| | Print | |
|
We recommend "Landscape" print layout.
Theory of Homology (1859). The homology argument is quite general, for it says that any pattern found in nature was produced by evolution. Charles Darwin offered a different explanation for homology. According to Darwin, bats and whales possess similar bone structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor, not because they were constructed according to the same archetype. By replacing archetypes (which imply design and intelligent causation) with a natural mechanism such as common descent, Darwin hoped to render idealistic explanations unnecessary and to place biology on a securely naturalistic basis. Cornelius G. Hunter, Ph.D. adjunct professor of biophysics at Biola University and proponent of intelligent design, refutes this theory. He argues: “Evolution is supposed to have created all this diversity. It seems to be capable of designing and implementing every conceivable biological design. Yet on the other hand, when a pattern is found – a similarity between species – this is supposed to be an example of how stingy evolution can be. Evolution we are told, favors practicality over optimality. Instead of designing the perfect species, it uses spare parts that are available from ancestral species. On the one hand, evolution seems to have tremendous creative powers, bringing forth the millions of species with all their diversity; yet on the other hand, it is pragmatic. It exerts its creative powers only to the extent that is necessary, often settling for less than optimum designs in the name of expediency”.[i] Consider the streamlined torpedo shapes, tall dorsal fins, and broad tails found in sharks, swordfishes, and dolphins. None of these are closely related, because they belong in disparate groups (sharks with the cartilaginous fishes, swordfishes with the bony fishes, dolphins with the mammals). Therefore evolutionists believe they are only distantly related, and so their similarities must be analogous, not homologous.
|