In
my last post, I asked, “How many evolutionists does it take to
change a light bulb?” Most people get the joke. My list of
possible answers are actual comments that creationists often hear
from evolutionists when discussing the subject of evolution so I just
applied those same responses to changing light bulbs. I think maybe
I should have added an “F” option: “It only takes one
evolutionist to change it but he doesn't know how the first light
bulb got there because that's not part of the theory.”
Anyway,
I posted a link to the post to a creation group on Face Book. One
evolutionist responded with his own question: “How many
creationists does it take to tell the difference between inanimate
objects and animate objects?” He didn't seem to get the joke.
Instead, he seemed to be rehashing a usual point made by
evolutionists – namely, that it's not a fair analogy to compare
living things to created things because created things can't
reproduce and, so, can't evolve.
This
response is usually used by evolutionists when creationists point out
similarities in created things. Evolutionists sometimes claim that
similarities between different kinds of animals are due to their
evolutionary relatedness. However, creationists correctly point out
that things that aren't evolved can also be similar. An airplane,
for example, has certain things in common with a car. A bridge has
certain things in common with a building. When creationists raise
“similar created things” examples, it's then that evolutionists
respond by saying that created things are not good analogies of
living things because created things don't reproduce.
I
wrote a post
a couple of years ago talking about this point. In that post, I
quoted an evolutionist who used this very objection when Kent Hovind
raised the “similar created things” argument. Kent had talked
about similarities in different types of bridges and here are the
exact words of the evolutionist:
“That
has nothing to do with evolution... because a bridge is a horrible
analogy to a living thing. I mean, it has nothing in common with a
living thing.... And they [living things] reproduce which is one of
the fundamental tenets of evolution. I mean, a thing can't evolve
unless it reproduces. Here, we're talking about reproducing systems.
Explain to me what this has to do with a common Designer because I
really don't get it.”
He
obviously doesn't get it. Neither did the evolutionist on Face Book
get it. As a matter of fact, most evolutionists who use this
objection don't get it. Thankfully, I'm here to help them.
Like
I've already said, evolutionists often use similarities between
animals as evidence of evolution. For example, they say humans and
chimps are similar because they share a common ancestor. However, a
boat has certain similarities to a car but we know that the boat
didn't “evolve” from a car nor did the car “evolve” from a
boat. So we see that similarity between two things is not
necessarily the product of evolutionary relatedness.
Created
things can be similar for various reasons. They might be built using
similar materials. They might be built for similar purposes. They
might be built by the same person who added his own particular style.
But any similarities between various created things are certainly
not the result of evolution! In like manner, then, the similarities
between a dinosaur and a bird could just as easily be explained by
design.
Something
that is created does not reproduce. It doesn't share a common
ancestor with any other created thing. That's why we point to the
similarities between created things as evidence that the similarity
between living things isn't de
facto evidence for
evolution. Pointing out similarities between created things is a
fine analogy. It's precisely because they're designed that makes it
a good analogy!
Get
it?
8 comments:
I can see how this argument goes back and forth. For theists, successfully comparing similarities between living and non-living entities rests on a design presupposition for living things. For evolutionists, this comparison fails because of an evolutionary presupposition.
I think the comparison is valid because I believe design to be valid, which rests on myriad other evidences of God. It's tough to argue this analogy with atheists and materialists because of each of our worldview foundations for our argument.
Todd,
I don't have to explain to you how evolutionists are victims of circular reasoning. They use evolution to explain why different creatures look similar; then they use the similarities as evidence that they're evolved. It's insane.
When people get caught up in their own circular arguments, they can only see the evidence in light of their own theory. It becomes terribly self-fulfilling.
I'm just hoping I can get a few of them to see that since created things can be similar, similarity is not necessarily evidence for common descent. Of course the created things don't reproduce. That's the whole point!
Thanks for your comments. God bless!
