Evolutionists tell us we have useless organs, which prove that we evolved from other creatures. But reputable scientists declare that we have no useless organs; and, even if we did, it would prove nothing. Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Vestiges
Introduction: Evolution is belief in the meaningless of existence
The Organs Are Not Useless: No useless organs have been found
Your "Ancestors" Ought to Also Have Those Organs: But this is often not the case
This material is excerpted from the book, VESTIGES. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Vestiges.
Evolution is belief in the meaningless of existence.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
No useless organs have been found.
"There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure."—*William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), p. 149.
"For at least 2,000 years, doctors have puzzled over the function of . . the thymus gland . . Modern physicians came to regard it, like the appendix, as a useless vestigial organ which had lost its original purpose, if indeed it ever had one. In the last few years, however, . . men have proved that, far from being useless, the thymus is really the master gland that regulates the intricate immunity system which protects us against infectious diseases . . Recent experiments have led researchers to believe that the appendix, tonsils, and adenoids may also figure in the antibody responses."—*"The Useless Gland that Guards Our Health," in Reader's Digest, November 1966, pp. 229, 235.
"The existence of functionless `vestigial organs' was presented by Darwin, and is often cited, by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties, in unambiguously identifying functionless structures, and an analysis of the nature of the argument leads to the conclusion that `vestigial organs' provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.
"I would suggest that the entire argument that vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution is invalid on two grounds, one practical, the other theoretical.
"The practical problem is that of unambiguously identifying vestigial organs, i.e., those that have no function. The analysis of Wiedersheim's list of vestigial organs points out the difficulties. As our knowledge has increased, the list of vestigial structures has decreased. Wiedersheim could list about one hundred in humans; recent authors usually list four or five. Even the current short list of vestigial structures in humans is questionable.
"Similarly, for other `vestigial organs,' there is reasonable ground for supposing that they are functional, albeit in a minor way.
"The other major objection to citing vestigial organs as evidence of evolution is a more theoretical one based on the nature of the argument. The `vestigial organ' argument uses as a promise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically.
"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that `vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."—*S. Scadding, "Do `Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory (1981), pp. 173-176.
"Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology."—*P. Erlich and *R. Holm, The Process of Evolution (1963), p. 66.
But this is often not the case.
"Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as the opossum. How can the evolutionist account for this?
"In order to prove this theory the evolutionists ought to show the existence of `nascent organs' which did not exist in their ancestors."—H. Enoch, Evolution and Creation (1966), pp. 18-19.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Forward to the next major topic in this series: RECAPITULATION: Haeckel's fraudulent hoax has repeatedly been declared untrue.