You should provide more than your mere assertion that such strong consilience is relatively insignificant. Perhaps you could give more detail. If, as we know, it is entirely possible to have similar morphology or function without similar molecules, why is this overwhelming consilience between the two data sets not to be considered support for the idea that the consilient patterns of similarities and differences are the result of ancestry? You say it is not, but you give no detail beyond the same morphology same molecules mantra.
I can just as easily turn this back on you. Your claimed support for Evolution relies on the notion that Non-Evolution would be expected to produce dissimilar molecules within similar morphology. But you can offer no answer here except for claims about how God would choose design. So what do
you have beyond mere assertion and mantra?
Can you honestly say a good scientific argument for Evolution is one that relies on teleological thought experiments?
The implication that God would not (or at least has no reason to) do things thus is implied, but not really necessary. The consilience among the data sets is most parsimoniously explained by evolutionary theory.
Oh please. As long as we all agree to what you assume is "most parsimonious".
(By the way, some might argue that the idea of fish turning into men over time is of questionable parsimony.)
The teleology only comes in when we are trying to point out that it is not very logical in the context of what we are told about God to suggest that he would be limited to using similar molecules for similar morphologies (except when he doesn't).
Again, using similar design patterns to produce similar function is a concept that aligns with everything we know about actual singular designers in the universe. This presents a reasonable assumption to expect a similar pattern in a single designer of life.
This would perhaps be convincing if you imagined god as being humanlike in his creative process, but he patently isn't.
Well the Bible does say that Man is made in God's image. What if human designers do in fact reflect God's creative style in some way? In any case, the only empirical way we can make statements about the behavior of an intelligent creator is to draw from observable examples.
He is omnipotent. He can create with a word. A human designer copies elements because he is limited by time or money or imagination or will or whatever. Your God is not subject to such limitations, is he? Why would a timeless, omnipotent being need to take into consideration time and effort?
Your error here is assuming a consistent design style is only for economical reasons. But that isn't true. People also take pleasure in creating with consistency. The idea of having a beautifully designed morphological and molecular animal template to draw iterations from, and then suddenly inserting awkward molecular contradictions into a handful of those animals makes me envision gluing macaroni and rhinestones onto sections of a beautiful canvas oil painting, just because one can. It sounds ugly.
Also, if we're to go on the Bible, it seems God did choose to limit himself by creating everything in 6 days rather than an instant. If he is ominpotent, why would he do such a thing unless it gave him pleasure to work within chosen constraints? A painter will still choose to limit themselves and enjoy the creative act, whether or not he is under time limits.
The "
he would because he could" argument doesn't seem very persuasive in general.
Of course you can claim the he did it this way because you can say anything about a being of unverifiable abilities,.
The same way you are claiming a God would be equally expected to create deliberately awkward inconsistent patterns just because he could? Your whole argument is resting on that assumption. Otherwise we are back to the trivial observation that 'similar things are similar' that Evolution desperately wants to take credit for.
