Discovery Institute Acquires “Of Pandas and People”

From the Center for Skeptical Inquiry:

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the non-profit which once published the internationally controversial textbook Of Pandas and People, has quietly closed its doors. The financially-struggling organization was completely dissolved some time in early 2016, and its titles have been absorbed by the notorious Intelligent Design group, The Discovery Institute.

More details and commentary on Pandas at the above link.

22 thoughts on “Discovery Institute Acquires “Of Pandas and People”

  1. Afarensis:
    I was amused because the excerpted picture, from Pandas, has Ichthyostega labeled as an amphibian.

    I’m sure that baraminologists are even now conducting intense laboratory tests to determine whether Ichthyostega belongs to the frog kind or the fish kind.

  2. I found a copy of “Of Pandas and People” in my local public library (in Seattle, so perhaps donated to them by the DI or requested by one of its people). I had been under the impression that it would be a full biology text, to replace a book like Miller and Levine. But on going through it, I found that on each topic it did not start by explaining the conventional view, then arguing with it. Instead it just argued. So there was really no way any school board could use it as the main text for their biology course. It was really just a compilation of rebuttals.

  3. Gould wrote an essay on giraffes. He opposed unsupported selectionism. His message is that no one knows why giraffes have long necks, especially since there are intermediate necked critters.

    Okapis have all kinds of evolutionary mysteries. They look part giraffe, part zebra. Look like a Photoshop job.

  4. Joe Felsenstein:
    I found a copy of “Of Pandas and People” in my local public library (in Seattle, so perhaps donated to them by the DI or requested by one of its people).I had been under the impression that it would be a full biology text, to replace a book like Miller and Levine.But on going through it, I found that on each topic it did not start by explaining the conventional view, then arguing with it.Instead it just argued.So there was really no way any school board could use it as the main text for their biology course.It was really just a compilation of rebuttals.

    Hi Joe

    Various teachers on the AP forum have reported that the Pandas’ text has been “donated” to various school boards as just that – a substitute for Miller & Levine, ostensibly as a non-creationist alternate to secular theology.

    risible that…

    I shall repost the following

    http://philosoraptor.blogspot.ca/2007/11/bad-guy-team-up-id-ssk-so-i-was.html

    Though, of course, Michael Behe and the lot from Dover were basically busted because they were so obviously pushing a religious view for religious reasons. (In one draft of the ID textbook, Pandas and People, researchers found that the ID folk had just gone through an old creationist textbook they’d written and tried to replace ‘creationism’ and ‘creation’ with ‘intelligent design theory’ and ‘intelligent design.’ The most amusing part of the whole business came when it was discovered that they’d forgotten to delete correctly, and had thus included in one of their manuscripts words like “creaintelligent designtionism.” Now there’s a transitional form for ya…

  5. Tiktaalik could not be a transitional form as it existed millions of years after the transition. And unguided evolution doesn’t have a mechanism capable of accounting for tiktaalik. It can’t account for giraffes either.

  6. When I have some spare time I might train a Markov model with a combined corpus from Frankie and fifthmonarchyman. I predict gems like “How do you know you can’t explain having no mechanism capable of accounting for atheists.”

  7. Patrick,

    LoL! Sure as hell beats trying to find evidentiary support for the claims of your position. So we understand why you choose the tactics that you do.

  8. TomMueller,

    The most amusing part of the whole business came when it was discovered that they’d forgotten to delete correctly, and had thus included in one of their manuscripts words like “creaintelligent designtionism.”

    Is this a garbled reference to “cdesign proponentsists”, or is there another replacement I’m not aware of? If the latter, could you provide a reference?

  9. John Harshman,

    It’s a garbled reference and it is very telling that evos cannot understand the publisher’s explanation for the rough draft.

  10. petrushka:
    Gould wrote an essay on giraffes. He opposed unsupported selectionism. His message is that no one knows why giraffes have long necks, especially since there are intermediate necked critters.

    Okapis have all kinds of evolutionary mysteries. They look part giraffe, part zebra.Look like a Photoshop job.

    This shows a lack of imagination to say I DON’T know but its still evolution.
    In fact I would say giraffes are just a example of a more prevalent thing.
    I know there was a camel that had just as long a neck as the giraffes. This in N america. Many types of camels.
    The giraffe would just likewise by a type or rather a okapi with a long neck.
    no reason to see selection having effect. But simply a original wealthy society with some types getting taller and bigger because they were the leisure class of thier type. A simple case of health affecting size. No different then with people. In Africa one would have the smallest people and the biggest. Yet no from selection but simoply the health of the type in its environment.
    Evolutionism puts roadblocks to better ideas, right ones, or options for how things came to be.

  11. Frankie: It is very telling that evos ignore the publisher’s explanation

    Care to recap in your own words why searching and replacing can turn an creationist text book into an intelligent design text book despite the “fact” that intelligent design has nothing to do with creationism?

  12. Patrick:
    When I have some spare time I might train a Markov model with a combined corpus from Frankie and fifthmonarchyman.I predict gems like “How do you know you can’t explain having no mechanism capable of accounting for atheists.”

    It will make as much sense and contribute to the conversation as much as either of them ever did.

  13. Kantian Naturalist,

    LoL! I add to the conversation by exposing the lies and nonsense of evolutionists. I know that bothers you but you could change that by actually posting some substance to support the claims of your position.

    It is sad that you try to blame others for your lack of substance but we understand why you choose to do so.

  14. Frankie: LoL! I add to the conversation by exposing the lies and nonsense of evolutionists. I know that bothers you but you could change that by actually posting some substance to support the claims of your position.

    All you’ve ever exposed is your own inability to learn.

  15. Kantian Naturalist: All you’ve ever exposed is your own inability to learn.

    Your projection is duly noted-

    I have learned that your position is total untestable nonsense. And you and your ilk have provided more than enough evidence for that.

    Thank you

  16. OMagain- Creation is a subset of ID. That has been explained to you many times. It appears that you have an innate inability to learn.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.