The fallacy of the homology argument; Darwin's fear of mathematics

The fallacy of the homology argument

The argument that homology refutes creation, and proves evolution is [nearly] as old as it is fallacious. Homology in no way proves descent from a common ancestor. The argument isn't scientific, it's religious and rhetorical.

Let's take a look at a couple forms of the argument (claim would be more accurate).

Quotes and comments;

1. "From a purely practical point of view, it is incomprehensible that a turtle should swim, a horse run, a person write, and a bird or bat fly with structures built of the same bones. An engineer could design better limbs in each case. But if it is accepted that all of these skeletons inherited their structures from a common ancestor and became modified only as they adapted to different ways of life, the similarity of their structures makes sense. F. Ayala [Encyclopedia Britannica]

2. "What could be more curious," asks Darwin, "than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include the same bones, in the same relative positions?" Darwin [Origins]
'It would be "hopeless," Darwin warns, to explain this pattern of similarity by functional utility...' (Let me add in passing that it's much like Darwin to try and discourage any investigation of subjects that could refute or undermine his theory.)

- Darwin conveniently ignores mathematics in all this. As we know, we can find mathematical patterns everywhere in natural world. (e.g. the Fibonacci ratio can be found in all manner of things.) I don't hear any modern day Darwin calling that curious and incomprehensible. Mathematical patterns and ratios can be found almost everywhere in creation. (The Fibonacci sequence isn't the only mathematical ratio we see in 'nature'.) These patterns and ratios are the opposite of the randomness that evolutionary theory insists on.

- Ever the great rhetorician, Darwin ignores mathematics because it doesn't suit his argument. Origins for him is a debate; a debate to be won by any method, fair or foul. (i.e. if math can help you win over the audience use it, if you think it will hurt you, leave it out. I don't consider such an approach scholarly. But Darwin isn't interested in the truth, but in winning the debate. One can only wonder at the motivation of people who see life as a debate.

- DNA is composed of four 'letters' in various arrangements. Is that curious and incomprehensible? [This in no way proves evolution, but is evidence for creation. i.e. as only intelligence can create code.]

- all creatures are 'composed' largely of water. Is that curious and incomprehensible?

- the backbone (bones attached) of a salmon looks much like a tree with branches. Is that curious and incomprehensible?

- this is a poor argument, and it's not meant to illuminate the subject, but to deceive the ignorant with its 'blatant simplicity'.

Notes; Fibonacci; Wiki
- "Fibonacci sequences appear in biological settings,[34] in two consecutive Fibonacci numbers, such as branching in trees, arrangement of leaves on a stem, the fruitlets of a pineapple,[35] the flowering of artichoke, an uncurling fern and the arrangement of a pine cone.[36] In addition, numerous poorly substantiated claims of Fibonacci numbers or golden sections in nature are found in popular sources, e.g. relating to the breeding of rabbits, the spirals of shells, and the curve of waves[citation needed]. The Fibonacci numbers are also found in the family tree of honeybees."

The odd and funny theory of evolution; Darwinism as critical theory

Darwinism as critical theory

Stephen Gould claimed that best proof of evolutionary theory was that many things in the world appeared odd and funny. I'd like to say a few things about this statement.

Quotes and comments;

''The theory of natural selection would never have replaced the doctrine of divine creation if evident, admirable design pervaded all organisms. Charles Darwin understood this, and he focused on features that would be out of place in a world constructed by perfect wisdom. ... Darwin even wrote an entire book on orchids to argue that the structures evolved to ensure fertilization by insects are jerry-built of available parts used by ancestors for other purposes. Orchids are Rube Goldberg machines; a perfect engineer would certainly have come up with something better. This principle remains true today. The best illustrations of adaptation by evolution are the ones that strike our intuition as peculiar or bizarre.'' S. Gould [1]

- Is this first claim true? I don't think so; I think Gould was just bluffing. He's trying to make his argument sound powerful, by saying that without its veractiy there would be no Darwinism in our day. I don't believe this claim. Evolution theory is simply a deduction made from materialism; and so all Materialists are required to be evolutionists. There have been evolutionists as long as there have been materialists; as long as men have rebelled against their creator.

- design does pervade all organisms; but apparently prof. Gould wants 'admirable' design. (And I suppose he thinks he should be the one to define admirable :=)

- it's interesting to me that Gould relies on intuition for a belief in Macro-evolution. You notice that the 'intuition' that leads people to believe in creation is mocked and ridiculed; but when intuition leads one to a belief creation isn't true, well that's another story, that's okay.

- as almost always the fact creation happened (at least) millenia ago isn't ever admitted into the conversation. This is a disingenuous bit of rhetoric. [2]
- how many times do creationists have to say it; 'the world of today is not the world of the original creation'. It's the opposite of scholarship to pretend people are making claims they in fact are not making. Where's the intellectual integrity? It was unworthy of Gould to pretend any creationist claims the world today is the world God made. What we see today are the descendents of the original creation. (Do these people want to pretend they've never heard of the Fall? Do they want to pretend they've never heard of entropy? never heard of mutations?)

