Panda Thumbs and Bad Atheistic Theology

Atheists and other anti-creationists use Stephen Jay Gould's claim that the panda has an ineffective thumb as an argument against creation and Intelligent Design, but this dysteleology fails in several areas. One should be glaring obvious: Why would a bear need a thumb like humans have? The comparison is not valid, as we are different creatures with different life niches.

Gould and subsequent followers claim that it is a scientific refutation of creation and ID, but it is not a scientific argument! It is philosophical — really, it is theological.

Anti-creationists like to use the thumb of the panda as an argument against creation. It does not support atheism, and is an argument for design.
Modified from "Giant Panda Tai Shan" / Fernando Revilla / Wikimedia Commons
Misotheists are very fond of "bad design" arguments, which is silly. They do not believe God exists, but presume to fault him for things in nature that (in their unhumble opinions) are flawed. Those of us who use presuppositional apologetics can show that anti-creationists are not consistent with their own belief system, especially when they make these statements. Dr. Gould made his theological claim, but nobody is under any obligation to accept it, let alone to present a defense.

The Creator made the panda and did not botch the job. Since the panda's "thumb" works just fine for the critter and its purposes, it is an argument for intelligent design, not evolution.

Although we have discussed the panda's "thumb" before (see "The Panda's Thumb and More Materialistic Theological Arguments" for more about that), there are some additional points that appeared on my radar that I want to offer, as they seem useful and interesting. They are from an Intelligent Design site, but the author seems to have a reasonable grasp of what biblical creationists believe. Each of his five articles is linked below.

Helpful hint: Although we consider them cute, never forget that giant pandas are, in fact, wild animals.