Jon A. Buell, president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, says that despite the draft terminology, "Pandas" is not advocating creationism -- "even though it was written by three people who were creationists." The term "creationism" was "a placeholder term," in the draft, says Mr. Buell, 65 years old, who has devoted much of his life to working for conservative Christian groups. "They had to put something in there until the terminology could be worked out . . . It does raise the suspicion. I acknowledge that."
"The concept of creationism -- a divine being -- is universal in human history," said Nancy Pearcey, author of the overview and a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a think tank that is intelligent design's leading proponent. But she says the textbook "is not creationist . . . It doesn't start with any holy text. Instead it starts with scientific data and says 'what does that mean?' "
"Pandas" quarrels with Darwin's theory that natural selection and genetic variation creates new species, including humans. The book accepts "microevolution," or changes within species, but not "macroevolution," the change of one species into another. 
Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, testifying for the plaintiffs, said the book is just bad science. "The treatment of biology in Pandas is inaccurate and downright false, in every respect," the professor testified.
My Research