- this 'argument' demanding perfection can be seen as a subset of the Marxist (socialist) argument of saying social situation X is evil... and basing the claim on a standard of perfection. i.e. x is wrong, (bad, etc.) because it fails to measure up to my standard of perfection. So the perfectionist standard is applied in both cases.

- God isn't an engineer for one thing. Man isn't a machine and the program of portraying man in this way leads to a constant string of errors.

2. "Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution -- paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.'' Gould [3]

- What's the scientific content of 'odd' and 'funny'? Does the fact Gould (supposedly) found something odd or funny mean it is? Based on what standard? Do these words mean anything at all. I've heard of odd numbers, but what can the concept 'odd arrangement' mean?

- it's comical that Gould would claim 'funny' and 'odd' intuitions are the 'proof' of evolutionary theory. That's supposed to be science?

- how does g. know what a 'sensible' god is? (I suppose it would be a creator very much like himself :=) This again is meaningless rhetoric. This is a feigned deism (god made in man's image).

- Gould seems to have placed great importance on his intuitions; but one wonders what validity they could have; especially if he's the product of such an odd and funny process as evolution. Wouldn't the product of such an odd and funny process be itself odd and funny? Why then should anyone take those intuitions seriously? This isn't science, it's rhetoric; and we've got Charlie himself to blame for it. (He spent twenty years trying to make 'Origins' a masterpiece of rhetoric; and he succeeded.)

Notes;
1. Stephen J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), 91.
2. Many times I've liked to have said to these guys; ''Life is more than a debate fellows. Can't we speak honestly? Must everything you write be constructed for purposes of winning a debate?" It's too much to ask I guess. The search for truth has been replaced by an obsessing with winning the debate; ie. by lies, deceit, straw men arguments, ad hominem arguments, by concealment, by trivialization, etc. etc. every trick in the debater's handbook.
3. Stephen J. Gould, The Panda's Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton, 1980), pp. 20-21.
4. I'm of course defending a Biblical model of creation in this post.

The New Humility

- People like the late Carl Sagan became famous for telling people how human beings had been humbled by discoveries in science. (1.) Have they?

The story (and story it is) went something like this. Man in previous times (in the middle ages say) was an incredibly proud and vain character. He believed the earth was at the center of the universe, and not only that, he believed the universe had been created for him. Imagine. He imagined he was a very special creature; separate from, and lord over the animals. It was all delusion, and 'science' had demonstrated the falsity of it.
The earth was not the center of the universe; it was just an ordinary rock, with an ordinary sun, in one of Billions of galaxies. The earth wasn't special at all. Since the universe was so huge, the earth couldn't be special. Darwin then discovered that man was indeed just an animal. So there; on three broad fronts man had been radically humbled; if not humiliated.

That's the story. What I'm wondering is this; ''where's all this new humility?" I've been looking for it and I can't find it. Some of our popular enthusiasts for Darwin are the least humble people around. (Sagan wasn't exactly known for his humility, and neither is Dawkins.) Surely this is the most arrogant age in all history.

No one is more arrogant toward God than the new atheists. No age has been more arrogant toward the human body. There is a radical arrogance toward the genetic structure of living organisms. (Hence genetic engineering.) So I ask; ''where is the humility?"

No age has been so arrogant toward tradition, toward marriage, pregnancy, children, childhood and family. "So where is this science rendered humility we keep hearing about?"

Our political elite have a radical arrogance when it comes to destroying individual liberty, and to abolishing property rights. "So where is the humility?" Our age has produced nuclear weapons. Our age adopts the methodology of 'if it can be done, do it.' "So where is the humility?"

Our society brings children and teenagers up on Internet pornography; caring not a whit for its effects. It brings children up on mindless TV, music and movies. Our elite push hard for continual economic expansion; by any means fair or foul. We are told that the population must grow steadily. "So where is the humility?"

Creationists are ridiculed and mocked. They're kept out of universities. They're silenced from speaking. They're expelled if they do. "So where's the humility guys? I've looked everywhere but I don't see any."

Notes;
1. Sagan spoke of 'demotions to human pride.' (See 'Copernicus and the tale of the pale blue dot' - Dennis Danielson [Essay can be found online here.]
2. "As Sagan’s phrase “Demotions to human pride” suggests, he and others see the so-called demotion of earth by Copernicus as part of a larger pattern. This approach sees the earth dethroned by Copernicus; the sun and in turn the Milky Way dethroned by subsequent astronomers; the species homo sapiens dethroned by Darwin; and reason or spirit dethroned by Freud." - above