Hey, that's a neat question! I've never heard that one before. I really like it though because it exposes a paradigm. You see, the evolutionist has made several misconceptions with this line of thinking and in so doing has revealed

1. His lack of understanding of the Bible

2. That his predisposed agreement with one side of the issue has clouded his awareness of the scientific method and it's results regarding the subject at hand.

First it should be noted that it is true that the Bible does not specifically address every one of the infinitesimal points of scientific inquiry. It is an account which God feels is adequate to meet His purpose. It reveals who He is and what His relationship is with us. However, in this process it also eloquently provides the very foundation of reality and rational thought (science) in civilized society.

Many natural processes are either explicitly described or at least inferred throughout the body of Scripture. The marvelous complexity of the creation itself attests to the magnificent wisdom of it's Creator. So much so that Sir Isaac Newton, surly one of the greatest scientific minds ever to have lived, often said that his greatest joy was to re-think the thoughts of God. In other words, he rejoiced in the pursuit of understanding how and why God did what He did.

Another powerful testimony to the Bibles scientific value is the historical veracity of virtually every account of ancient history recorded for us within it's pages. Because of it's remarkable eyewitness accounts of times, places, and events the Bible has long been regarded as a commanding voice of natural history. Take for example the account in Genesis known as 'The Table of Nations' (Gen. 10-11). Here we have the distribution of the families dispersed after the Tower of Babel. Secular archaeologists and higher critics have often admitted that this record is accurate and historically sound. Dr. William F. Albright, universally acknowledged as the world's leading authority on archaeology of the Near East, though himself not a believer in the infallibility of Scripture, said concerning this Table of Nations: "It stands absolutely alone in ancient literature, without a remote parallel, even among the Greeks, where we find the closest approach to to a distribution of peoples in a genealogical framework.... The Table of Nations remains an astonishingly accurate document."

"The Table of Nations remains an astonishingly accurate document"

So where does that lead us? Well, I am by far not an expert and I don't claim to have all the answers, but the very first thing that came to my mind when I read the question posed, was that Adam came first. He had nipples before Eve. Now, the evolutionist would claim that there is no use for the nipples on a man. This exposes his bias. Must there be a naturalistic explanation for every human characteristic? The Bible tells us a wonderful thing in the book of Genesis. Let us read Gen. 1:26

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;".

This passage is so neat because it shows the omnipotent creator God stopping to confer or should I say stopping to put added thought into, the formation of man (mankind). He didn't have this personal, intimate time of contemplation when He created the heavens and the earth or when He spoke light into the darkness, or when He first created life or anything else that He created. When it came to Adam, the Godhead stopped and said, "hey, this is special. This is something very personal and intimate to Me."

That speaks worlds to me! I love that! God Himself decided what a human form should be like. And it should be noted here that it is perhaps at this very point that He decided on the specific form which He Himself shall forever more be in. He decided that He wanted nipples! Now I don't know about you, but if the Almighty, Creator God thinks about it and decides that for the rest of eternity He would have the form of a man (nipples and all!) than that's good enough reason for me to rejoice in His decision.

I can't speak for all men, but I wouldn't say that male nipples serve no function. For one thing, they exhibit the unified relationship there is between man and woman. We are not two separate creations. We are one. There are many similarities between us because God formed Eve out of bone and flesh from Adams side.

A rule of debate demands that when there are only two possible answers to a question, any argument which argues equally well for both sides is inadmissible (for obvious reasons). Now the creationist looks at nipples and says "Hey, God made man with nipples and then decided to use them in a different way when He formed woman." Perfectly logical and without undue reliance on faith. The evolutionist, I assume, has an argument which he feels supports his opinion that all life is related back to a common ancestry and that is why both sexes share many of the same traits. These arguments are all well and good, however, they are not admissible because they argue equally well for both sides. Therefore these arguments are moot. In much the same way, the homologous organ argument is moot because one side of the debate uses similar organs in various organisms to argue that this demonstrates a common ancestry while the other side uses these same similarities to defend the common creator position.

In other words; One person might look at buildings around the world and notice that most have windows. He then might conclude that since almost all buildings have windows, they were all designed by the same architect. Another could gather the same information and conclude that because the window is a successful architectural design, it is employed often by many different architects. Both sides could make a strong case, however the evidence does not preclude the possibility of the other so, without any other supporting evidence to contradict the other (i.e. The plans from several different architects showing that they were not the same person) there would be an impasse. All this to say that we have nipples not because they were a benefit to our survival as a species but because God decided that He wanted to have nipples, just like He decided that He wanted to have nostrils and saliva in His mouth.

Now if you want to look at the evidence from an evolutionary perspective, the picture becomes very hard to believe in my opinion. Evolutionist would claim that only traits which lend to the survivability of the species will be selected for continuation in the gene pool. Why then, if indeed man did evolve from apes, did we lose the incredible strength which apes have? Surely this tremendous strength would have been an asset to our survival? And what of our sense of smell? Why have we all but lost the ability that other animals have to detect danger, find food and mates just by using their noses. The same could be said of a myriad of other characteristics which evolutionist cannot explain.

Perhaps the evolutionists would attribute nipples to the vestigial organ argument. As noted in 'The Collapse of Evolution' by Scott M. Huse (Baker): Vestigial organs are those structures which are presumed by evolutionists to be the useless remains of an organ which was once fully developed and operational in ancestral types. Such structures have long been cited as evidence for evolution since they are assumed to represent former evolutionary changes.

The vestigial Organ argument is still cited today as evidence for evolution despite the fact that modern genetics has exposed the idea as flawed. We now know that the development of an organ is not determined by it's use or disuse but rather the genetic code (DNA) held in the chromosomes. Textbooks as recently as the 1960's listed over 200 vestigial structures for the human body, including the thyroid and pituitary glands! Today all organs formerly classed as vestigial are known to have some function during the life of the organism.

Surprisingly, even if the Vestigial Organ argument were accurate it would not lend support to evolution because it implies structures on the way out, not in. New organs, those under construction or developing into a functional unit are completely nonexistent. This fact serves as a powerful argument against evolution.

Even a casual inspection of the human kind reveals that we are unique creatures created in the very image of God Himself. Just look at how every human face is an original. Even among identical twins there are differences. But excluding twins, just think about how every face on every person is different. Our bodies are pretty much alike, hands, feet, chest, but the face is entirely novel. No other creature can boast this! All other creatures are, for the most part, identical. True, there are minute differences that if you look hard you can see, but nothing like the immediate and striking differences found in the faces of all of Gods people.

I believe that is because we are very special and unique in Gods eyes and He wants us to see that in each others faces.

James DiPasquale