Yes, it is the simplest and most straight forward way.
Barring other evidence to think this interpretation is wrong it is the best.
Indeed one must bar contrary indications or interpretations to make it seem to be the explanation. I agree...! However doing so does not make the resulting conclusion correct. Homological reasoning was meant to be a system of taxonomic classification not evidence of one genomic family becoming an entirely different genomic family. Homology like Freudian Character types, or Astrological signs, is merely one way of grouping but not true. Is the act of "barring" alternative insights, interpretations, or contrary data, actually good science? When scientists today fudge data or discard indications that oppose their preconceived conclusions is this really being objective with the facts? Can the conclusions cast upon us based on these invalid derivations be counted on as true? Really, be honest.
Take Dubois for example...he found a piece of an apelike skull cap and a human femur and teamed them up creating an ape-man (one bone from an ape one from a man) that ran for 30 years in textbooks brainwashing millions,then it was revealed that at the same site he had found two totally human skulls that he has intentionally hid. Now understand, it was other (but actually objective) scientists that caught him. Yet still Dubois is considered an early EB hero and many people still believe in ficticious creature he concocted. And this is not some old, creationist claim, it is history!
In modern times (though they purposely hide this in your education/indoctrination) intentionaly corruption and disregarding and even discarding contrary data is still happening even in EB peer reviewed Journals all the time. In an article from the “
National Institute of Health” we receive this report (EMBO Rep. 2007 January; 8(1): 1). “Fraud in our laboratories?”, by Frank Gannon, who informs us that “
With depressing regularity, the media continue to uncover cases of scientific fraud... although the scientific community regards publicized cases of fraudulent behavior as exceptional and deviant from accepted scientific standards—fraud is an inevitable component of today's research.”
In another article titled, “
Scientific fraud and the power structure of science” (Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98), author Brian Martin tells us, “
One of the most common misrepresentations in scientific work is the scientific paper itself (see P. B. Medawar, '
Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Yes; it misrepresents scientific thought', Saturday Review, 1 August 1964, pp. 42-43). It sometimes presents a mythical reconstruction of what actually happened. All of what are in retrospect mistaken ideas, badly designed experiments, and incorrect calculations are omitted. The paper presents the research as if it had been carefully thought out, planned and executed according to a neat, rigorous process, for example involving testing of a hypothesis.
"T
he misrepresentation in the scientific paper is the most formal aspect of the misrepresentation of science as an orderly process based on a clearly defined method (see John A. Schuster and Richard R. Yeo, The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986).” So in effect, “
No scientist publishes all the raw data…Inappropriately done (usually according to someone else's assessment), this process can be called cooking, trimming, fiddling, fudging or forging the data.”
In many cases in their own experimental process data arises that totally negates their hoped for conclusion and it is simply never mentioned, hidden, or tossed out, but later some have been caught (by objective thinkers and scientists with integrity)...like Dubois....what he had really discovered was early evidence for sapien not an ape-man...perhaps these fellows killed or even ate the ape...
Now though it is honorable to catch these manipulators and liars the sad thing is that for every one caught four or five such published findings escape unnoticed and then become relied on as support in other people's conclusions (but are not true) and then are believed by millions who are being taught what to think rather than how to think.
But we do agree here...that there is or may be a God(s) is not mutually exclusive to the idea of change over time just abiogenesis and vross genera or cross phyletic morphism...for example there is no actual evidence reptiles ever became birds, but it is packaged, pushed, swallowed, and believed by millions who have been brainwashed by the argument from authority fallacy.
Paul
