The entire concept of evolution is based on the idea that similarities prove that one species evolved from another species. As a matter of fact, ALL of the "proofs" for evolution are based on this idea. But is this true? If this idea is not true, then evolution has no foundation or proof.

No matter what we look at in life, there are similarities whether in nature or in the things manufactured by humans. With automobiles, we see many similarities. If similarities are a factual proof for evolution, then we are required to believe that Ford evolved from Chevy or some other car. Yet we know that all of these automobiles were created by intelligent design.

In the housing industry, we see many types of houses, all of which have similarities. If we believe what evolutionists tell us that similarities prove a biological evolutionary process and disprove creation by design, then we MUST believe that one group of houses evolved from another group and that they COULD NOT have been created. Yet we KNOW that not one house evolved from another house. They were all created by intelligent design.

Evolutionist will want to argue that this is not a valid comparison because it has to do with things that were created by intelligent design and not nature. There are two things wrong with this. First, we humans, the creators of these things, are a part of nature.

Second, let's take a look at nature. There are many mountains which are similar in shape. According to the rational of evolutionists, we must believe that one group of mountains evolved from another group. We find rocks and rock formations which are similar. Does this mean that one group of rocks or rock formations evolved from another? Of course not. We know that mountains don't produce other mountains. We know that rocks don't reproduce and create other rocks.

In the world of biology, we must also consider whether similarity means anything as far as ancestry. If there is a being who created all life on this planet, this being could just as easily have created these organisms similar to each other. Therefore, similarity means nothing and cannot prove evolution.

Let us go off colonizing planets and star systems. We will go where man has never gone before to that planet which is exactly like Earth in structure and chemical make up but, which doesn't have one living organism. We will use molecular construction of living organisms to farm life on this planet. When we do so, we will create many organisms which are similar to each other for two basic reasons. The first is for similar but not exact function within ecosystems in order to have balanced ecosystems in slightly different climates. The second would be to have diversity and increase the beauty of our planet's ecosystems.

Now we will have many species which are similar and, if we believe what evolutionists tell us, we MUST believe that these organisms evolved from one another. Yet, we know that the similarities have nothing to do with evolution because we just used science to create these organisms. Therefore, similarities among species do not and cannot mean anything and cannot prove anything about whether a species evolved from another species. They could just as easily have been created similar to each other.

Since similarities cannot be used as a proof for ancestry and evolution, then evolution, which is totally dependent on similarities as their proofs, CANNOT HAVE ANY PROOFS. Since evolution cannot have any proofs, then it cannot be a fact or a theory and can only be an idea. Any idea which has existed for more than a few decades without scientific proof can only be called a belief or religion. In fact, evolution is founded completely on the FAITH that similarities prove something that they cannot prove. Therefore, it must be a religion and cannot be a science.