The Summit Lecture Series: Myths of Evolution with Sean McDowell, part 7

The Summit Lecture Series: Myths of Evolution with Sean McDowell, part 7 December 16, 2014

To purchase the entire DVD set of the Summit Lecture Series, visit

Universally, the fossil record disproves the gradualistic theory of Darwinian Evolution.

Every high school or college science textbook dealing with the origin of man shows a homology (the study of similar structures) diagram like this one:


Now, why would someone assume that a bat’s wing, a whale’s flipper, a horse’s hoof, and a human hand have the same homology?

Right off the bat (pun intended), we see a worldview being delivered by this picture in that they have color coded the structures and resized them in order to contrive an argument that these structures are fundamentally the same. The point they are trying to make is that as you look at different species or organisms, you’ll find a similar structure that transcends the individual organism. Therefore, if all these structures are as similar as the diagram proposes, then these creatures must have had a common ancestor that shared this structure. And as this common ancestor moved into fields, deserts, oceans, or took to flight, this basic structure was adapted to different needs.

So the fact that we see a similar structure in different organisms is presented as evidence for evolution.

But, if Darwinian Evolution was true, would we expect to see homologous structures like this? Well, if all organisms descended from a common ancestor, then we would expect to see some similarities across the various species.

But there is a problem.

Whenever you have evidence that can be explained equally well by two different theories, you cannot use that evidence to support one theory at the exclusion of the other.

So, yes, we would expect to see homology if Darwinian Evolution were true, but we could also expect to see it if Creation (or Intelligent Design) were true.

You see, if there were a common designer, then we would expect to see homologous structures just as much as if there were a common ancestor.

As an analogy, consider the iPod, iPad and iPhone. They have similarities in their structures, yet that’s not because they blindly evolved, but because Apple’s designers found a feature that works and applied that engineering feature in different ways.

Likewise, if there is a common designer of our natural world, and the hand/hoof/flipper/wing is a good structure that works, wouldn’t a smart designer use the same structure in different organisms?

Tim Berra, in his book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism tried to teach common descent with this example:

“If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.”

In other words, over the course of time, you can easily see a modification and change in the structure of a Corvette. But what Berra omits is that the Corvette is designed. (And keep in mind, Tim Berra is an extremely intelligent and respected scientist)

You see, brilliant people make simple and foolish mistakes because of their worldview.

Because mere succession of forms cannot provide evidence for Darwinian Evolution they could equally well be the product of design.

If you look at all this through a Naturalistic lens, then it’s very compelling; but if you are open to a different perspective, the data is not as powerful as many people think that it is.

For more encouraging and enlightening videos and podcasts, visit the E-Squared Media Network at

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment