Homology, the archetype, and creationism

[Mallon]

Hi folks.

Is anyone here familiar with the idea of homology? It's a concept that dates back to comparative anatomist Sir Richard Owen (and beyond). He had this idea that similarity (homology) between organisms could be explained with reference to their having been modeled after a common archetype. This platonic view of life was pretty common back in his day, but collapsed with Darwin's theory of evolution.

My question, then, is whether Owen's concept of homology and the archetype has ever been resurrected in the modern creationist literature. Does anyone here know of any good books or articles that talk about this issue within the scope of modern "creation science"?

 

[laptoppop]

I have not seen that in particular referenced in the literature. There is common understanding that commonality of form implies a common designer, tempered with an appreciation for the amazing creativity of our Creator and His variety. I find it fascinating that, as time progresses, we find that organisms are much more complex than we had ever thought, down to exquisite self-replicating molecular machines which outdo anything Man has accomplished.

 

[Mallon]

I have not seen that in particular referenced in the literature. There is common understanding that commonality of form implies a common designer, tempered with an appreciation for the amazing creativity of our Creator and His variety. I find it fascinating that, as time progresses, we find that organisms are much more complex than we had ever thought, down to exquisite self-replicating molecular machines which outdo anything Man has accomplished.

I wonder when the common form = common designer argument came about. Because, like I said, the traditional pre-Darwinian thinking held common form = common archetype. I'm surprised I haven't seen more reference to this in the creationist literature.
Can you shed any insight on that, pop?

 

[laptoppop]

Nope -- it's been around as long as I know in terms of "modern" YEC thought. I don't know about historical -- I've got a tickling in the back of my mind about a few verses, but I can't think of them right now.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks again, pop.
Another question about homology. It's been known for some time now that apparently homologous structures, like the eyes of different toad species, can develop via completely different developmental pathways. This difference in development has led some to argue that toad eyes might not be homologous at all (assuming a developmental definition of homology). Have any creationists commented on this heated subject?

 

[mark kennedy]

Now we have TEs starting threads in the Creationism subforum...wow. Anyway, it sounds like Intelligent Design to me but that is yet another problem with naturalistic thinking allowed into Christian theism. I see the same thing in store for Theistic Evolution, they were not satisfied with creationism being kicked to the curb. When they were done with Creationism they went after Intelligent Design saying it was Creationism even though scientists were pretty much ID in their thinking for a couple of thousand years.

Now we have Theistic Evolution and I have to warn you guys, your next.

I don't really know that much about the topic but thanks for being civil.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Biblewriter]

I have never seen this idea explicitly discussed in the literature, but its logic is inescapable.

Chevorlets have a common appearance, as do Fords and Chryslers. We have often seen a new car and immediately known its brand, just because of how it "looks." Various items with a common designer often share a great many similarities.

I well remember a day I was showing a colleague a magazine article about a component I had designed. A passing colleague looked over our shoulders and quipped, "that looks like something Jim Morris would have designed." He was then surprised to be told that I had indeed designed it.

Evolutionists are so certain that their general theory is correct that they seem unable to appreciate this obvious fact. Even a progression of similar adaptations could just as well indicate a progression in the thinking of the designer, even as automobile designs develop over the years.

 

[laptoppop]

It's been known for some time now that apparently homologous structures, like the eyes of different toad species, can develop via completely different developmental pathways.

Actually, I would rephrase that statement as It's been speculated for some time now....

But this is rapidly becoming the wrong forum for this thread.

 

[Mallon]

Evolutionists are so certain that their general theory is correct that they seem unable to appreciate this obvious fact. Even a progression of similar adaptations could just as well indicate a progression in the thinking of the designer, even as automobile designs develop over the years.

Interesting implications re: progressive thinking on the part of the Designer, Biblewriter. Could you please elaborate on this subject? How do you think God's thinking progressed? Which species do you figure were his "prototypes"? Over how long a time span did God's thinking progress? I've never heard these ideas put forth before.

 

[Mallon]

Actually, I would rephrase that statement as It's been speculated for some time now....

What has been speculated? That the eyes of different species of Bufo arise via different developmental pathways?

 

[Biblewriter]

Interesting implications re: progressive thinking on the part of the Designer, Biblewriter. Could you please elaborate on this subject? How do you think God's thinking progressed? Which species do you figure were his "prototypes"? Over how long a time span did God's thinking progress? I've never heard these ideas put forth before.

I was only commenting as a designer (I was one for many years) that past designs influence current designs. Why would it be any different with God?

As to how long a time span was involved, that is immaterial. I believe that the scriptures not only allow, but actually teach, that there was an earlier creation on this earth before the development of the chaotic state described in Genesis 1:2. But the scriptures could not be more plain that in six days this chaotic world was reduced to order and populated by Adam and his wife, Eve, that they were the parents of all mankind, and that this took place approximately 6000 years ago.