The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (14 page)

Evolutionists commonly argue in favor of their position by
appealing to the marked similarities between the anatomy of
man and that of the higher vertebrates, thereby "proving" that
man evolved from an animal ancestor. This is the "comparative anatomy" argument.

Evolutionists also often argue that since human bodies
contain some organs that have no known use, they must be "leftover" organs from an earlier animal stage. This is the "vestigial
organ argument.

Still further, some evolutionists have argued that as an embryo
develops within the womb, it repeats (recapitulates) the evolutionary history of its species. Therefore, at various stages in
embryonic development, it appears as a single-celled marine
organism, a worm, a fish, an amphibian, a mammal, and finally
a human. These stages involve the embryo displaying "vestigial
remnants" of its past evolutionary history.' This is the "recapitulation" argument.

Let's take a brief look at these arguments to see if they have
any validity.2

Evolutionists often argue for their theory by appealing to
the marked similarities between the anatomy of man and that
of the higher vertebrates, thereby "proving" that man evolved
from an animal ancestor.' At first glance, this may seem a
convincing argument for evolution. In reality, however, the
theory is highly speculative and involves vast unwarranted
assumptions based on naturalism (see chapter 2 for a debunking of this philosophy).

Creationists believe that similar organs among various animals
are quite compatible with a creationist scenario. Human beings
and all the animals were created by the same Creator, so we would
expect some similarities in their design. When we observe the
paintings of da Vinci, we note certain similarities between them,
even though they portray different subjects. When we observe
the paintings of Picasso, we note certain similarities between
them, even though they portray different subjects. When we
observe the paintings of even a modern painter like Thomas
Kinkade, we note certain similarities between them, even though
they portray different subjects. Likewise, when we observe the
creations of the Creator (a divine Artist), we note certain similarities even though each species is different.'

Do not human engineers and designers do much the same
thing in terms of incorporating similar design into various
inventions? Wheels work well on cars, buses, tractors, wagons,
bicycles, and tricycles. Light bulbs work well in houses, offices,
cars, outdoor stadiums, and streetlamps. Air conditioners work
fabulously in cars, houses, and other buildings. Glass lenses work
wonderfully for eyeglasses, telescopes, and microscopes. If
human designers can incorporate similar items into the things
they make, surely the divine Creator could do the same with
the creatures He made.

The environment is a key factor. Creationists believe that
God in His wisdom, knowing that various species would be living and moving about in a similar environment, would endow
these various creatures with body parts suitable to survival in
that environment. For example, God would give them lungs
since they would all be breathing the same air. God would give
them stomachs and digestive tracts since they would be eating
much of the same food. He would give them eyes so they could
see where they were going, and ears to hear sounds in their environment, and noses to detect aromas. In each case, God designed
an organ or body part that worked effectively, and He put this
effective working part in various creatures. Similar anatomies
make a strong case for a common Creator!

Evolutionists have often argued that bodily organs with no
known use must be "leftover" organs from an earlier animal stage
at which time they were useful (for example, they may have been
useful for Neanderthals or other cave-dwellers). Because such
vestigial organs can be surgically removed with no injury to the
body, the organs no longer serve a purpose. They are "useless
vestiges" from a former time.

The appendix is often said to be a good example of such an
organ. The 2003 Encyclopedia Britannica describes the appendix as "a vestigial hollow tube attached to the cecum."5 Likewise
the 2003 Columbia Encyclopedia says the appendix "has no function in people and is considered a vestigial remnant of some previous organ or structure, having a digestive function, that became
unnecessary to people in their evolutionary progress."' In similar fashion, the 2003 Encarta Encyclopedia notes that "many scientists believe that the human appendix at one time served a useful
purpose that has gradually been lost through evolution."' This
view is shared by evolutionist Ernst Mayr, who suggests that when
such organs "lose their function owing to a shift in lifestyle, they
are no longer protected by natural selection and are gradually deconstructed." However, such organs "are informative by showing the previous course of evolution."'

