Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,726
edits
Changes
→Homology
[[Creation science|Creation scientists]] and [[creationism|creationists]] argue that similarity is not just explainable by [[creation]], but predicted. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] explains:
[[Creation science|Creation scientists]] and [[creationism|creationists]] argue that similarity is not just explainable by [[creation]], but predicted. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] explains:
{{cquote|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.
{{cquote|Homologous structures, far from pointing away from a designer of infinite wisdom, would have indicated to readers of the [[Bible]] in their time [[Intelligent design|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.’
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.’