quote:
They are also generally in accord with the Creation model. As I said this type of classification makes no claim about evolutionary paths. It groups organisms into morphological similarities.
Or genetic similarities, or both - but that's a side issue.
The main point is that the trees are not 'generally in accord with the creation model'. The evidence we have massively constrains the kind of creation that is permitted - to one that looks exactly like common descent.
What we explicitly do NOT see is a modular approach, where the same components are used across a wide variety of organisms in widely spread branches of the tree. Everything looks like it is derived from characters that belong to creatures further up the tree.
Why would a designer be constrained in this way? Why would a designer create something that looks exactly like common descent? Why would a good and moral designer create something that leads people who care about evidence to the wrong conclusions about the history of life?
The answer is they wouldn't, of course. Because there was no designer