One of the favoured cries of Creationists is that ‘we both have the same evidence, you’re just interpreting it wrong’. This isn’t always true; Creationists generally have woefully incomplete evidence, gleanced from a quick glance at actual scientific literature before being warped through the lens of whatever website they get their ‘facts’ from. But for a moment, let’s assume that we do all have the same evidence.
Creationists will claim that all of the evidence points equally towards either naturalistic evolution or the actions of whatever god they happen to worship, and in general they’re right. Not because ‘God did it’ is ever a good explanation for something, but because ‘God did it’ is the kind of vague, lazy explanation that draws Creationists like flies to honey. You can use ‘God did it’ for anything, which is an immediate and huge red light. The LHC will hopefully determine why matter has mass, but we don’t need all of that fancy equipment – God did it, you see. One of our chromosomes looks exactly like a pair of fused chromosomes found in some of the other hominid (or ‘ape’) species. Why is this? Apparently, God did it.
Follow that link and you’ll come to an astonishingly stupid blog, with the audacious tag-line of ‘Bringing Rationality to Scientific Thought’. (I know, try not to laugh.) That particular post contains more Creationist fallacies than I know how to define, chief among them the mistake of thinking that ‘God did it’ is a good explanation for the fused chromosome issue.
Generally speaking, it’s not a good idea to invoke an unproven, supernatural, omnipotent entity when you’re doing science. It raises far more questions than it answers, and is only a neat way of wrapping up loose ends if you’re already the kind of person for whom wild assumptions come naturally.
Now, evolutionary theory perfectly explains why we might end up with a chromosome that looks exactly like two fused chromosomes from a species that is, even without assuming common ancestry, a lot like us. Why then suggest that God did it? What possible reason is there to supplant a rigorously tested, extremely well supported theory with something that, scientifically speaking, has nothing going for it? Seriously, I want to know.