Answer
Note: for simplicity, this article uses the terms created and creationism in reference to special, immediate creation of organisms in their current forms, as opposed to the gradual development of organisms over time from prior forms. Some concepts of creationism involve both divine intervention and macro-evolution, but, for the sake of brevity, the terms are used as described.
If animals were created and did not evolve, why do they have vestigial organs? That is, why would God create an animal with parts it doesn’t need? Some organs are referred to as “vestigial” because they are assumed to be a “vestige”—a leftover—from an earlier evolutionary form. The term vestigial implies a current lack of use, purpose, or function. Commonly cited examples in human beings of “vestigial” organs are the appendix, the coccyx, and nipples on males. Critics of creationism suggest that these body parts are useless and are more likely the result of a prior biological form than special creation.
The first question to consider is whether the organs in question are actually vestigial. If an organ serves a function, then it’s not vestigial. Actually studying a so-called vestigial organ frequently shows that it’s not so useless after all.
For years, the human appendix was considered the classic example of a vestigial organ, or at least a body part with poor design. The appendix is sometimes removed, without any noticeable side effects, due to inflammation or tumors. This, supposedly, is evidence that the appendix is a superfluous organ. However, more recent studies have suggested that the role of the appendix is to store beneficial bacteria used to re-populate the digestive system after illness. Surgical removal is still needed in case of infection, but the organ is not, in fact, without a purpose in the design of the body. (See Martin, L. G., “What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?” Scientific American, Oct 21, 1999, www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-function-of-the-human-appendix-did-it-once-have-a-purpose-that-has-since-been-lost.)
Similarly, the coccyx has often been considered to be vestigial—a stunted leftover of the “tail” our ancestors had (hence, the popular name tailbone). But the coccyx is far from useless; in fact, it serves as an important point of connection for various tendons and muscles. It also stabilizes the body when a person is in an upright seated position. The tailbone shows design, and we would have a hard time without it. (See Smallwood, L., M.D., et al., “Coccydynia: An Overview of the Anatomy, Etiology, and Treatment of Coccyx Pain,” Ochsner Journal, 2014 Spring; 14(1): 84–87, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC39630.)
If the “vestigial” organ seems to provide no actual benefit, the next question is whether there is a compelling reason to include it as part of the body’s structure. Critics of creationism sometimes point to the presence of nipples on males as nonsensical under special creation. Males do not provide milk, so why would they have vulnerable organs that serve no useful purpose? One answer to this is greater efficiency of design.
Almost every model of car is available in several different trims or accessory packages. At greater cost, better features can be added—with additional switches, buttons, or dials on the dashboard. It would be expensive and wasteful for the manufacturer to produce a unique dashboard for each set of options. To do so would require a completely different set of tools, machines, and parts for each version, not to mention additional records and quality controls. The most efficient use of the machinery is to make a single dashboard for every car, regardless of the trim, and those without the fancier options will simply have unused holes on the dash capped.
The use of a single template to produce various versions of the same model of car illustrates why males have nipples. The “machinery” that creates the human body, DNA, doesn’t need the added complication of completely different chest designs for males and females. It’s more efficient, less complicated, and less prone to genetic errors to simply have a single “template” for both sexes, though one will develop an additional function for the nipple. What may seem like a waste is actually more efficient than having custom organs for each sex. (For a discussion on a further purpose of the male nipple, see Bergman, J., “Is the human male nipple vestigial?” Journal of Creation 15(2):38–41, Aug 2001, https://creation.com/is-the-human-male-nipple-vestigial.)
Many of the organs dismissed as useless by prior generations we now know to have a purpose. And some features make sense from the standpoint of a streamlined genetic code. By and large, those two considerations explain the existence of “vestigial” organs, from the perspective of special creation. Given the wisdom of God, we know there is some purpose to every feature of the body, whether or not we fully understand it (see Psalm 139:14).
