What has to be someone’s level of scientific ignorance to think that a question like “If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys” actually makes any sense at all?
2 Likes
It’s par for the course for creationists. Most of whom routinely display in public, the florid aetiology that accompanies treating a ridiculous Bronze Age mythology uncritically as fact.
3 Likes
It’s one of those questions they think is a “gotcha” question. Take that, atheists!
When you’re ignorant, you just declare victory without having to actually do any work.
I’ve responded to variants of this question many times over the years, and the response is always either “crickets” or some other random apologetic talking point in their database. It has NEVER resulted in “I stand corrected, thanks for explaining that.” Because that’s the same as admitting (at the least) that their apologists are full of crap, or (at worst) their holy book is full of crap.
It would also indicate the person values rational discussion grounded in actual facts, which is not something they’re taught to value. To the contrary: they’re taught to be (at best) deeply suspicious of it or (at worst) openly hostile to it.
“Let God be true, and every man a liar”.
In fairness, it makes a sort of internal sense to them, in this way: they believe god (1) exists, is (2) all knowing, all powerful and all loving and (3) has a flawless and immutable moral code which is (4) knowable and (5) accurately taught by their teachers. If all that is true (and they believe – or at least durst not admit to any doubt – that’s it’s absolutely true) – then what else could you sensibly do but believe and obey without question – and deny all contrary information as bogus?
2 Likes
It could also be easily retorted by something like “If Christianity came from Judaism, why are there still Jews?” or “If America was colonized by Europeans, why are there still Europeans?” Those are very illustrative examples of the non linear character of evolution, since explaining scientific concepts such as common ancestry and speciation processes, or even how the coexistence of morphologically ancestral and more recent species as not only possible but rather common in the history of life on Earth, would probably take a lot longer and elicit some very unpleasant responses from someone who is clearly under Dunning-Krueger effect.
1 Like
Trouble is, the pedlars of said apologetics fall into two categories. The first category is the stupid, who merely regurgitate the garbage they’ve spooned up from elsewhere, and who have zero understanding of elementary concepts. An important concept they fail to understand being that evolution is a population phenomenon. I’ve devoted many column inches to this particular issue, and the reasons why even trained biologists in the past forgot this, but I digress.
The second category is the duplicitous. Usually, this category centres primarily upon the professional liars for doctrine, but the mendacity in question infects the amateurs as well. Perhaps the canonical example of this second category, is provided by the arch-charlatan and professional liar for creationism known as Henry Morris, who was almost single handedly responsible for launching modern American corporate creationism. At this juncture, I remind people that American creationism is a corporate business, one that derives its revenue from lying to the gullible and uneducated.
But, back to the sleazebag that was Henry Morris. This individual was responsible for most of the apologetic garbage that creationists continue to vomit into the arena of discourse even today, despite said garbage having been utterly destroyed by the facts 50 years ago. Among his most verminous and pestilential contributions, was the scribbling of a “how to” manual for quote miners, which was merely one of the vehicles he used to train his knuckle-dragging followers to lie for Jeebus.
Indeed, it’s possible to postulate that without Henry Morris, Ken Ham and several other major players in the world of creationist lying, would have had a far harder task launching their own careers. Morris provided Ham et al with the pretence that creationism was a “scientific” enterprise through his lies, while allowing them to concentrate on their heretical pseudo-theology.
I’ve devoted numerous column inches here to other relevant topics, and a complete appraisal thereof requires time and diligent effort, because as several here will note, I’ve been prolific in this vein. But those column inches are the product of spending 15 years dealing with the creationist pestilence, so it should not be too surprising that the word count in question has grown over time.
As for the responses on the part of creationists, to having their offerings subject to my attentions, no one will be surprised to learn that said responses are universally hostile. Indeed, in that tarpit of turpitude known as Facebook, the responses range from the encephalitic to the rabid.
But, I was raised and educated to conduct discourse honestly, and regard creationism as an egregious affront in this regard.
The thing about this question that is so ironic (or moronic?) is that we didn’t evolve from monkeys . . . we are apes, and there is a big difference.
Apes and monkeys have a common ancestor, but we didn’t evolve from monkeys.
As a side-note, I believe that there is no such thing as a stupid question . . . just stupid people.
1 Like
That’s just the term they deliberately choose because it sounds sillier. The Great Apes has an almost noble connotation compared to the silly, poop-slinging monkeys.
Although I’m quite sure many would think “ape” and “monkey” are synonyms.
3 Likes