Vestigial organs have been a staple of Evolutionary apologetics since the religion was first established in the 1800s. Vestigial organs are actually quite ambiguously defined. In the past, Evolutionists vehemently held to the argument that vestigial organs are without function. Even as recently as 2017, the American Museum of Natural History had an exhibit claiming the coccyx "serves no purpose, but reminds us that humans have descended from ancestral animals with tails." (1) However, in the modern day, they allow for functionality, claiming that an organ still counts as vestigial if it serves "diminished function". Ironically, this means the vestigial organ argument is itself without function.
One example of the vestigial organs argument can be seen in today's image. A whale with legs seems silly to most people, and the more biologically educated you are, the sillier it sounds. Yet, as shown in today's image, Evolutionists genuinely believe that whales have vestigial legs, as they allegedly evolved from land-dwelling ancestors. The problem is that, while that may fool the uneducated, any marine biologist can tell you that these "legs" are not legs at all. If you want a clue as to what they do, consider that they are actually different in males than in females. That's right; far from being vestigial legs, this bone is a functional part of the whale's reproductive system. It doesn't help them walk on land, it helps them put more whales in the sea.
The vestigial organs argument is one example of how Evolution hinders science. Rather than studying "vestigial" organs in order to discover their purpose, they were declared to have little or no function and ignored, even to the point of being recklessly used to discredit our Creator. Ironically, we know more about the function of vestigial organs because Evolutionists used to treat them as such. The aforementioned coccyx was often removed, leading to a lot of discomfort in the victi... patients. Just as the whale's "pelvis" serves as an anchor point for other parts of the anatomy, so also does our coccyx serve as an anchor point. There are 9 muscles attached to it, it provides a third point of impact while sitting down, and it even aids in childbirth for women. What was once seen as a functionless reminder that our ancestors had tails is now known (and was indeed known long before 2017) to be an extremely important part of our anatomy.
Thus, we see that it is actually Evolution, not Creationism, that hinders science. Christianity has always had the commands to fill and subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28), as well as to test all things and hold on to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). That mankind has been given dominion over an orderly creation created by an orderly Creator, with both the command and the ability to study it, is precisely why the scientific revolution coincided with the Protestant Reformation. As the Catholic Church lost its monopoly on the spread of information, and freedom of inquiry became more widespread, people began to realise that God does not oppose science, but rather, He gives it meaning.
Compare that to Evolution, what do you get? Well, first, you get this strange idea that any feature we have is the result of an accident that just happened to give our ancestors some kind of advantage, so they passed it down to us. So, we weren't actually designed to think. What qualifies us to do science any more than our alleged ape-like ancestors? Everything you believe, no matter how sincerely you believe it, no matter how much critical thought you attempted to put into that belief, may well just be the result of billions of years of randomness that, by sheer coincidence, results in you holding that belief. And who says your body has to have function? What even is function? Why is it "good" to have a beating heart, but "bad" when the skin is torn? Why is the life of a human valuable enough to justify the slaughter of chickens for an enjoyable meal? Who says all men are equal? Why were early Evolutionists wrong to put black people in zoos (assuming they didn't just shoot them in order to study their bones), and why are modern Evolutionist right to say that was bad?
When the two worldviews are compared, only Creationism provides a solid foundation for the ethical pursuit of knowledge. If Evolution is true, we have no reason to believe we are capable of obtaining truth, and how we go about it would be just a matter of personal preference. If our ethical views help us survive, who cares, right?
So, clearly, at least as far as science goes, Creationism is the vastly superior view. Christianity gave the world science, Evolution critically (but thankfully not fatally) wounded it, and now we're stuck in this apparently never ending war over who has the better view of origins.
But it's not never ending. Far from it, a time will come when Evolution will either die a natural death, as many religions before it, or God Himself will cut it short. See, God's delay is not due to weakness, laziness, or malice. Rather, God is taking so long to return because He is not willing that any should perish. See, you Evolutionists reading this right now would perish if God came back right now. You would be judged for your sins and suffer eternal punishment. But this is not what God wants. He loves you, so much so that Jesus actually came to the earth specifically to die for you. On the cross, Jesus, who Himself knew no sin, suffered the penalty for sin, that being death. After that, He rose from the grave. If you will only believe in Him, He will give you everlasting life. Don't stake your eternity on a whale bone. Repent, believe, and be baptised as soon as is humanly possible.
References
1. Keaton, Halley, - Tailbone “serves no purpose”? New York Museum of Natural History misleads the public, 27 April 2017 (link)