God, Gould, and the Panda's Thumb

Datos Bibliográficos

ID3551908
AutoresStephen Dilley (Discovery Institute, autor de correspondencia)
Año2023
Volumen14
Número8
Páginas1006
Fecha de publicación2023-08-07
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaReligions (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 2077-1444 • E-ISSN: 2077-1444
EditorialMDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT)
DOI10.3390/rel14081006
OpenAlexW4385636866
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1
Referencias citadas36

The panda's thumb argument, championed by the late Stephen Jay Gould, stands as one of the most famous polemics for common ancestry. In this essay, I analyze Gould's argument in several steps. First, I attempt to reconstruct the argument in both deductive and likelihood formulations. I contend that both versions of the argument rest on a theological claim-namely, that God would not (likely) create or allow a suboptimal panda's thumb. I then argue that a wide range of people are not rationally obligated to accept this theological claim. Next, I give special attention to the likelihood formulation's emphasis on a contrastive argument for evolution over special creation. I contend that a great number of people are not rationally obligated to accept this formulation either. I next consider and reply to an objection that Gould never intended the panda argument as an apologetic for evolution (and an attack on special creation) but rather as a critique of adaptationism. Finally, I argue that the panda argument conflicts with Gould's broader views about the human mind and the relationship between theology and science. I also note along the way that the shortcomings of the panda argument apply to a number of other arguments for evolutionary theory. To be sure, I do not criticize evolution itself or the comprehensive grounds for it. Instead, my primary aims are to analyze the panda argument and suggest that caution is in order about similar arguments as well

Epistemology · Rule of thumb · Teleological argument · Computer Science · Evolution and Science Education · Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science