RKBentley
We know, though, that at least some similarities do in fact result from inheritance from common ancestors. At least I will assume that you hold that, e.g. the various similarities among human beings are the result of common descent, not common design (the contrary assumption is possible: vide "Pre-Adamism" and "co-Adamism").
Most young-earth creationists will go further, and allow, indeed insist, that, e.g. the similarities among horses and zebras are, just as evolutionists suppose, the legacy of common ancestry. The similarities between a car and a boat are not inexplicable in terms of common ancestry.
There is a further point: it's not just "similarities," but particular sorts and patterns of similarities. Humans, bats, and whales all have detailed similarities in their forelimbs (e.g. the same pattern of humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, and five sets of phalanges), though they use these forelimbs in very different ways. It is noteworthy, I think, that there should be stronger homologies between the wing of an insect-eating bat and the flipper of a krill-guzzling whale than between the wings of the bat and an insect-eating bird.
Such oddities of design in the natural world struck naturalists before Darwin (the idea of "homology" was worked out by Richard Owen, who did not attribute it to common ancestry). Common design didn't really explain the oddities of parahomology (similar structures for dissimilar functions, such as the whale flipper and bat wing mentioned above), alongside analogy (dissimilar structures for similar functions: e.g. the different retinas of squids and fish); it is compatible with it, given a sufficiently ineffable design philosophy on the part of the Designer, but doesn't explain why things are this way rather than myriad imaginable other ways. Evolution does rather better in this respect.
I will note that certain similarities in known artifacts show some of the same weird features as similarities among living things. There was a Soviet armored vehicle that notoriously used an aluminum engine that bore a distinct resemblance to an aircraft engine (the designers had simply copied the aircraft engine). Another Soviet vehicle, a fighter jet, had a tailhook suitable for aircraft carrier landings: it wasn't used on aircraft carriers, but the American fighter is was copied from was.
Then there was the Microsoft application that had scores of kilobtyes of "vestigial" code that was never carried out: it was simply copied from an earlier version of the program and left useless as other parts of the program were revised and added to.
Of course, each of these features is in fact a vestige of a sort of "descent with modification" -- one mediated by human designers, of course, but still a case. They reflect the limitations of merely human designers: finite time, skill, and imagination -- limits one might suppose would be irrelevant to an omnipotent and omniscient Designer.
Steven J,
I'll get to some of your points in a moment but I noticed you didn't directly answer the main thrust of my post – namely that similarities among created things demonstrates that similarity is not necessarily the result of evolution. If you want to argue that common descent is the better explanation, that is one thing. But you should at least acknowledge the common objection that designed things can't be compared to living things is a weak rebuttal.
You said, “We know, though, that at least some similarities do in fact result from inheritance from common ancestors.”
Yes. I believe that all dogs have a common ancestor, for example, and they share certain features because of this. However, that really doesn't have anything to do with my post. I acknowledge that, if evolution were true, different animals will have similar traits due to common ancestry. What I'm trying to get your side to acknowledge is the simple reverse – that similar traits could also be the result of design. A dog has some things in common with a cat but they do not share a common ancestor; their similarities are the result of design. Like I've said, you could argue that yours is the better explanation but that's not what is happening. Some are saying that similarities in created things demonstrates NOTHING. It's just the stubborn blindness of many evolutionists that prevents them from seeing something that should be obvious.
You said, “There is a further point: it's not just "similarities," but particular sorts and patterns of similarities. Humans, bats, and whales all have detailed similarities in their forelimbs (e.g. the same pattern of humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, and five sets of phalanges), though they use these forelimbs in very different ways. It is noteworthy, I think, that there should be stronger homologies between the wing of an insect-eating bat and the flipper of a krill-guzzling whale than between the wings of the bat and an insect-eating bird.”
