is also true).


Then some of the fundamental flaws of Intelligent Design as a science also peek through, in that Intelligent Design doesn't explain a phenomena because it doesn't imply any phenomena. The recurring argument of the book is "Here is something that Evolution can't explain. Therefore, this is evidence of Intelligent Design." The reason why this is bad science should be clear.

And then finally, the book is simply wrong and even blatantly dishonest on a multitude of important points. Fossils that it claims to be entirely missing have, in fact, been found in excess (such as the tetrapod-to-whale lineage, or the fish-to-amphibian lineage). Morphologies that it claims to be "nearly identical" are, in fact, indisputably not so. For example it makes the infamous claim that a wolf's skull is nearly identical to that of a Tazmanian 'wolf', when the vast multitude of morphological features clearly and distinctly makes a Tazmanian wolf's skull more like a kangaroo's (consistent with the Theory of Evolution) than any member of the dog family.

This book and its history are inherently deceptive. I'd urge readers to look over the results of the Kitzmiller vs Dover case themselves, in which both the history and the book's inherent arguments were thoroughly examined. If Intelligent Design has any chance of making into public classrooms, it must first convince the scientists and provide actual research, rather than simply trying to sneak their ideas straight into schools, skipping around peer review and consensus. You would be doing your children a great disservice and instructing them in the ways of anti-science by allowing them to be taught by this book.

[Sarah · Rating 1 out of 5]

Book clearly written for creationism. The author misses the point that trying to tear down evolution does not magically your 'science' valid. When one uses nothing but outdated and false accusations against the theory of evolution, and does nothing to actually prove their science, you have to wonder how 'creationism' has received so much attention in the past.
One of their touted examples in the book is if you see a car, you assume someone built it. Therefore, the same can be said of people, and of the earth.
I'd quite prefer to keep this out of the classroom of American schools. Unless, of course, it's to teach students how NOT to do science.
Remember, science and religion CAN coexist. Religion deals with the supernatural. Science deals only with the natural. Therefore, the study of god and a higher power cannot and will not be explained by science. Science is, by definition, agnostic. Don't let someone use this 'science' to tell you how to think critically.
As a scientist, books like these are really quite frustrating.

[Jason Paisley · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is a reedited version of the original where "creator" was replaced with the term "designer". It presents an argument for the discredited hypothesis of Intelligent Design. It was re-titled in 2007 to "The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems". This book makes many errors so many that when it's authors tried to get it listed as "Banned Book of the Year" in 2006 however it was disqualified as it is considered "inaccurate". The reason for this is it was a textbook and it's overwhelming mistakes disqualify it for being listed as "banned". In order to be listed as a banned textbook your textbook must contain accurate and true information. This is a book any serious student of science should run from screaming and deserves a place in the Museum of Utter Failure.

[Winston Jen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ironically, reasonable, secular and honest people must thank Keynyon and Thaxton for proving, conclusively and irrefutably showing the world that ID is creationism in a stolen lab coat. It barely qualifies as a hypothesis and is easily refuted by countless examples of inept and inefficient design (the male nipple, the appendix and the panda's lack of libido being just a few).

In attempting to provide a "balanced analysis" of the alleged controversy, this book does nothing of the sort. While there is a solid foundation of biochemical and genetic information, the authors have already come to the table with their conclusion: Prove Intelligent Design. The conclusions we get are speculations and incredulous claims along the lines of "Wow! I can't see how this occurred naturally!" "The eye is perfectly designed for seeing!" "The lion was clearly designed by a benevolent creator to catch its prey swiftly, mercifully bringing its life to an end in a split-second." This last comment ignores how the conflicting "design" of how antelopes and buffaloes were created to ESCAPE from said predators.

Lies of commission and omission are rife. Many of the so-called "gaps in the fossil record" were filled in by the publication date (hardly surprising, given that this book evolved from a more primitive incarnation early in the 20th century). Without empirical claims, it is no surprise that these theocrats are lobbying for their views to be heard rather than struggle through the ordeals and trials of scientific peer review.

As Michael Shermer mentioned in Why Darwin Matters, the Dover evolution case began with a collection plate. Several hundred dollars were raised to purchase and distribute copies of this exact book. Fortunately, several upstanding and honest parents were not going to simply stand back and watch their children be fed lies and junk science.

