I’ve gotten my first evo troll. I’m not sure whether to be happy about it or not. Of course, this troll is like most Materialists, completely unable to mount a logical, coherent defense of his worldview.
On the appendix thread Mr. Darrell has shown a fundamental lack of understanding of what ID science is by repeatedly trying to link me to Creationists, has stereotyped me and others, and has refused to acknowledge when I answer his questions. It’s rather sad really. This is a person that is so dogmatically tied to his worldview, that he is physically incapable of recognizing when his question has been answered.
The real reason for this post, however, is that Mr. Darrell continues to assert that the appendix is evidence for evolution. In the not too distant past, the appendix was labeled as non-functioning, thus showing that it is vestigial (the vestige of our supposed evolution from earlier mammalian forms) and thus as evidence for evolution. So, from Mr. Darrell’s point of view, whether the appendix works or not, it still amounts to evidence for evolution.
In science, however, this is not how we operate. If everything and anything is evidence for your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is useless. Considering that evolution proponents are claiming this very thing, I think it is safe to say that evolution is not in a good place, scientifically. The defense of evolution, by people like Mr. Darrell, is strictly a reactionary measure as an attempt to prop up their worldview.
ID science, however, does have something at stake in this question. It would not make sense for the designer to simply put non-functioning pieces of material into an organism. It would be wasteful. If the appendix truly had no function, this would count against ID science. The fact of the matter, however, is that the appendix does have a function, thus a prediction of ID is borne out, much like how we are finding that junk DNA is not so much junk after all.