Monkey ancestor offensive

[EnemyPartyII]

So, it seems to come up time and time again that a significant motivating foactor of creationists is that they don't like the idea of being descended from monkeys. "I ain't no monkey", "you can believe you are descended from a monkey if you want, but my ancestors weren't monkeys" and so on.

According to a literal reading of Genesis, humans don't descend from primate ancestors, but rather were made from dirt. I was wondering if someone could explain to me why anyone would think having dirt at the bottom of the family tree is somehow supposed to be preferable to having non human primates at the bottom of the family tree?

 

[Siyha]

I'm not a creationist, but this is argument of dirt being more offensive is a baseless argument that I think misunderstands the YEC objection. It revolves less around the substance from which people were made, and more about the imago dei that underscores it. They don't see a scenario in evolution where suddenly a souless but close to human anscestor gives birth to a person with a soul. Exactly what genetic mutation crossed the line where God deemed the species ready for a soul? And even in this situation, in evolution, the new species still intermingles with the old until over many generations its dominance is established, but mixing its dna with theirs. So even if one got a soul, their child would be the product of a souled person and a non souled person.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'm not a creationist, but this is argument of dirt being more offensive is a baseless argument that I think misunderstands the YEC objection. It revolves less around the substance from which people were made, and more about the imago dei that underscores it. They don't see a scenario in evolution where suddenly a souless but close to human anscestor gives birth to a person with a soul. Exactly what genetic mutation crossed the line where God deemed the species ready for a soul? And even in this situation, in evolution, the new species still intermingles with the old until over many generations its dominance is established, but mixing its dna with theirs. So even if one got a soul, their child would be the product of a souled person and a non souled person.

As opposed to the issue of non souled dirt becomming a souled person, which is fair easier to wrap ones head around, right?

 

[Science/Faith]

Well maby our souls evolved as well in some way from earlier animal spirits. Plus the created from dust part fits with evolution seeing as everything is made from stellar dust.

 

[sfs]

When I have seen this objection, it's usually been framed in terms of the Incarnation: "You mean you think Jesus was an evolved ape? God became an ape? Isn't that blasphemy?" Or something like that. This reaction displays a poor theological understanding of the Incarnation, of course -- it's not as though a human was thought to be an honorable thing for God to have become, before evolutionary thought messed things up. The Incarnation was always about God scandalously, recklessly emptying himself and becoming nothing.

 

[laconicstudent]

Of course, it is usually based on the ignorant assumption that apes are dirty/stupid/awful, whatever, when they are really extraordinarily intelligent and social creatures.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

As opposed to the issue of non souled dirt becomming a souled person, which is fair easier to wrap ones head around, right?

I think Siyha gives a decent explanation of my objection at least, but I'll ad a little to show why non souled dirt makes more sense.

The Bible teaches man was in a higher state than now that he has fallen from. Evolution seems to move in the opposite direction.

Its not that I believe we "came from dirt" but that God took the physical building blocks of man and directly created him. Even the ancient world saw that in death, man rotted into dirt. Its not a question of origin but a question of substance.

 

[lucaspa]

It revolves less around the substance from which people were made, and more about the imago dei that underscores it. They don't see a scenario in evolution where suddenly a souless but close to human anscestor gives birth to a person with a soul. Exactly what genetic mutation crossed the line where God deemed the species ready for a soul?

Darwin addressed the issue of when, in the evolutionary history, God first introduced souls:
"He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. ... Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library The Descent of Man

Basically, it is a non-issue. Infusing souls, whether in an individual or a species, is God's choice. Even as individuals, God infuses a soul sometime during embryonic development. When is not important. All that is important is that God does so.

And even in this situation, in evolution, the new species still intermingles with the old until over many generations its dominance is established, but mixing its dna with theirs. So even if one got a soul, their child would be the product of a souled person and a non souled person.

This is a misunderstanding of evolution. Species, by their very nature, "do not intermingle with the old". The way you tell that you have a new species is that it is reproductively separate from other species.

What you are trying to say is that there is period where a population transforms from one species to another. However, all God has to do is infuse a soul into every member of the population. Then there is no problem.

Also, souls are not heritable, are they? No, each individual gets a soul and the soul comes from God, not from the parents. So this too is a non-issue.

 

[lucaspa]

The Bible teaches man was in a higher state than now that he has fallen from. Evolution seems to move in the opposite direction.

