熊猫英语演讲
发布网友
发布时间：2022-10-13 05:16
共1个回答
热心网友
时间：2023-10-30 08:34
Pandas claims a long intellectual history for evolution and creation (here called intelligent de璼ign). Many of the ancient myths only vaguely suggest evolutionary ideas and have little or no significance for the modern scientific theory of evolution. And many of them are mixtures of these two ideas. Even Genesis states that the universe was without form and its present organization was achieved in stages. White (1960) considers these ancient myths in detail.
Pandas' goal of presenting two alternative interpretations of the phenomena in six specific areas of science is laudable. Unfortunately Pandas' implementation has nothing to recommend it. Most of the facts are incorrect, many pertinent facts are omitted, many evolutionary concepts are distorted beyond recognition. For example, evolution is radically redefined. The mechanisms of evolution and punctuated equilibrium are grossly misrepresented. The nature of the fossil record is distorted and the existence of well-documented transitional forms denied. It is implied that pandas and marsupials cannot be fitted into a hierarchic classification. And finally, to discredit the protein sequencing evidence, Pandas claims that evolution requires a ladder of living forms, rather than a branching phylogenetic tree with the living forms at the tips. And after being fed all this misinfor璵ation, the students are asked to form their own opinion! If they believe what Pandas has pre璼ented, they will have been thoroughly deceived.
Pandas tells us that we observe natural and manmade objects, resulting from two fundamen玺ally different causes: natural and intelligent. But are not manmade objects created by natural means? And what about other "manufactured" objects, such as beaver dams and the nests of birds, wasps and termites and the honeycombs of bees? Certainly letters of the alphabet scratched in the sand were manmade but what about the letters of the alphabet hidden in the colored patterns of the wings of various butterflies? The Mount Rushmore monument is obviously of human origin but what about the face of George Bernard Shaw so clearly shown by the outline and relief of Pointe Bernard Shaw on Isle Radisson in Quebec? What about the regular geological formations pho玺ographed on Mars that look like the ruins of cities or others that resemble faces? We must be very careful if we are to correctly recognize evidence of intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe. But we and scientists are dealing with intelligent beings that work by natural means, not the supernatural beings that Pandas will try to introce into the science classroom.
Teachers do have the right to present nonevolutionary views in their classrooms. But these are expected to be legitimate scientific views and the teacher has the responsibility to present reliable information and describe scientific concepts and theories accurately and correctly. No creationist work, including the present one, meets those basic requirements.
Although Pandas restricts itself to six subjects, they are certainly not treated in depth. One pe璫uliar feature of the book's organization is that the footnotes to the material in the Excursion chap玺ers are not printed in this book but are found only in the Teacher's Guide. A listing of these refer璭nces will be given and they will receive further attention in the critiques on the Excursion chap玺ers.
As I hope this work shows, Pandas is not a balanced and intellectually honest treatment. It is (for a creationist work) a low-key and skillful polemic against evolution.
