Stephen Jay Gould argues that plants like orchids have characteristic features that link them to the ordinary flowers through the process of evolution. Orchids produce their intricate parts from other parts of ordinary parts that are meant for other purposes. The fact that orchids were not designed by an ideal designer but rather obtain their parts from a limited set of available components is enough to justify that indeed evolution is the course of such unique designs in the plant kingdom. He argues that if it were God to be involved in the making of this design, then He would not have utilized parts that are meant to serve other purposes.Goud emphasizes the fact that Orchids structure for cross pollination is not a making of an engineer, but it is due to evolution to adapt to the changing environment. Therefore it is only evolution theorists who can come up with better explanations for this design.
A critical look at the Pandas true thumb reveals that, the thumb is committed to another role that is too specialized for a different function whereby it has been modified as an opposable manipulating digit. This can only be attributed to the process of evolution and thus it is supposed to be well explained by evolutionary theorists like Darwin.
Given the unique and complex structure of orchid plants and the thumb of the panda, which have resulted from evolution, it is very clear that an intelligent designer can provide an explanation for the occurrence of such structures. However it is unfortunate that evolution does not provide adequate explanations on how these unique structures in both plants and animals occur. This is evidenced by the fact that In Darwin proof that modern beings are products of history, he put focus on what is termed as oddities. That he relied on imperfections when perfections cannot be used to demonstrate history because when perfections occur they leave no traces behind.
Goud and Paley differ in their arguments at the point where they both recognize that indeed irregularities , imperfections or oddities exists in plants animals and other forms of art. As for Paley he asserts that irregularities and imperfections are of little or no weight. On the other hand Goud argues that indeed oddities are sure indicators of history. This can be viewed in terms of imperfections in the design of plants and animals.
In my opinion Goud presents the strongest and most convincing argument concerning the issues of evolution as brought out by Charles Darwin. This argument has been supported and well illustrated by relevant examples of the orchid plant and the thumb of the panda.
He underscores the fact with evolution, there are imperfections that come in the ancestral history of modern plants and animals. He further puts emphasis on the point that with evolution there is nothing like perfection since perfection does not require a history. He also mentions Darwins like for the rudimentary structures in their line of descent and notes that the origin of such organs is simple. The way the author uses the two examples of structures in both the orchid and giant panda to justify evolution is a clear indication that his argument is more convincing and stronger than that of Paley who employs the example of how a watch is organized into various parts and compares them to plants and animals undergoing evolution.