Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

Do you find it interesting that young earth creationists actually make an argument in favor of evolution by espousing one of their favorite arguments against evolution?

Asked by Dutchess_III (42454points) April 14th, 2015

“We didn’t evolve from monkeys! It just isn’t possible!”
No, we didn’t evolve from monkeys. The evidence doesn’t suggest that we did. Scientists never said that we did. The creationists are the only ones who bring up this argument, and the fact is, they made it up in a complete void, because the similarities between humans and apes are impossible to ignore.
This is something I think most creationists would abhor,the idea that we really are related to monkeys, but their argument actually underscores it.

I find that fascinating.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

27 Answers

stanleybmanly's avatar

They of course are ducking the point, and it’s a cute trick when used on the vulnerable.. It’s like saying “We didn’t evolve from our cousins”. It’s a way of avoiding the truth of the accepted scientific doctrine that we and our cousins have the SAME ancestor who was neither man nor monkey.

kritiper's avatar

It’s oversimplification, at least. We evolved from an ape like creature, not a monkey.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

We must have evolved from an Ape, half the population is as dumb as one.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I just find it intriguing that they came up with an argument that actually underscores the reality of what they’re trying to deny.

ragingloli's avatar

The best part is that because of the global flood myth, they have to believe in super-evolution.
There are about 9 million known species of animals on earth. There simply was not enough space to house at least 18 million animals on noahs ark.
Creationists respond to this by saying that Noah only took 2 of each ”kind” on the ark (they never define what they mean by “kind”).
What that means is, by necessity, that all 9 million species today must have evolved from that small group of animals in just over 4000 years.

ragingloli's avatar

accoding to Answers in Genesis, there were about 16000 animals on the ark.
Assuming 2 of each “kind” at the time, we are talking about 8000 species that were present on that boat.
That means we can stay at our estimate of 9 million species that would have to evolve after the flood.
6 new species of animals would have had to evolve every day, from the day they stepped off the boat, to today.

jaytkay's avatar

I don’t find it interesting or intriguing. It’s exasperating and horrific.

Maybe the persistence of willful ignorance is an argument against evolution:-)

Darth_Algar's avatar

God made man in his own image. God didn’t look like no monkey.

josie's avatar

The truth is, morons and intellectuals alike can “believe” what ever they want. This site is evidence of that.

The problem is very few can validate their “beliefs” without committing one logical fallacy or another.

Pick just about any contentious topic and you will find a fervent believer and simultaneously a fervent non-believer, and in many cases the only real evidence either relies on is that they fervently believe it.

It could be worse. From about 500 CE until the Reformation, a European could probably live their whole life and never meet a single person who did not take for granted the existence of God and creation.

Assuming these ideas are not truly interesting to you as you say, but instead bothersome, take heart! Things are moving in the right direction.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I just wonder if they understand why they keep coming up with the monkey thing, all by themselves. Why not a bear or something?

josie's avatar

Couldn’t tell you. Probably because they heard somebody else say it.

Zaku's avatar

At a Catholic school in the 1980’s, students learned to sing:

Monkey ain’t no kin to me,
God made me!

It’s an old reaction. I’d say it’s yet another nervous reaction based on discomfort with the flaws in overly-literal Bible-based teaching, which is a mistake on many levels.

Blondesjon's avatar

It’s a hangover from the Scopes trial.

kritiper's avatar

@Darth_Algar You mean Man made “God” in his own image. That’s why He resembles an ape, just like us!

Dutchess_III's avatar

One burning question I always had about God’ image was….why did he need with penis, and what did he do with it? People found that question offensive for some reason, like penises are evil!

Darth_Algar's avatar

Yeah I never really got the whole naked human body = dirty/shameful thing. Isn’t that calling the work of God shameful?

Dutchess_III's avatar

SO many conflicting stories! Sex is shameful, so why did God invent something as awesome as an orgasm? I am so glad I don’t even have to look for the answers to questions like this any more! It’s really liberating.

jerv's avatar

Now you know why I cannot follow any organized religion.

SmashTheState's avatar

It’s important to remember that the model espoused by young Earth creationists is just as true as any sort of evolutionary model. “History” is a narrative we create in order to account for the existence of memory. Since all history relies on inductive reasoning, it is axiomatically and by definition fallacious. That being said, it’s perfectly valid to compare the usefulness of two competing historic narratives – and it’s undeniable to any honest observer that for most practical purposes, the narrative model of evolutionary principles (whether active, passive, or neo-Lamarckian) is more useful.

jerv's avatar

@SmashTheState You are glossing over one very important detail though; the “Young Earth” not only empathically and categorically refutes any and all evidence of the cosmos being over 600 years old, but also denies accepted scientific practices like carbon dating.

