The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly Live-Webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Presently useless vestigial organs once had function (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Presently useless vestigial organs once had function (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.


Claim CB361.1:

Even if a vestigial organ has no use today, we can be sure it had a function in the past. God does not make junk, but things deteriorated after sin entered the world. Calling an organ useless reflects evolutionary thinking.

Source:

CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. This claim is dogmatic assertion. It is based purely on personal religious belief; it cannot be tested against evidence. It is scientifically useless.

This conclusion comes naturally out of the Creation model. It would be a reasonable conclusion of any Intelligent design theory, since designers have a purpose for what they put in their designs.

2. The idea that death and decay entered the world only after the original creation implies that many presently functional organs were originally useless. For example, defenses would have had no function when there were no threats to defend against.

The Creator could easily have added such organs after the fact, through a form of Genetic engineering. A common Designer would design natural laws and constants to form that govern this genetic engineering. This would be no problem for some one capable of Creating life to begin with.

Note also that the Creator, knowing the future, would not necessarily have needed to create these organs after the fact but could have implemented them originally. Presumably the Fall occurred very early in history, and the structures would have become immediately useful. Either interpretation is consistent with God's character--the "before-the-fact" view emphasizes His omniscience, and the "after-the-fact" view emphasizes His patience with man, and His goodness.

3. Calling an organ useless reflects its having no detectable use, nothing more.

Creationists have been saying this for decades, but it has no relevance to the claim, which specifically deals with the hypothetical case of a truly useless organ.

Morris's view of deteriorating life is also evolutionary thinking, just with a very different mechanism of evolution.

In as much as the word “evolution” refers to change over time, Talk Origins is correct here, but this type of evolution is not the same as the theory of Evolution. Talk Origins is playing word games here. Creationists do not see life as stagnant. They recognise that organisms do change over time, but simply disagree with Evolutionists about the direction of the change.

4. Vestigial does not mean useless.
  1. Calling a functional organ vestigial is a purely Evolutionary interpretation.
  2. It is not relevant to this claim, which specifically deals with the hypothetical case of a truly useless organ.
Personal tools