Correlation does not imply causation

The May 2012 issue of National Geographic contains an article on “The Common Hand.”  It also contains a logical fallacy.

The author writes, “The hand is so remarkable that the great Scottish surgeon Sir Charles Bell wrote an entire book in 1833 praising it…At the time, the notion that life evolved was beginning to circulate, but Bell thought a close look at the human hand would dispel such silly talk……There’s just one problem with Bell’s argument:  It didn’t explain why other species have hands too.”

He goes on to explain that Darwin noted that “the hand of man formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat” all being constructed in the same pattern would be an odd “coincidence.”  He then assumes in the next paragraph that the hand “evolved.”

I am familiar with this argument.  As a high school tutor, I have seen the textbook pictures of the bat wing, whale flipper, and human hand compared and yes, they do each contain five appendages, whether this is obvious from exterior appearance or not.

But…

Most cars have four wheels and no one argues that they evolved that way.  Designers of automobiles figured out that this worked best in creating a stable vehicle whether intended to be a little red wagon or an Indie car.  True, some vehicles have more or less….but some “hands” have more or less appendages also.

Believing that correlation implies causation seems to be a common problem with evolutionists.  It is every bit as logical to think that whoever designed the hand was bright enough to realize that it was a good design and that it was economical and advantageous to reuse the basic design and adapt it to a variety of settings.

I know that I cannot prove creation or intelligent design from the intricacies of the hand.

I just wish those who believe in evolution wouldn’t assume that they can prove their point based on correlation.