In the debate over evolution versus creation there are a number of core arguments used by evolutionists to try to prove that evolution  is true. These “evidences” are held up as rock solid proof that evolution has occurred. However in every case the “truth” is that these “evidences” are really just interpretations made by evolutionists of the evidence. For example, when dealing with fossils evolutionists often state that the “fossil record” is evidence of evolution. The fact is that there is no such thing as a fossil record. There are no fossils with dates marked on them that say “Born on Date: 11Million BC.” The “evidence” is a mineralized bone in the ground we call a fossil. The fossil record is an interpretation about that bone and its location within the layers of rock. All “evidences” of evolution work this way; the evolutionist finds some evidence and then interprets that evidence in light of the idea of evolution.
Two things that evolutionists frequently site as evidence for evolution are Homology and DNA similarities. One spokesman for evolution, Dr Michael Ruse, once stated that he considered Homology the most convincing evidence. So what are these two “evidences” and do they really provide a factual basis for evolution?
The word “homology” means similarity of structure. In biology it refers to the similarity of structure in various organisms. For example, there are similarities between the bones of a human hand and a whale’s fin. Homology is said to provide evidence for the two having a common descent, in other words because creatures from different species have some similar features they must have had a common ancestor.
The problem here is one of circular logic. Homology as evidence of common descent is only true if evolution occurred. Therefore homology is not evidence for evolution. This is because homology can just as easily be evidence of a common design. An analogy in the field of art would be something like the following: Picasso paintings are homologous (i.e. similar) because they have a common designer – Pablo Picasso. Whenever something can reasonably be explained by two very different explanations neither of those explanations can be used as solid evidence for an argument one way or another.
DNA similarities fall into the same logical trap. Many evolutionists point to the fact that various creatures share a lot of similar DNA as evidence of common descent and therefore evidence of evolution. Without getting into the details of why the DNA similarities really aren’t that similar let’s assume the argument that the DNA of various creatures is truly very similar. Once again this is circular reasoning because similarity of DNA can also be explained by a common designer. DNA similarities could easily be the result of God using similar building blocks to build different creatures. It would be reasonable to say that the more similar the two creatures are the more similar the building blocks that God used would be. So we would expect God’s DNA blueprint for an ape to be more like the blueprint of a human than we would the blueprint of a banana tree.
Let me illustrate how the problem works for both of these concepts using an investigator trying to solve a crime. Joe Smith has been murdered. The police have two suspects, Sally Smith (Joe’s wife) and Sam Badguy (a local troublemaker). The police uncovered that Joe and Sally had just taken out a new life insurance policy worth a million dollars on Joe and that Sally has been unhappy with how much money she has in life. Therefore Sally had a motive to kill Joe. The police have also uncovered that Sam Badguy was seen in the area shortly before Joe was murdered and has been known to rob people in the past. The police figure that Sam could have murdered Joe in a botched robbery. Therefore Sam had a motive to kill Joe. At this point it would be illogical for the police to arrest Sally and charge her with murder on the basis that she had a motive to kill Joe since there is also another suspect with a motive. They will first need to find additional evidence to support their case. The same holds true for the evolutionist. He needs more than circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
The problem for modern science is that it has placed an artificial constraint in the rules. Let me explain what I mean by this. Most scientists agree that science is only useful for explaining natural events, not supernatural events. In other words science can explain why the earth doesn’t crash into the sun but it can’t explain how God might make the earth stop rotating so that Joshua has some extra sunlight time that day to finish a battle. Because of this, science today has come to the place where it only accepts naturalistic answers to questions. It can’t accept supernatural explanations. It rules the supernatural out at the beginning of the investigation. In other words it has placed an artificial constraint on the rules of what can be true and has decided that the supernatural cannot be true because it cannot be investigated. But this would be like the police ruling out the possibility that Sam Badguy murdered Joe because Sam has skipped town and the police can’t find him to ask him any questions. So they conclude that Sally must have done it. Since science has placed this artificial constraint on what can be true based on what can be investigated, many scientists conclude that evolution must have occurred because of Homology and DNA Similarities. That is, since they have constrained the rules to only conclude natural answers (God is not allowed into the equation) the only “logical” explanation for these similarities is a common ancestor and therefore evolution “must” have occurred.
Fortunately for the rest of us we do not have such an artificial constraint. It’s easy for the non-scientist to see that a common designer is just as good an explanation. So the next time you read an article or text book that states that Homology and DNA similarities are good evidence for evolution, remember that the author has artificially constrained the rules so that God is left out as a possible explanation.
 i.e. evolution in the sense of one type of creature changing into another such as a cow becoming a whale not in the sense of one type of dog becoming another type of dog such as a wolf becoming a Dalmatian.