Creationists on Vestiges

For some reason, I felt compelled to watch a debate between Michael Shermer and Kent Hovind that showed up on my Youtube recommendations list the other day. Listening to Hovind's 'arguments' often made me cover my face with my palms in despair of his deceit. So I thought I'd go through some creationist literature and see what they have to say about vestigial organs, as Kent very obviously had no idea what a vestige was.


Here is a short passage from Hovind's website about Human vestigial structures.

Although at one time there were dozens of features of the human body listed as vestigial, most have been shown to have important functions. After all, even if a few parts have lost their original function that does not prove evolution. To demonstrate evolution, you need to show the development of completely new structures, not the loss and degeneration of previous characteristics.

In one single paragraph the author shows that he has no idea whatsoever what a vestigial feature really is, and has a very flawed perception of how evolution works. As I explained in my last post about vestigiality, it is not something that has completely lost its function, but rather something that no longer performs its original function, and has adapted to performing something else. Evolution is a process of gradual, progressive change or development, not of spontaneous formation and vestigial structures are a great example of this.

Here is a short passage from an AiG article on vestigial structures.

Even if this organ turned out to be functionless, this would only demonstrate that the function was lost in the human lineage. It would not prove common ancestry between man and animals.

 Here they are blatantly lying to themselves. If a structure appears in a human and also in a similar animal (e.g. another mammal), then it is assumed that they both received the structure from a common ancestor. This assumption is valid because this single structure is not the only piece of evidence linking the two animals.

This next quote just makes me feel sorry for them, it's from the same AiG article.

At best, evidence of vestigial organs in man demonstrates deterioration and loss of information since the Fall. They are evolutionary relics of common ancestors with animals only if you begin with evolutionary presuppositions.

If the fossil record validated the idea that humans have "devolved" from a better state, then creationists would be taken seriously, but it is demonstrably false from all the evidence of human ancestry that has been discovered.

It should be pretty obvious that the people involved in promoting creationism are either actively deceiving people for some reason unknown to me, or they are simply naive and ignorant.