Evolutionists are again guilty of making vast and unwarranted
assumptions. To begin, organs that are presently categorized as
"vestigial" may serve a purpose that is yet unknown to science.'
Scientists are not infallible and are making new discoveries and
revising older theories all the time. Significantly, scientists used
to categorize about 180 organs as "vestigial" (an evolutionary
scientist who testified at the famous 1925 Tennessee Scopes Trial
made this claim'°). Included were the thyroid gland, the thymus,
the pineal gland, the tonsils, the coccyx, the ear muscles, and
the appendix." Today, however, because scientists have discovered functional uses for these organs, the list has now dwindled
to between zero and six, depending on who you talk to.12 For
this reason, many scientists don't take vestigial arguments seriously anymore, though the vestigial argument for evolution still
shows up in textbooks, college lectures, and major encyclopedias. For the record,

• The pineal gland, once categorized as vestigial, is an
endocrine gland that triggers growth cycles and sexual
development through the secretion of a hormone called
melatonin.L3

• The thymus, once categorized as vestigial, relates to the
body's immune system.

• The thyroid gland, once categorized as vestigial, secretes
hormones related to proper metabolism and growth.

• The coccyx (tailbone), once categorized as vestigial (and
thought to point to a tail in human ancestors), serves the
vital purpose of being a critical point of muscle attachment necessary for an upright posture.14

• The appendix, once categorized as vestigial, is a part of
the immune system that contains antibodies, thus playing a role in preventing disease, especially in the intestines, and apparently more so for young children than
adults. One professor of zoology, for example, now says
the appendix may be "a lymphoid organ which acts as
a reservoir of antibody producing cells.""

What about the common evolutionist argument that
vestigial organs can be removed from the human body without
apparent loss? The reality is that medical specialists may not yet
be aware of some kinds of loss. If an organ is removed and the
person remains alive, that does not prove the body has no need
for the organ. The person may indeed remain alive, but he may
not live as optimally as he would have if the organ remained in
his body. Further, medical specialists postulate that if an organ
is removed from the body, another organ in the body may
compensate for its loss. But this compensation should not be
taken to mean that the removed organ served no useful purpose.
Yet further, some organs-such as tonsils-may be more important in early childhood than in adulthood (for example, they
may help young children ward off disease).'6

I strongly believe all these organs serve a purpose. But even
if some organs were useless and "leftover" from an earlier period
of humanity, they would be examples of microevolution (evolution within specific species), not macroevolution (evolution of
one species into another). If the species of man microevolved,
some of these organs may have become less important. But this
certainly offers no support for the naturalistic evolution of simple
life-forms into complex life-forms.

One further point bears mentioning. If evolution were true,
we would expect to see not only a loss of some organs ("devolution," involving the so-called vestigial organs) but also the development of some new organs. The absence of such new organs would seem to argue against the evolutionary view that humans
are increasingly moving toward some optimal design."

Evolutionists in the past have argued that as an embryo develops within the womb, it repeats (recapitulates) the entire evolutionary history of its species. So, at various stages in embryonic
development, a human may appear as a single-celled marine
organism, a worm with a pulsating heart, a fish with gill slits,
an amphibian, a mammal (with a remnant of a tail), and finally
a human being. The human embryo supposedly retains "vestiges"
of its previous evolution by recapitulating its major evolutionary stages.

Sometimes the theory is summed up in the phrase, "ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny." 8 Allow me to translate these strangesounding words for you.

• Ontogeny refers to embryonic development.

• Phylogeny refers to evolutionary development.

• Therefore, the phrase simply means that embryonic development recapitulates (or repeats) evolutionary development.

Tragically, many abortion clinics across the country have used
the recapitulation theory to ease the guilt of young girls having
abortions. They tell the girls that the embryo is now in the fish
stage, so they don't need to worry about killing a human baby. 19
Who knows how many millions of innocent babies have been
slaughtered while doctors use the recapitulation theory to assuage
guilt.

