From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Homology of the hand to forelimbs

Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals.[1]

Invalidity of the Homology Argument

Creation scientists claim that similarity can just as readily be explained by a common Designer as common ancestry, and that homology is therefore not evidence that can be used to support the evolutionary view.[1][2][3]

Consequently, the widely cited chimp/human DNA homology argument is also invalid.[4][5][6]

Furthermore, they argue that the evidence of against the evolutionary view. For example, you would expect that similarity due to common ancestry would be controlled by similar genes passed down from ancestors to descendants. Yet there are many examples where similar (homologous) structures are controlled by different genes.[7]

In addition, creationists argue that similarity is not just explainable by creation, but predicted. Christian apologist JP Holding explains:

Homologous structures, far from pointing away from a designer of infinite wisdom, would have indicated to readers of the Bible in their time a designer who did indeed possess infinite wisdom and mastery over His creation. It is only because modern persons have arbitrarily decided that a certain degree of what they see as ‘originality’ is a proper means value that the evolutionists’ argument carries any apparent force.

To frame our argument against the evolutionists’ misuse of homologous structures requires us to have an understanding of certain values critical to ancient persons. Roman literature of the New Testament period tells us that ‘(t)he primary test of truth in religious matters was custom and tradition, the practices of the ancients.’ In other words, old was good, and innovation was bad. Change or novelty was ‘a means value which serves to innovate or subvert core and secondary values.’

By itself, this demolishes one part of the evolutionists’ argument and makes it, clearly, a case of arbitrary imposition of modern values. In a context such as the above, ‘radically different design’ would have indicated to an ancient reader either no deity, or else a deity whose means was chaos and instability, or a deity who did not have mastery over creation.[8]



  1. 1.0 1.1 Bergman, 2001
  2. Parker
  3. Anon., 1992
  4. Batten, 1996
  5. Purdom, 2006
  6. Sarfati
  7. Kofahl, 1992
  8. Holding, 2006

External links