[Dan Bishop · Rating 1 out of 5]

Boooooooooo

[Joel Yousaf · Rating 5 out of 5]

I Love This Book, This Book can help us to learn new things about ( Intelligent Design ) and show`s us how science support it , Its a worth book. I personally Read it and Like it , Best book on science also proves God work and Power that is Beyond our Brain to understand How Complex life is ? You should also read Navigating Genesis and Signature in Cell along with this book, These 2 Book are also awesome and overwhelming..

[Kellie Cunningham · Rating 1 out of 5]

Just about the most agonizing 170 pages I have read to date.

[Steven H · Rating 1 out of 5]

THE PROPOSED ‘TEXTBOOK’ FOR THE ‘INTELLIGENT DESIGN’ MOVEMENT

The Introduction to this 1993 (2nd edition) of this book (which was originally published in 1989) states, “Two different concepts of the origins of living things have long histories extending from ancient times to the present. While both have taken varied forms through the centuries, there is, nevertheless, a central core idea that modern proponents of each view hold in common with their forebears. Through all the ages some have held the concept of life emerging from simple substance. What the substance is, what form the first life took, and the mechanism of emergence, chance or law, are details that have changed to characterize many different theories of natural origin. Likewise, proponents of intelligent design throughout history have shared the concept that life, a manufactured object, is the result of intelligent shaping of matter. Within intelligent design also, the details as to how gradual or abrupt, and over what span of time, differ…

“This book has a single goal: to present data from six areas of science that bear on the central question of biological origins. We don’t propose to give final answers, nor to unveil ‘The Truth.’ Our purpose, rather, is to help readers understand origins better, and to see why the data may be viewed in more than one way. There will be no attempt to kid you---to tell you that a complex issue is simple, or that the authors’ view is the only reasonable one. From those six areas of science, we will present interpretation 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. We will concentrate, however, on explaining what few other textbooks do: the scientific rationale of the second concept. Our intention has been to give you presentations that will balance the biology curriculum. For what might be a refreshing change, you are asked to form your own opinions. If you understand the information presented, you are fully capable of drawing your own conclusions…

“You will be given an opportunity to examine data dealing first with how life may have arisen. Once that has been addressed, you can delve into what science has to say about the impact of genetics and environment on shaping groups of organisms that we commonly refer to as species. This raises the questions of how species came into being in the first place, and how the elegantly complex structures or organisms arise. Have you ever wondered how we can explain the human eye, or the marvel of flight in birds?” (Pg. vii-viii)

It continues, “The authors and publisher want you to use this book as a supplement, not a substitute, for your biology text; it cannot replace the main textbook. But without [this book] you would miss a lot of interesting science… The subjects here are treated in depth, and digging deeper brings richer rewards. Your textbook provides a lighter treatment of a broader range of topics… [This book] is not intended to be a balanced treatment by itself. We have given a favorable case for intelligent design and raised reasonable doubt about natural descent. But used together with your other text, it should help to balance the overall curriculum. By now you are aware that you have a mind of your own. Here is a good opportunity to use it… we expect that [this book] could become an exciting event in your educational journey.” (Pg. ix)

In the first section, the book asks, “How do we decide whether something is the result of natural processes or INTELLIGENT causes? Most of us do it without even thinking. We see clouds and we know, based on our experience, they are the result of natural causes… On the other hand… When we find ‘John loves Mary’ written in the sand, we assume it resulted from an intelligent cause. Experience is the basis for science as well. When we find a complex message coded into the nucleus of a cell, it is reasonable to draw the same conclusion… when scientists probed the nucleus of the cell, they eventually stumbled upon a phenomenon akin to finding ‘John loves Mary’ written in the sand… The greatest difference is that the DNA text is much more complex. If the amount of information contained in one cell of your body were written out on a typewriter, it would fill as many books are as contained in a large library. Are natural causes capable of producing these kinds of patterns?...

