Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

The notion of vestigial organs as an argument for evolution fails on a number of counts.Firstly, vestigial organs provide no positive evidence for evolution. They are presented as negative evidence against a designer. And even if the vestigial organ argument were true, it at best presents examples of degeneration or information loss. This is the opposite of what evolution requires to explain the origin of the complexity and diversity of life. For vestigiality to occur in evolutionary terms, the organ needs to have been formed by naturalistic processes to be fully functional at some time in the past. However, this is precisely the problem: there is no evidence for such creative processes.REPEAT:.........................................................................................................And even if the vestigial organ argument were true, it at best presents examples of degeneration or information loss. This is the opposite of what evolution requires to explain the origin of the diversity of life.............................................................................................................................................. Secondly, the argument from vestigiality is usually laden with theological inaccuracies. The ‘designer’ that is implicitly assumed in most invectives against design is nothing like the biblical God,11 but rather is a completely unhistorical and impersonal deity, more akin to a deistic ‘watchmaker’ than a fully personal God who is intimately involved in His Creation (as revealed in the Bible).It is often assumed by the anti-God brigade, though unvoiced, that the designer created everything as we see it today. Within the biblical model, degeneration is expected because of the Fall. The Fall subjected the Creation to bondage to decay (Romans 8:18–25), of which mutational degeneration is one example.13It is also assumed that unless the designer created something completely new every time, that the designer has failed, or has acted in a way that is inconsistent with a designer being involved at all. However, the biblical God would have been expected to create in an orderly manner because regularity in design ‘brought honour to the Creator and would also indicate the Creator’s authority over and mastery of His creation.’Thirdly, the vestigial organs argument is made by comparing modern creatures to one another to infer the historical origin of the ‘vestigial’ structure. However, this is invalid for ascertaining the origin of such structures. Not only does common ancestry have to be assumed for this to work, but so does evolutionary stasis in the ‘control’ creature used for comparison.Food for thoughtVestigial organs fail as an argument for evolution, and against the biblical Designer. Spinney’s revised definition of ‘vestigial’ blurs the lines so much that almost anything could in principle be called ‘vestigial’. There are a few important points for evolutionists to consider before they argue against the biblical account of creation / design:The biblical God is a subtle Creator. He is able to create structures and reflexes that have no selective advantage because He is not bound by evolutionary constraints. Function and design for the biblical God is hardly limited to what is needed for survival.The biblical God is not constrained by novelty as a critical factor in design. Rather, regularity magnifies God’s honour as master over his creation. Regularity also speaks of their being only one Creator, not many—the ‘Biotic Message’— so it provides a basis for no one having any excuse for living as if there is no Creator (Romans 1:18–23).There is a historical explanation from the biblical worldview that explains degeneration in biology: the Fall. This is often scoffed at as an explanation, but it does explain the biological data as we see it today, and does so without the hindrances that evolution has.Essentially, evolutionists must interact with the biblical God if they wish to seriously engage the design argument. Otherwise their argument is nothing but a straw man one.I take no credit for writing this, though many of the statements are strikingly similar to my own words when I talk of these things off the top of my head. I am in full agreement with all of these statements.