Alex,

Why do you think it is a backup system? Two lungs give you more air capacity, two eyes give you stereoscopic viewing, two ears give yor stereoscopic earing, maybe the two kidneys are there not as a backup, but to clean your body faster. The fact that you can live with only one of them do not convert them as backup systems.

About the appendix, if you believe in evolution, then it might have had it's use in the past, right? Well, maybe not, after all nobody claims that evolution is perfect, but if it is there is very likely that it had some purpose in the past, right? So, how is that different of a creationist theory? After all, the creator might've thought of this, forseeing that the organ will not be required after some eons, but no removal was necessary. I do not think I am expressing this well... Let's say we send a rover to Pluto, the rover will have some non refillable fuel tanks to move around when there is not enough solar energy, but when there is enough of it, the rover will use it instead. Fast forward a couple of million of years when some alien race finds the rover with empty fuel tanks, which they will believe it was "bad design" or unnecessary, if they do not realize it's original purpose.

Oh, one last thing. Maybe the creator was not perfect. It might have been very good, good enough to create the universe and all, but it was not perfect <g>

>Consider how inadequate the backup systems are, when we have two lungs, two eyes, two kidneys, but only one heart and one spinal cord.
>Also, what's with the appendix? Why is it there such a useless appendage if it "were perfect"?
>
>As I said, before debating the virtues of creationism, be sure you understand enough of both sides to make an informed comment.