Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism?

[Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism?  By Jerry Bergman] "Evolutionists commonly point to the amazing similarity of muscle, bone, and cell structure and function among living things as evidence that all life on earth evolved from a common protocell ancestor some 3.5 billion years ago. Connecting existing animals to the fossil record extends the comparison back to the alleged beginning of time. The idea of homology as proof for evolution is present in almost every high-school or college text on the subject. Evolutionists argue that the only naturalistic explanation for homology is that all of the organisms evolved from a common ancestor. Design arguments are dismissed in naturalistic/ materialistic scientific explanations—even though a common designer can explain the similarities as well...

Tires on bicycles look like tires on motorcycles, with design modifications. Kidneys in a skunk look similar to kidneys in a human because they perform the same task and were designed by a common Designer...

Another example of convergent evolution is the striking similarity between dogs and the Tasmanian tiger (a marsupial). Evolutionists must say that the two evolved independently of one another even though the homology indicates otherwise. ...

[P]atterns expected from the Darwinian model of evolution are not seen in most instances. On the other hand, homologies confirm the creationist model of a common Designer, the Creator God of the Bible..." Full text: Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism? Bergman.

Response to comment [from other]:  "More mere assertions from AiG..."

Poisoning the well. Try to focus on the evidence. "Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University (Detroit), Bowling Green State University and other colleges. He has taught at Bowling Green State University (Ohio) and at the University of Toledo. He is now a professor of science at Northwest College, Archbold (Ohio), and is working on a third Ph.D., this one in molecular biology..." Eze 13:19.

Response to comment [from other]:  "I have 3 degrees, does that mean my opinion is worth, not quite 1/2 of Bergman's?"

You have 3 degrees and this is your fallacious conclusion? Ad Populum, Ad Verecundiam. Ro 1:22.

"Hey, you were the one who seemed to be impressed by Bergman's c.v."

I responded to your attack on Answers in Genesis: "More mere assertions from AiG..." (poisoning the well ).

Is that how your university taught you to debate? Ro 1:22.

"Typos? Are you suggesting that my frustration with serpentdove is 'cause of typos?"

God can give you peace for typos (Isa 61:3).

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  [Seven degrees] "Someone's credentials aren't evidence."

Agreed.

"Otherwise the "evidence" from the overwhelming majority of scientists who do accept ToE would make your little "point" irrelevant."

Agreed.  We do not believe a person because he has impressive credentials.  We agree with people when they offer the best explanation based on the evidence.  Christianity can be defended using:  scientific logic, evidence, intellectual reasoning and history (Bob Dutko). 

I did not provide my "little point" to prop up the author of the paper.  I provided my "little point" to refute the fallacious argument made by Jukia.  

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  [Christianity can be defended using: scientific logic, evidence, intellectual reasoning and history (Bob Dutko).] "Unfortunately for you, [c]reationism can't."

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such as hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401 (6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999.

Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism?