It's because they're created that makes it a good analogy!

In my last post, I asked, “How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?” Most people get the joke. My list of possible answers are actual comments that creationists often hear from evolutionists when discussing the subject of evolution so I just applied those same responses to changing light bulbs. I discussed this some time back on Fakebook and one evolutionist didn't seem to get the joke. He responded with his own question: “How many creationists does it take to tell the difference between inanimate objects and animate objects?” He seemed to be rehashing a usual point made by evolutionists – namely, that it's not a fair analogy to compare living things to created things because created things can't reproduce and, so, can't evolve.

Evolutionists sometimes claim that similarities between different kinds of animals are due to their evolutionary relatedness. However, creationists correctly point out that things that aren't evolved can also be similar. An airplane, for example, has certain things in common with a car. A bridge has certain things in common with a building. When creationists raise “similar created things” examples, it's then that evolutionists respond by saying that created things are not good analogies of living things because created things don't reproduce.

I watched a video a while back where an evolution-believer called in to a radio show and raised this objection during a discussion with Kent Hovind. Kent had talked about similarities in different types of bridges. Here are the exact words of the evolutionist:

That has nothing to do with evolution... because a bridge is a horrible analogy to a living thing. I mean, it has nothing in common with a living thing.... And they [living things] reproduce which is one of the fundamental tenets of evolution. I mean, a thing can't evolve unless it reproduces. Here, we're talking about reproducing systems. Explain to me what this has to do with a common Designer because I really don't get it.

He obviously doesn't get it. Neither did the evolutionist I cited above get it. As a matter of fact, most evolutionists who use this objection don't get it. Thankfully, I'm here to help them.

Like I've already said, evolutionists often use similarities between animals as evidence of evolution. It's true that evolution could explain similar features in closely related species. Of course, created things can also have common traits.  For example, they say humans and chimps are similar because they share a common ancestor. However, a boat has certain similarities to a car but we know that the boat didn't “evolve” from a car nor did the car “evolve” from a boat. So we see that similarity between two things is not necessarily the product of evolutionary relatedness.

With this article, I've included a photo of a wooden model used by artists as a reference. You can see why it makes a good reference – it looks like a person. The resemblance is intended because the artist wants to draw a person, but it's difficult for a real person to stand unmoving for hours. It's not similar because it's descended from humans! Neither does it have a common ancestor with humans! The resemblance is only by design.  

Created things can be similar to other created things for a variety of reasons. They might be built using similar materials. They might be built for similar purposes. They might be built by the same person who added his own particular style. But any similarity between created things is certainly not the result of evolution! In like manner, then, the similarities between a dinosaur and a bird could just as easily be explained by design.

Something that is created does not reproduce. It doesn't share a common ancestor with any other created thing. If created things can be similar, then similarity between living things isn't de facto evidence for evolution.  Stop telling me that the forelimbs of humans, birds, and whales are similar because we have a common ancestor because it can just as easily be explained by common design.  The rebuttal that living things shouldn't be compared to created things completely misses the point of the analogy.  It's precisely because they're created that makes it a good analogy!

Get it?