Do Morphological Similarities Imply Common Descent?

Peter Pike, a Christian blogger, makes the following insightful observations:

"One of the most commonly used evidences for Darwinism is the fact of morphological similarities between various organisms. To put it simply, many organisms look like each other. These similarities extend not just through the physical phenotype, but also into the genotype as well. Indeed, much hay is made over the fact that chimp DNA is 98% similar to human DNA (although that figure has been questioned recently).

"Rather than looking at some specific examples, I want to first look at the concept as a whole. Is it true that morphological similarities imply common descent from an original species?

"It is certainly true that similarities can indicate descent. We see examples of this in the genome all the time, especially with recessive and dominant genes that obviously follow a hereditary tree. But we have equal evidence of similarities that do not follow heredity, that do not imply common descent.

"One obvious example of this is found if you look in the parking lot at your local mall. You will see various “organisms” of vehicles out there: Ford, Chevy, Nissan, Mazda, etc. All of these vehicles have similar structure, are made from similar materials, and are used in similar manners. Yet we know that the Chevy did not evolve from Ford except insofar as the design was copied by an intelligent agent. As a result of this simple concept, we see that morphological similarities need not imply common descent; they can also imply design.

"And we do not need to restrict ourselves to non-biological aspects to see this. Ernst Mayr, for instance, argued that eyes evolved independently over 40 times in the fossil record. That is, eyes formed in various species in the fossil record after the theorized branching point between the two species had already occurred, which is to say that both daughter species came from a common ancestor that was blind, yet both developed eyes anyway. Further evidence is found in the concept of Convergent Evolution, which states (for example) that all birds have the same basic wing shape because it is necessary for flight, not because they all share a common ancestor. In other words, convergent evolution of the wing shape, of eyes, and of myriad other aspects are already acknowledged by Darwinists to not be evidence of common descent, but instead of common use.

"Because morphological similarities need not be evidence of common descent (as evidenced by the convergent evolution theory) and they can be evidence of common design (as seen in a myriad number of intelligently designed machines that look alike in order to perform a specific similar function), morphological similarities do not imply common descent. At most, all a Darwinist can say is that morphological similarities are consistent with Darwinism; but the intelligent design advocate can make the same claim about I.D. As such, this often offered argument for Darwinism proves nothing."

The Illogic of a Popular Atheist

Richard Dawkins is, without doubt, one of the most popular atheists writing today.

At the end of 2006 he released his The God Delusion, a best-selling book and tantrum against God.

Dawkins describes God as follows: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal…."

That Dawkins steps well outside his area of expertise and sinks is well documented. For some short critiques see:

1. Alvin Plantinga: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/marapr/1.21.html

2. William Lane Craig: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493

3. James Anderson: http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/fallacy-files-1-dawkins-on-the-argument-from-beauty/ and http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/fallacy-files-2-dawkins-on-religion-and-evil/

The point I want to make is different, though. Dawkins is a naturalist. For him, only physical entities exist. And to the extent that anything happens, it is not because it ought or should happen but because of blind impersonal mechanism. There are no ends or goals the blind impersonal universe is trying to achieve.

In this article, Dawkins writes:

"But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?

"Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing?"

Two points can be made:

1. There is no such thing as moral responsibility (or even morality) in an atheist universe. So Dawkins' own view pulls his objections to God's character and His followers from underneath him. On one hand he wants to have a whinge but, on the other, he denies the very foundation on which his objections would have to depend to make sense. Dawkins' position is explosively contradictory.

2. In this passage, Dawkins makes use of a teleological concept. If something is faulty, then it is not properly functioning. If something has a proper function, then it has a design plan or a purpose at which it is aimed. But Dawkin's world does not allow for purpose/ends/design plans. There is no such thing as a faulty person (or anything, for that matter) in his worldview. His worldview denies teleology, he relies on teleology: another contradiction.

Malaysia to Allow Christians to Use 'Allah'

According to this article, "The Malaysian government has softened an earlier ban on the use of the word "Allah" by Christian publications to refer to God and is allowing them to use it as long as they specify the material is not for Muslims."

The reasoning, behind the ban, is as follows: "The government had earlier argued that the use of Allah in Christian texts might confuse Muslims, who might think Allah refers to their God."

Now while the ban itself was silly, they identify an important point, namely that the word "Allah" is predominantly associated with Islam.

The Biblical god, YHWH, and the Islamic Allah are not the same. For a start:

1. YHWH is triune whereas Allah is absolutely one (tawhid).

2. YHWH enters into covenant relationships with His people whereas Allah simply does as he wishes.

3. YHWH, in the second person of the Trinity, incarnated in the person of Jesus whereas Islam denies the deity of Jesus.

4. YHWH demonstrates His justice and mercy at the cross whereas, apart from denying Jesus was crucified, Allah, to the extent that he forgives, 'sweeps sin under the carpet'.

Since the Biblical and the Qur'anic pictures of the divine are completely incompatible with each other, why on earth would a Christian (particularly in a Bahasa and not Arabic-speaking country) want to use a word that has strong Islamic associations of YWHW?