They summarize, “What kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question: it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist. This is no different, really, than if we discovered life did result from natural causes. We still would not know, from science, if the natural cause was all that was involved, or if the ultimate explanation was beyond nature, and using the natural cause.” (Pg. 7)

The text notes, “It is true that fossil giraffes have been found side by side with the fossils of sheep; the latter could have been specialized on grass, while giraffes foraged in low trees. However, it is interesting that the neck of the female giraffe is two feet shorter, on the average, than that of the male. If a longer neck were needed solely to reach above the existing forage line, then the females would have soon starved to death and the giraffe would have become extinct. Darwin was correct when he called the giraffe ‘beautifully adapted,’ but he did not have enough information to appreciate the full extent and refinement of the adaptations.” (Pg. 71)

The book explains, “A most impressive example of transition to which Darwinists point is the series bridging from the reptiles to the mammals… There are numerous fossil Therapsid species in the record. In fact, Douglas Futuyma said: ‘The gradual transition from Therapsid reptiles to mammals is so abundantly documented by scores of species in every stage of transition that it is impossible to tell which Therapsid species were the actual ancestors of modern mammals.’ Without doubt, the Therapsids are highly suggestive of a Darwinian lineage. But the fact that a number of parallel Therapsid lineages approach the threshold of the mammalian class raises two additional questions.

“First, if mammals arose from just one of these images, then the others are not ancestral to them. But if several unrelated species have the same mammal-like features as the ‘actual ancestor,’ how compelling are these features as evidence of ancestry for the skeptical inquirer? Do they REQUIRE the Darwinian interpretation, or merely SUGGEST it? On the other hand, if mammals arose several times … from several different Therapsid species, then we must accept that accidental mutations crafted the extraordinary, precisely integrated parts of the mammalian ear. Moreover, they did this many times, each independently, a claim that seems severely strained.” (Pg. 101)

The book concludes, “Darwinists have held high expectations that biochemistry would provide evidence of gradual change between taxonomic groups. Such evidence would be doubly important, since it could show a material basis for progressive sequence---descent with modification---and thus offset the failure of the fossil record to do so… However, biochemistry has not provided this kind of evidence. Over the last century, we have learned many of the informational sequences that play critical roles in the functioning of proteins and DNA, and thus of cells…

“When it comes to the matter of comparison, we found that here, too, organisms are distinct. Although the similarities among them carry over from the anatomical level to the level of biochemistry, they do not exhibit a sequential pattern in which one form leads into the next. Instead, there are divisions between the various groups far too uniform to have [been] predicted. There is now good empirical evidence that classes of proteins with varied functions in living organisms are separated by distances (in their linear sequences) so vast that it is mind-boggling. Because sequence changes in such informational molecules are considered to be the foundation for the changes predicted by neo-Darwinism at the cellular level as well as at the level of traits, structures, and organs, this finding goes to the heart of the neo-Darwinian story. Any view or theory of origins must be held in spite of unresolved problems; proponents of both design and unplanned descent acknowledge this. Such uncertainties are part of the healthy dynamic that drives science. However, without exaggeration, there is impressive and consistent evidence from each area we have studied, for the view that living things are the product of intelligent design.” (Pg. 148)

This book had only quite minimal success in breaking into public schools, and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) decision specifically ruled against using this book as a textbook.

"Accordingly, a third edition with the title, ‘The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems’ (William Dembski and Jonathan Wells are listed as authors) was issued in 2007. But those studying the Intelligent Design movement may find this book and its successor quite interesting.

[Anna Engel · Rating 1 out of 5]

My bullshit-o-meter was on overdrive, especially at the end of each chapter, when the authors really drove home their doubts about Darwinism and/or their support of design. Throughout, the insinuations are surprisingly subtle, but they're there if you know where to look.

There are two essential premises in this book. The first is that the Designer created specific forms of animals that are adapted to their environments. This concept can be equated to Plato's ideal forms - in other words, all bears look similar because they are related to an idea of a BEAR that encompasses all essential bear-ness. Thus, although organisms have evolved into separate breeding populations, this should NOT be taken as evidence of macroevolution. A polar bear and a black bear are both BEARS; their only differences are in the details.

The second premise is that, because science/experience can't always explain something perfectly, Something else was involved. So, because science is unable to explain the formation of complex biological structures, an intelligent Designer did it. Obviously.