The idea that the embryo recapitulates its evolutionary history within the womb has certainly been widely disseminated
among the masses.

• The Reader's Digest Book of Facts reports the "fact" that
the human embryo recapitulates its evolutionary history,
including developing gill slits like a fish and a tail.20

• Dr. Spock, of baby and child development fame, taught
this theory (including the idea that the embryo develops gill slits).'

• Dr. Ernst Mayr, influential evolutionist who has been
hailed as the "Darwin of the twentieth century" and is
Professor Emeritus of zoology at Harvard University,
argues that an early human embryo is similar not only
to dogs, cows, and mice, but also to reptiles, amphibians,
and fishes .22

• Carl Sagan, once hailed as the smartest man in America,
said the following in the widely distributed Parade Magazine:

By the third week, around the time of the first
missed menstrual period, the forming embryo is about
2 millimeters long and is developing various body parts.
But it looks a little like a segmented worm. By the end
of the fourth week, it's approximately 5 millimeters
(about 1/5 inch) long. It's recognizable as a vertebrate,
its tube-shaped heart is beginning to beat, something
like the gill-arches of a fish or an amphibian have
become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail.
It looks something like a newt or a tadpole. This is the
end of the first month after conception. By the fifth
week, the gross divisions of the brain can be distinguished. What will later develop into eyes is apparent,
and little buds appear-on their way to becoming arms
and legs. By the sixth week, the embryo is 13 millimeters (about 1/2 inch) long. The eyes are still on the side
of the head, as in most animals, and the reptilian face has connected slits where the mouth and nose eventually will be. By the end of the seventh week, the tail
is almost gone, and sexual characteristics can be
discerned (although both sexes look female). The face
is mammalian, but somewhat pig-like. By the end of
the eighth week, the face resembles a primate, but is
still not quite human .21

This description of the embryo is undoubtedly based on the
recapitulation theory. Sadly, Sagan set forth this description of
the human embryo in his attempt to justify women having abortions. Many no doubt found Sagan's line of argument quite
convincing. I know that students at the university level have
found it convincing.

I read one account of a student taking a zoology course at
a respected university where the recapitulation theory was being
taught. He commented that the presentation was spun in such
an effective way that he walked away from the course wondering how anyone could rationally deny that evolution was true.
He found that the idea strongly challenged his Christian beliefs.
Not until five years later did he discover that by the midtwentieth century, no informed embryologist accepted the recapitulation theory as legitimate.24 That men like Dr. Spock and
Dr. Sagan espoused such ideas is surprising.

From a historical perspective, Charles Darwin firmly
believed that embryonic similarities would support his claims.
It was sometime later that biologist Ernst Haeckel-a professor of zoology who was Darwin's biggest supporter and promoter
in Germany25-made drawings of embryos of various species
that showed amazing similarity. This was hailed as powerful new
evidence for evolution.

Unfortunately for evolutionists, and to the great embarrassment of evolutionists who earlier hailed this discovery,
Haeckel's drawings were proven to be fraudulent by other
contemporary scientists. He changed other scientists' drawings of human and dog embryos, making their resemblance much
closer and masking their dissimilarities." He also misrepresented
the stage and age of the embryos.27

Though we have known for a long time that Haeckel's drawings were bogus (one recent evolutionist claims they were just
"somewhat doctored"28), the great magnitude of his deception
has only recently come to light. Michael Richardson, embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School, London, wrote
an article for Anatomy and Embryology journal. In the article,
he noted that Haeckel's drawings had always raised a red flag
in his mind because they didn't match his own research on the
subject. As a responsible scientist, he assembled a team of experts
to examine and photograph embryos from a wide variety of vertebrate species at a stage comparable to that depicted by Haeckel.29
Richardson and his team yielded findings so different from
Haeckel's drawings that they concluded Haeckel couldn't have
been dealing with real specimens. They note that Haeckel's drawings not only added and deleted certain features but also skewed
the scale of the drawings to emphasize similarity among species."
In a newspaper interview, Richardson commented: