These are truly fascinating suggestions that give support to both the ideas of species adaptation and intelligent design. These insights certainly makes the wisdom teeth seem a bit “wiser” than they have to this point in my life!

Scott, I don’t see how these evolutionary leftovers would support the idea of intelligent design. Wouldn’t an intelligent designer have removed these things, especially the ones that cause medical problems (e.g. wisdom teeth)?

Beaglelady,
Hi – this is my very first comment on Beliefnet.
The idea that “a designer would not have designed in this way” was one of Darwin’s first observations in forming his theory of natural selection. It is not really a scientific observation, but a metaphysical assertion. How would anyone presume to know what a designer would or would not do? Vestegial organs such as the appendix and the like have often proved to be useful. The idea that body hair is no longer useful is also a Darwinian assertion, and a typical “just-so” story of the Darwinian paradigm.
For a good exploration of Darwinian just-so stories, see David Stove’s book Darwinian Fairytales. Stove was an Austrailian atheist philosopher who died some time ago.
These evidences are meant to confirm Darwinian evolution. However, they are a part of a circular form of argument. That argument goes something like this: lets assume that Darwinian evolution is true – great! Now let’s show that all of the current evidence supports ToE. It’s a form of question-begging. The fact is that much or all of this “evidence” can also be used to support design.
Much of the evidence that went against Darwinian predictions has since been re-evaluated to fit with the theory. For example – the Cambrian Explosion, where species appeared in a relatively short period of time (on an evolutionary scale) with no evidence of earlier forms in the fossil record. This evidence is devastating to Darwinian predictions, yet a relatively new hypothesis has attempted to explain it away – namely, punctuated equilibrium. For an excellent argument against the Darwinian view of the Cambrian, read Dr. Steven C. Meyer’s article here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
Dr. Meyer just published a new book entitled The Signature in the Cell. It presents a very strong argument for intelligent design. You can find it at Amazon.com

I should add,
The only real convincing argument in the above post is the wisdom tooth example. But this need not be supportive of speciation at all. It is supportive of the micro-evolutionary idea of adaptation. Adaptation does not in any way support the view that we evolved via a process of random mutation and natural selection. Those who support Darwinian evolution like to overexaggerate the evidence in their favor.

CannuckianYankee,
Yes, it is possible that there is an intelligent designer out there who is cruel, uncaring, or incompetent. If incompetent, we wouldn’t call it intelligent design, would we? Or perhaps the original designer is dead. Or there could be 2 or more competing designers (think parasitism and predation).
Anyway, please tell me this: what is the intelligent design explanation of why the hair on my neck can bristle? It doesn’t keep me warm and it doesn’t scare anyone. Since I have long hair, no one even notices!
What is the intelligent design explanation of the other vestigial structures that were mentioned?
(btw, vestigial structure are only a small part of the argument for evolution.)
Thanks

CannuckianYankee, You should do some research on the scientific method, because you saying that evolution is a circular arguement shows you do not really understand the scientific method.
Theories are supposed to be able to make predictions and explain what we see. That is the problem with ID. There are zero situations in which we could distinguish if a natural law or a supernatural action was at work, if ID is true. As you illustated, any evidence for a natural law is just explained away by saying “well God might have done it supernaturally.” Maybe he did, but God working through natural law is a simpler and more complete explanation than just saying “all God’s ways are unknowable.” That is a science stopper. Occam’s Razor might apply here.