There are so many problems - logical and factual - that I don't feel like enumerating them all. The text doesn't aim to teach, but rather to plant doubt and gently direct. Of course, science is all about asking - and hopefully answering - questions, but the "Pandas" text doesn't merely question and seek proof. Instead, the text implies that Something is at work, while leaving the reader to make the final leap as to who or what that Something might be.

[Becky S]

No stars! Religious gibberish trying to masquerade as science. NO, science doesn't support ID/creationism. There's nothing to learn here.
(If we are so intelligently designed, why does so much go wrong with our bodies?)
BTW, the board members who tried to introduce this to the Dover School District back in 2003 were all voted out of office, after losing the court case (Kitzmiller v Dover Board of Ed) in a big way.

[Lee Harmon · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Intelligent Design” theory (ID) proposes that life on earth came about through design by an intelligent being. Proponents seek to highlight problems with traditional evolutionary theory, and instead point to evidence that looks like life was designed. Yesterday here on my blog, I highlighted a bit of history for Of Pandas and People, and how it became an important textbook for the theory, mired deeply in an emotional and legal battle between science teachers and the Christian parents of high-school-age children.

ID doesn’t imply a young earth (though some ID theorists do think the earth is 10,000 years old or less). It simply insists that somebody made all this on purpose. Many species came into being, and then perhaps went extinct, over the last four billion years. Somebody, IDers propose, had their hand in the process the whole while, creating new species here and there over time. In order to argue the point, Davis and Kenyon examine the evidence from six different directions:

Theories about the origin of life
Genetics
How new species supposedly evolve
Whether the fossil record supports evolution
Homology
Biochemical similarities

IDers don’t deny microevolution. It’s hard to deny what has been reproduced in laboratories. Since the arrival of genetics, a field of study which examines the molecular structure of genes, there is no longer any question about microevolution. That is, minor mutations occur within a species, sometimes self-correcting in later generations. But Davis and Kenyon maintain that macroevolution—creation of an entirely new species—remains statistically improbable. (I think the statistical examples given assume that random mutations all occur within the same individual, but even overlooking this assumption, the improbability still looks daunting.)

The problem is, the evidence says it happens, even if we don’t yet comprehend all the details! We might, for example, examine the 24 chromosome pairs of chimpanzees and wonder how scientists can imagine that we lost one when mankind branched off from other primates. Humans only have 23. Well, we did wonder, until we discovered precisely the two that merged into one, and traced exactly where they merged. Our chromosome 2 is a perfect match for the combined chromosomes 12 and 13 of a chimpanzee. Whether or not the idea of mankind sharing a common ancestor with other primates is distasteful, the evidence says it is so.

Thus, Davis and Kenyon have an uphill battle to fight, and some of their conclusions appear on shaky ground. There are many arguments in the book which are violently opposed by mainstream scientists, but at least two problems are so obvious that I should think any high school student of biology would immediately recognize them. One is during the discussion of whether fossils support ID or evolution. The difficulty for evolutionists is that there is an abundance of available fossils, but a relatively small proportion show a transitory state between species. The transitory record is not voluminous enough to be smooth. If, as Darwin supposed, organisms gradually evolve from one to the next, why does the fossil record contain so many missing links?

So if evolution is true, it turns out not to be smooth, but “jumpy,” with transitions occurring relatively quickly (tens of thousands of years, instead of millions). Evolutionists have differing theories about why this is so, generally assuming that accelerated transition occurs during periods of reproductive isolation. One way or another, a species is split by a barrier, and adaption to a new climate or circumstance requires rapid development in a small group, aided by in-breeding. This would account for “jumpy” evolution and the relative scarcity of transitional fossils. But to imply that the fossil record does not support evolution is simply incorrect, and any high school biology student should be aware of this. Fossil examples of transition between species are known, they are located in time and place precisely where they would be expected, and they seem to be no more rare than would be expected. We are filling many of the gaps in the fossil record, having found transitions leading from fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, and from reptile to birds and mammals. Of course, this can never wholly satisfy ID proponents, because when an apparent connection is found, such as the Archaeopteryx (a half-reptile, half-bird from about 150 million years ago) it is simply hailed as one more place where a creator may have designed a new “species.” Though I can’t for the life of me figure out why God would have done that on purpose.

