Reply to comment
"Darwin simply didn't have access to the information we have," explains William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke University Medical Center and the senior author of a new study on the appendix. "If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution."
A few days ago the evolutionary website ScienceDaily ran a story titled "Evolution of the Human Appendix: A Biological 'Remnant' No More." According to the article, "Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected."
Parker added, "Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"
Maybe, Dr. Parker? Maybe? We know how difficult it must be to finally come around to what creationists have been saying all along, but why should there be even the slightest hesitation about correcting a known mistake in biology textbooks? Creation Moments will even make it easy for textbook publishers by providing the new wording: "According to the latest scientific research, Darwin was wrong about the appendix being a vestigial organ. The appendix serves a critical function as part of the body's immune system, as creation scientists have long asserted."
But we won't hold our breath. After all, Dr. Parker is still a loyal Darwinist. "We're not saying that Darwin's idea of evolution is wrong - that would be absurd, as we're using his ideas on evolution to do this work," Parker told LiveScience.com yesterday. "It's just that Darwin simply didn't have the information we have now."
Our closing comment: Had Darwin known what we now know about fossils, DNA, geology, the fine-tuned universe and the complexity of what he thought were simple cells, we wonder if he would have proposed such a lame idea as the theory of evolution.
Those are our thoughts. What are yours?