Faith writes:
Some creationists insist vestigial organs have a function, I see them as having lost former function, which is consistent with the Fall.
Interesting; so in the case of seeing a non-functional structure that if functional would be more helpful the assumption is that it must have been degrading rather than developing. Is there any explanation for this conclusion other than preconceived dogmatic bias?
From an evolutionary standpoint it makes sense that a singularly unhelpful organ like the appendix came about from our ancestors to which it did have a useful function, and that it hasn't been enough of a detriment to have been eliminated yet. On the other hand the creationist "Fall" explanation has these structures degrading essentially by magic, with no additional explanation required.
How would we distinguish the "Fall" explanation from one where the act of disobeying God and eating the fruit invigorated the world with new ability? Lets call it the "Ascension" explanation; the appendix could then be explained as an organ on the way to increasing our ability to digest, or penguins are developing wings so they can gain the ability to fly!
If no naturalistic explanation is required for these things to happen, then it seems my "Ascension" explanation is just as reasonable as your "Fall" explanation.
™ Version 4.2