The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History

The "argument from design" traces back at least to the medieval theology as a favorite proof for the existence of God. The argument runs that the exquisite design and interrelation of earthly organisms can be explained only by the existence of an Intelligent Designer. I continue to believe in God, but Stephen Jay Gould's essays in "The Panda's Thumb" is a rather large nail in the coffin of this argument. In essay after essay, Gould describes nature's mistakes and improvisations, seeming proof against the work of an intelligent designer. For instance, the "thumb" of pandas -- a specialized appendage to strip leaves from bamboo shoots -- is not a true thumb, but a weirdly-designed extension of a wrist bone. Gould demonstrates many other animal adaptations, from orchids to hermit crabs, that use unlikely body parts to perform survival tasks required by later generations of organisms. Gould's explanation of neoteny - the tendency of organisms to retain anatomical features from childhood - is one of his most fascinating chapters. With a simple mutation, the basis for much uniquely human behavior and anatomy comes in to focus. We humans don't develop elongated snouts like other mammals; we retain our capacity to play throughout our lives rather than abandoning it at puberty; our brains continue to grow after birth; we are helpless and dependent on our parents far longer than other mammals. And in a typically Gouldian play of ideas, he charts the changing facial features of Mickey Mouse over the years to show him being drawn with more infant -like (and therefore human-like) features - rounder head, bigger eyes, shorter snout. Though Gould is not a theist, "Panda's Thumb" is not an argument against God, but *for* the appropriate use of science to describe the natural world. We theists are well-served by books like this, which give us the ammunition needed to battle cultural forces that seek to blind us to the truth that lies right in front of us in the natural world and of which we are a part.

`The Panda's Thumb' is the second in a long series of bound essays by leading science writer Stephen Jay Gould. As important as these columns from the journal `Natural History' is, this is but a modest part of Gould's importance in American intellectual life. Gould, who died about three years ago from cancer, was a professor of geology, biology, and history of science at Harvard University and one of the world's leading researchers in broadening and interpreting Darwin's theory of evolution. I was reminded of Gould just yesterday when an advocate of creationism (belief that the accounts of the history of the world as recounted in the Bible have some literal truth) described the theory of evolution as a `dogma'. This is exactly the kind of statement which Gould was so capable of dissecting in the most gentle manner to expose how completely wrongheaded the statement was, using the force of reason alone, without resorting to any appeal to emotion. Gould was the consummate intellectual whose primary targets were beliefs which were based on mistaken reasoning or which base logically correct inferences on unsound or inappropriate premises. My favorite example of the first pathology is his arguments showing that in spite of the fact that baseball statistics on performance have been dropping since the 1940's, overall baseball performance has actually been improving. This is one of the many inconsistencies between a rigorous application of probability versus an uncritical intuition. The application of the word `dogma' to a scientific theory may be an example of the second pathology. The speaker is confusing scientific belief and religious belief. Scientific discourse creates theories whose power of explanation comes from its grounding in observation. As soon as an observation contradicts a theory, the quest to improve the theory or find a better one should begin. In Science, a `theory' is not something that is unproved, it is something which is believed and which is subject to disproof by evidence. A religious belief or dogma is, at least in Christian theology, something that is taken to be true because it was said under the influence of divine inspiration. By it's nature, since it is the result of a private experience (See William James' great `The Varieties of Religious Experience'), it cannot be disproved. That is not to say that the person who witnessed this experience is not free to write it down and try to convince someone else of the truth of what the true believer says they experienced. The whole Bible is composed of such stories. The fact that the Bible has inspired and improved the quality of life of billions of people over the millennia is evidence that it's message is worth advertising. But none of that changes the fact that religious beliefs are based on faith, which by its very nature is NOT based on empirical evidence. The very best example of this dichotomy is in the methods used by the investigators on the CSI TV show, where the phys

"Panda's Thumb" is the second volume in a series of essay collections culled primarily from Gould's column "This View Of Life" that was published for nearly thirty years in Natural History magazine, the official popular journal of the American Museum of Natural History. Once more readers are treated to elegantly written, insightful pieces on issues ranging from racial attitudes affecting 19th Century science to evolutionary dilemnas such as the origins of the Panda's thumb (Not really a dilemna, though "scientific" creationists might argue otherwise; instead Gould offers an elegant description of how evolution via natural selection works.) and the evolutionary consequences of variations in size and shape among organisms. Gould is differential to the work of other scientists, carefully considers views contrary to his own, and even points the virtues of the faulty science he criticizes. Those who say contemporary science is dogmatic should reconsider that view after carefully reading this volume or any of the others in Gould's series. Instead, what we see are the thoughts of a fine scientist rendered in splendid, often exquisite, prose.

I'll be short, there are plenty of other good reviews. My main point is that this book, although written over 20 years ago, retains its readability and accuracy because many of the topics it discusses are historical, and also many of the chapters concern general aspects of human nature and science, which are timeless. An excellent overview of evolutionary theory, and well worth a read as an introduction to natural science and evolution for enthusiastic thinkers.

What Carl Sagan is to astronomy, Stephen Jay Gould is to biology. Both men can write about their subjects fascinatingly and in layman's terms without dumbing down the material. That said, Gould is more down-to-earth, with a sense of humor that is more uplifting than caustic. In "Bathybius and Eozoon" (no, that's not a comic book duo) and "Crazy Old Randolph Kirkpatrick," he takes a look back at two of science's more oddball mistakes while reminding us that scientists are more human than shallow stereotypes might allow. "The Great Scablands Debate" questions the widely-held notion that all geological (and, by extension, evolutionary) change happens at a snail's pace. In "Women's Brains" and "Dr. Down's Syndrome," he questions some of the uses to which science has been put in the past, while not (unlike certain feminists who should know better) discarding the whole idea of science altogether. There are even essays on the (supposed) stupidity of dinosaurs and on Mickey Mouse, which might make excellent reading for a child with good reading skills and an incipient interest in science.