I mean, there are some things that are debatable, like whether Jesus was the Messiah or not, and that’s fine. However, any hard science that is subject to peer review and requires repeatable experimentation to confirm is utterly “trumped” by a literalist interpretation of the Bible.

It is telling, however, that the only place that this is an issue is a nation with science education scores well behind the industrialized world and falling. In nations that actually do have scientific literacy, they have been smart enough to reconcile scientific facts with the Bible by recognizing two simple facts;

1) “Day” is a measure of time based on a planets rotation around an axis as it orbits a star; when there are no such things as starts or planets yet, then by definition days don’t exist yet either.

2) Any being powerful enough to create the Earth, the Sun, Man, and everything else probably operates on a different time scale than us humans anyways; what God would call “a day” could be the human equivalent of billions of years just as a dollar in America $7.75 in Hong Kong.

But those arguments use reason, and reasoning with those who interpret religious texts literally is impossible. And if your claim about history relying on inductive reasoning is correct, then their “knowledge” of history is as flawed as their understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, paleontology, or any other hard science…. a fact that they wear as a badge of pride.

Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One's avatar

What I find interesting is that this whole thread seems to boil down to this:

Bob: Aren’t young earth creationists stupid?
Larry: Yup, they sure are nnnn you know what else. I hate em.

The question is posed with such exasperation that I’m afraid a response would be futile. It actually reminds me of racism.

SmashTheState's avatar

@jerv Non-science is non-scientific. That’s all you’re really saying. There’s a nasty little subtext your comments implying we all just know science is right. We don’t. Science, in the Aristotlian model, is one of three ways of obtaining knowledge: empiricism, rationalism, and revelation. Science is the application of pure empiricism. Philosophy is the application of pure rationalism. Mysticism is the application of pure revelation. All three contribute to a holistic understanding.

jerv's avatar

@SmashTheState Not quite.

First off though, I must say that your statement about the alleged subtext is wrong on enough levels that I find it disturbing. (I really have a thing about feeling like I’m having words put in my mouth.) While I feel that science is right in that it admits that it can be wrong and thus opens itself willingly to revision in the face of evidence, I DO NOT think that we all know that science is right.

What do you have when you use Mysticism as both revelation and at least half of rationalism while utterly disavowing empiricism as “the work of [insert evil force here]”?

I agree that understanding requires at least some of all three, but that also means that utterly refuting empiricism precludes even the possibility of true understanding, as does substituting unadulterated argumentum ab auctoritate for rationalism.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One I can see how you would view it that way. There are some who see them as a danger. Not merely an annoyance, but an actual certifiable threat.

Now, are you saying that those who believe stuff like “Having sex with a virgin cures HIV/AIDS!” are not dangerous, or are you willing to see how it is that most here view those who put belief ahead of provable science in an unfavorable light? And while believing that Earth is only 6000 years old in and of itself isn’t a harmful belief, it’s often accompanied by views that are harmful; often enough to make people like me wary.

Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One's avatar

I’m not sure I get your drift on the “having sex with a virgin” bit. My only point is what I’ve stated in another question as well: I’m wary of those who are rail-bound. Sometimes there are curves that the rails can’t handle. Assuming that they can.. ah screw it – enough of the analogy.

I’m wary of people who are overly, and completely, and utterly, and indefatigably certain of things due to the evidence train. I know that sounds mad – so does the very existence of God. I’m just not willing to place myself on such a pedestal and make presumptions about all of life and the universe. I’m willing to concede that there are things that I don’t know.

I also know that I don’t have to believe in something for it to actually exist. I also don’t need quantifiable or tangible evidence for it to exist either. I’m open to the possibility that things can exist without my knowledge. I hope that makes sense. It seems there are quite a few here who are not open. That’s the sort of concrete tunnel vision that reminds me of racism.

jerv's avatar

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One That was an example of belief trumping fact in a way that leads to harm… and one that actually does happen in Africa, so it isn’t just a far-fetched theoretical.

Also, the reason I am an Agnostic is because I believe that there are things that no human (myself included) can know, though that lack of knowledge does not negate the possibility of something existing anyways. So I suspect you and I have very similar views overall.

For the record, I’m not a big fan of pure empiricists either as they tend to be as annoying and self-righteous as those who use the Bible to refute the notion that the Earth revolved around the Sun instead of being the literal center of the Universe.

The reason I don’t give them much flak is simply because they are pretty rare while those that that believe that religious belief totally replaces/trumps science are regrettably common, especially in the US. This despite the fact that there are many who manage to reconcile their faith and their academic knowledge in ways that allow science and religion to peacefully coexist in a non-contradictory manner, which leads me to feel that there are people who do consider ignorance to be a virtue. I mean, it’s easier to demonize all who don’t share your beliefs than to learn basic physics or biology, especially with our education system as lackluster as it is.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther