Precisely why the Torah Code comparison is so apropos. If one is already committed to fitting something into one's overriding schema, one will find a way. The name "Aaron" will show up somewhere. But for somebody who has no such commitments, the efforts appear to be a bit of a stretch.
Thanks for the gill slit information. My father never quite believed the variants on recapitulation theory, despite (because of?) his postgraduate anatomical studies. I share his skepticism about certain schools of comparative embryology, but at least I now know its advocates aren't relying on 120 year-old drawings anymore.
That could be, I suppose. I remember noting some years back that Phil Johnson used to study law, and I've always wondered how the concept of "proof" in a law sense colors how he judges proofs in a scientific context. In science, proof is much like proof in a civil trial. A theory needs to explain a preponderance of evidence above and beyond what the next best theory explains. It doesn't have to explain everything, though subsequent applications of the scientific method will either make the theory better or discard it, right? So far there has not been a competing theory that has been able to do so, hence the survivablility of the theory. There is nothing that says a theory cannot be flexible. All that it takes to destroy evolution is to find a mammal skeleton buried in Precambrian shale, or some such find that would be ludicrous under evolutionary theory.