There are patterns in nature. It's obvious. All mammals have certain things in common – that's how we identify them as mammals. I still think that they are similar by design. Bats fly very well. Whales swim very well. Humans walk upright very well and use their hands very well. The fact that God was able to make such similar structures useful in so many different ways is beyond remarkable. Furthermore, He made different patterns. Not only do bats fly, but so do birds, insects, and reptiles (pterosaurs). There are even wings seen among plants (maple seeds) and fish (exocoetidae). So God designed the mammal forelimb and made it work in many marvelous ways. He also made several different designs that all accomplished the same thing – flying. Wow!
You said, “Of course, each of these features is in fact a vestige of a sort of "descent with modification" -- one mediated by human designers, of course, but still a case. They reflect the limitations of merely human designers: finite time, skill, and imagination -- limits one might suppose would be irrelevant to an omnipotent and omniscient Designer.”
See my last point. I believe we can see the work of an omnipotent Creator. God made creatures that fly, swim, walk, hop, climb, dig, sway, and slither. He designed skins, scales, feathers, hair, bark, leaves, and membranes. There is variation in nature beyond my pitiful attempts to put it into words. “Limited” is not a word I would use to describe the creation.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Steven J., you said, "Of course, each of these features is in fact a vestige of a sort of "descent with modification" -- one mediated by human designers, of course, but still a case. They reflect the limitations of merely human designers: finite time, skill, and imagination -- limits one might suppose would be irrelevant to an omnipotent and omniscient Designer."
I think this is an example of what a great deal of evolutionists argue, that if life were designed by all powerful creator, then it should be perfect. (I believe this is what you were inferring when you spoke of limitations) But long before talk of evolution, scripture was very clear about the imperfection of creation caused by the fall of man. Christianity doesn't demand a perfect creation, until that creation is redeemed by the designer.
Todd, okay, we might suppose that, e.g. humans could make their own vitamin C before the Fall, and lost the ability afterwards. We could extend this to include quite a few other species, from macaques to guinea pigs. That would explain why we have a GULO pseudogene. But it wouldn't explain why the GULO pseudogene is disabled one way in guinea pigs, and a different way in macaques that happens to be the exact same way the gene is disabled in humans, chimps, gorillas, etc. That looks just a little too much like the result of a single disabling mutation that spread through a species (by selection -- since all these species get lots of vitamic C from their diets -- or by random genetic drift) and was inherited by all their descendants, even when those descendants evolved enough to belong to different species or even different families.
Steven, you said, "But it wouldn't explain why the GULO pseudogene is disabled one way in guinea pigs, and a different way in macaques that happens to be the exact same way the gene is disabled in humans, chimps, gorillas, etc."
First, I believe the jury's still out as to whether or not the GULO pseudogene will harbor some type of function. Assuming the pseudogene research in this area remains accurate, this would just be explained by shared engineering among the kinds. I know this sounds like the pat creationist answer, but I'm not convinced that these are anything more than 'parallel' mutations (the God kind, not the convergent evolution kind) in rodents and humans, and that our shared engineering with primates explains why God would disable it in the same way.
I find it more striking that we and guinea pigs couldn't have shared the same ancestral GULO pseudogene and yet we have 36% identical nucleotide substitutions, which would be nicely explained with a "Fall" event. I find it less likely that these were "genomic hotspots" that happened to mutate in the same way via convergent evolution.
The research is interesting, however. On an aside, I know sometimes it must seem strange for a creationist like myself to bring up the improbability of certain evolutionary hypotheses, while in the same breath feel certain that a supernatural mind is more likely. I understand from a materialist's point of view it probably appears I'm merely invoking God as a hypothesis. I believe it's important to know that creationists like myself have actually met God, heard His voice, felt his presence, seen people miraculously healed. So although this may appear to be just a subjective experience to you, I think it's worthwhile to understand that this is the co-foundation for my arguments alongside the logical reasoning I employ as you do. This isn't an attempt to buttress my argument...just wanted to offer more understanding of the creationist side.
Post a Comment