Yeah, I said God. Let’s quit hiding behind the obvious agenda; the designer is presumed to be the Christian God. This becomes a little problematic in places, for it is hard for IDers to admit God made a few mistakes along the way. “Every species has been given an optimal body form which maximizes its function in a particular habitat.” With this assumption it becomes necessary, for example, to deny that man has the useless remnants of a tail in his skeletal structure. Instead, IDers argue that the Coccyx at the base of man’s spine is a logical design, with a completely different function than a tail; it serves as a point of attachment for muscles of the pelvic floor.

Can we really explain away this sort of oddity as Design? And if so—if we humans are already perfect—why are we made such that our genome continues to duplicate (a process called recombination) from generation to generation? Doesn’t this result in needless genetic disorders and susceptibility to diseases? Recombination seems like a pretty sloppy design if any resulting mutation is always for the worse. However, the duplication process (resulting in extra copies of genes) sure is handy for evolution! While one copy plugs along as usual, the other copy is free to mutate and take on new functions. If God felt he was designing a perfect being, duplication turns out to be a big mistake. But if God wanted to set the process of evolution in motion, He found an absolutely brilliant solution.

The other error which should be obvious to high school biology students is a rather embarrassing discussion in the book about similarities in molecular structures. The authors arrange a series of animals in a diagram on page 140, progressing from dogfish to carp to turtle to penguin to chicken to rabbit to horse. Then they wonder why, if evolution progressed as proposed, each of these animals today appear molecularly to be equidistant (measuring in terms of deviation of the cytochrome c molecule) from the starting point: the dogfish. “It has been found that organisms cannot be line up in a series A->B->C, where A is an ancestor of B and B an ancestor of C, but are instead, approximately equidistant from most other organisms in a different taxon.” The error in thinking is obvious, of course; they are not comparing to the earliest form of the species, but to today’s carp/turtle/etc., which continued to evolve after the split. “Equidistance” should come as no surprise.

On the other hand, Pandas does present some intriguing questions, and is engaging! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I admit I have a hard time classifying their approach as science, when the journey stops short, preferring a more palatable solution to common descent. Throwing up one’s hands and saying “God did it” only stunts science, so I should think IDers are further compelled, if they wish to work under the umbrella of science, to investigate how an intelligent being did it. Did he sculpt new animals in the sky and gently lower them earth? Does He have a wireless connection to a computer in heaven where He tweaks DNA during birth to create one species from another? Whatever you imagine, we are left with a category of religion, not science.

So, why do I award this book three stars, when it is skimpy science, contains more than its share of mistakes, and has an unsubtle agenda? Well, it’s not just that the book is informative and easy to read. It’s that I dearly wish I had had such texts when I was in high school! Teaching students to question, to engage in the rough-and-tumble world of scientific exploration, is how young curiosities are piqued. So long as the book is accompanied by more standard evolutionary texts, and so long as the teacher is knowledgeable about the topics and can discuss the arguments fairly, I think the question of Intelligent Design has a place. If ID fails (at least, a version of ID as involved as this book), then as a high school student I really would have liked to know why, and how, by addressing an important topic head-on. Students deserve answers.

[Hannah C. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would have enjoyed this more if I didn't have to speed read it for school. They were also very long-winded...

[Richard · Rating 1 out of 5]

•
Sophistry (plausible but fallacious argumentation)—Yup, regarding this "textbook", sophistry is all that's needed to describe (and dismiss) this book.
•
I must also note that this book is evil. Employing deceitful devices and disguised religious authority, _Of Pandas and People_, fully intends to cheat students out of an appreciation of the value and utility of real science. You can thwart the desires of the sponsors of this book by keeping it out of schools and by keeping it away from students…
•

[Livvie · Rating 3 out of 5]

its hard to read, very technical, but its really a book that the author did well to write. Its not a christian book, the author I think is not a christian, but the author realizes the overwhelming evidence for creation, and thats what this book is about.

[Amara · Rating 1 out of 5]

Creationism? Intelligent design?


Please stop teaching this shite. This book made me just want to break stuff with the amount of rage it instilled in me.

[Jesse McLean]

Intelligent design textbook alternative to Darwin-based evolution. Yikes!

[Lauren Wiseman · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I think it was a decent resource, I feel like there's some other information that needs to be there for it to be a complete source.

[Carrie Poppy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bad.