Panda Thumbs Its Nose at the Dysteleological Arguments of the Atheist Stephen Jay Gould

By John Woodmorappe

Introduction

The panda's unique forelimb arrangement, which includes an enlarged wristbone often referred to as the "panda's thumb," has been a topic of debate among evolutionists. They argue that this arrangement is evidence of bad design and must have evolved rather than being created. However, their argument is based on false premises. In this article, we will examine these premises and show that they do not hold up under scrutiny. We will also discuss the evidence of design in the panda's thumb and its implications for a Creator.

Premise 1: Design Should Not Resemble Structures Found in Other Organisms

Evolutionists claim that if a Creator God had designed a structure, it should not resemble structures found in other organisms. They argue that this is evidence of evolution rather than creation. However, this premise is untestable and based on assumptions about what God would or would not do. We cannot know the specifics of God's design choices without revelation. Furthermore, reusing similar designs can be a matter of simplicity and efficiency.

Premise 2: Human Engineers Do Not Modify Pre-existing Structures

Evolutionists argue that human engineers do not modify pre-existing structures when designing new ones, so it is unlikely that a Creator would do so. However, this premise is false. Human engineers frequently modify pre-existing structures to create new designs. For example, the steel wedge of an axe is homologous to the steel plug of a heavy hammer. This shows that modifying existing structures is a common practice in engineering.

Premise 3: Structures Are Jury-rigged and Perform Inferior Functions

Evolutionists claim that certain structures, like the panda's thumb, are jury-rigged and perform inferior functions compared to what they were supposedly designed for. However, this argument fails to consider the correct functions of these structures. To determine if something is jury-rigged, we must first know the intended function of the objects involved. The panda's thumb is perfectly suited for its role in handling bamboo and is not performing an inferior function.

Premise 4: Evolution Is Limited in Modifying Structures

Evolutionists argue that evolution can only make slight modifications to pre-existing structures and cannot create entirely new ones. However, this premise is contradicted by the existence of creatures like Coelurosauravus jaekeli, an extinct gliding reptile that had fully formed "wings" made of completely de novo structures. These wings were not modifications of existing structures but were unique and independent. This shows that evolution is not limited to slight modifications and can produce entirely new structures.

Conclusion: Evidence of Design in the Panda's Thumb

The false premises of Gould's argument against design in the panda's thumb undermine his conclusion that it must have evolved. The panda's thumb has a specific function and is well-suited for its role in handling bamboo. Its unique arrangement is evidence of intelligent design rather than a result of evolution. Rather than trying to find flaws in living things to deny the existence of a Creator, we should focus on the question of why these well-designed structures exist in the first place.

Why This Matters

Understanding the flaws in dysteleological arguments against design helps us see through the smokescreens used to hide the failures of naturalistic explanations. By recognizing the evidence of design in the panda's thumb, we can appreciate the complexity and purposeful arrangement of living organisms. This challenges the notion that everything can be explained solely through natural processes, encouraging deeper thought about the existence of a Creator.

Think About It

Consider how assumptions about what a Creator God would or would not do can influence our interpretation of natural phenomena. Reflect on the complexity and functionality of the panda's thumb and how it points to intelligent design. How does this perspective align with your understanding of the world and your beliefs about a Creator?