1. I would argue that the Bible does not teach this. Genesis 1 does not teach it at all. Genesis 2 teaches that, at some point in the past, humans had not yet disobeyed God. They had not yet experienced spiritual death by being cut off from God. This is not a "higher state", but rather describes a relationship with God.

When Adam and Eve disobeyed, the punishments were very specific and very limited: farming became difficult, childbirth became painful, serpents lost their legs, and there was hatred between serpents and humans. That's it.

2. Evolution does not have a direction. That is a common misconception about evolution, but a major misconception. Humans are no more "evolved" than amoeba. Each species has a 3.8 billion year evolutionary history. Each species has traits other species lack. For humans, those traits include the ability to make tools to make tools and the ability to engage in more complicated communication. From that arises our technology, which is mistaken for biological "progress". It is not. It is technology, not biological superiority.

Its not that I believe we "came from dirt" but that God took the physical building blocks of man and directly created him. Even the ancient world saw that in death, man rotted into dirt. Its not a question of origin but a question of substance.

I submit it is a question of pride. Based on that "directly created him". That makes humans inherentlyspecial, because God "directly created" us.

If God did not directly create us, but created us by the processes He used to create every other species on the planet, then we are not inherently special. If we are special to God, it is only because God chooses to regard us as special. That hurts our pride. We want to have a claim on God so that must regard us as special. Instead, we have no such claim. The choice is solely God's.

But that the choice is solely God's is biblical while the idea of inherently special is not.

 

[lucaspa]

Well maby our souls evolved as well in some way from earlier animal spirits.

That idea goes against one of the theological messages of Genesis 1

Plus the created from dust part fits with evolution seeing as everything is made from stellar dust.

Biological evolution does not say this. Carl Sagan made this point in Cosmos. Repeatedly. But Sagan was not talking about evolution or science; he was making his own religion.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That idea goes against one of the theological messages of Genesis 1

Actually, this is in line with my strictly personal, non dogmatic thoughts on the idea. I beliueve souls develop grow and are earnt, much like personality. I see no reason to think why animals shouldn't have a basic form analogous. But I admit, happily, thats contrary to doctrine.

Biological evolution does not say this. Carl Sagan made this point in Cosmos. Repeatedly. But Sagan was not talking about evolution or science; he was making his own religion.

Its a nice idea though.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Sorry what?

How is decending from DIRT not a case of going from a lower state to a higher state?

 

[lucaspa]

Actually, this is in line with my strictly personal, non dogmatic thoughts on the idea. I beliueve souls develop grow and are earnt, much like personality. I see no reason to think why animals shouldn't have a basic form analogous. But I admit, happily, thats contrary to doctrine.

To explore your idea, I have a few questions. You say souls are "earnt" [sic], by which I think you mean "earned". Earned from whom? Are personalities "earned"? If so, from whom?

Personality is part of the material brain and we can see this by drugs and ablations of the brain that then alter the personality. What part of the physical brain is involved in soul? And how would you measure that?

Its a nice idea though.

It has some appeal. The real problem with it was that Sagan stated this as science instead of the religion it is. Sagan can have whatever personal faith he wants, but don't you agree that he shouldn't portray this personal faith as science?

 

[lucaspa]

Sorry what?

How is decending from DIRT not a case of going from a lower state to a higher state?

The issue is that evolution does not have "going from a lower state to a higher state". To say "lower" and "higher" means making a judgement call and assigning value.

Evolution does not assign such values. Chimps are not a "lower" lifeform than humans. Amoebas are not "lower" than humans. Evolution is not a ladder of "progress". The Natural History Museum in NYC shows evolution like it should: a huge circle with all living species on the circumference. None of them being "higher" than any of the others.

BTW, we can't descend from dirt. Dirt is inorganic and we are composed of organic molecules.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The issue is that evolution does not have "going from a lower state to a higher state". To say "lower" and "higher" means making a judgement call and assigning value.

Evolution does not assign such values. Chimps are not a "lower" lifeform than humans. Amoebas are not "lower" than humans. Evolution is not a ladder of "progress". The Natural History Museum in NYC shows evolution like it should: a huge circle with all living species on the circumference. None of them being "higher" than any of the others.

BTW, we can't descend from dirt. Dirt is inorganic and we are composed of organic molecules.

Preaching to the choir dude, but I'm trying to discuss the matter with YECs on their own terms.