What kind of creationists are you are attacking? Panglossian Victorian-era creationists? Certainly not intelligent design advocates. Nowadays, even 7/24 young-Earth creationists have no problem with DEvolution, i.e., the LOSS of information. In fact, they would interpret vestigialities like blind salamanders as a sure sign of the Fall, i.e., decay and corruption from an initially "perfect" state. In their worldview, God DIDN'T create the blind salamanders that way, so your whole point falls apart. So, all you've done is set up a pathetic straw-man, and knocked him down. Wow, I am so impressed by your erudition. Your argument is the only nonsense here.

Wouldn't you say that the salamanders perfected themselves for their dark watery environment?

Can you cite a text, or perhaps personal homepage (from someone above age 12 prefered, but not required), of a young earth creationist discussing the 6,000 year vestigialities and DEvolution process you imply is widely believed? Surely someone who uses the word erudition will not find this difficult.

DMM, thank you so much for confirming that creationism is THEOLOGY and not science with your reiteration of the "fall from grace" of the Garden of Eden which of couse had no blind salamanders before SATAN came along and gave Eve the apple, blah, blah, blah. Why don't you guys just hang it up? Talk about straw men.

Since you are too lazy to Google this for yourself, here are some examples:

<link>

http://www.trueorigin.org/

Note that I have no relationship with these sites, have not read them much, and probably don't agree with everything written there. But you asked for it. And no, I did not find this difficult.

You are obviously functionally illiterate, and perhaps also retarded. (Another example of devolution.) My point was that EVEN theology-filled creationism (i.e., 7/24 YEC) has no problem with vestigial organs, so who is Hitchens arguing with? Only his own straw-man creationist.