I am noting your replies. So don't get all irrational and high-handed. Actually "try" to think up your own answer.
2006-10-11 23:54:56 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvinfZxf84eyomnR0M96jCYgBgx.?qid=20061012034239AAitcFe
2006-10-12 00:04:39 · update #1
no why should they
2006-10-11 23:57:39 · answer #1 · answered by Sam's 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is a "creationalist"? I think you may mean "creationist."
As to "missing links", this is not a scientific term. The general pattern of human evolution, in terms of morphology, is fairly well known. There are no "missing links" per se, since human evolution has not been strictly linear. It would be more accurate to say there are some missing branches, since the tree metaphor is a much better representation of the human family history.
As to racism, I suppose it depends on which species we'd be interacting with. Australopithecines were essentially bipedal chimpanzees - about the only way these early hominids were distinguishable from bonobos was that they had slightly different teeth and had ditched the knuckle walking. Given how difficult it would be to integrate a chimpanzee into human society, I don't think it is a difficult argument to make that if we ran into an australopithecine today, we'd be more likely to take him to the zoo than the pub.
On the other hand, Neanderthals had a hyoid bone and broca region in the brain that suggests fully modern speech. Other clues exist: they made a tar out of birch sap over the fire that would have required precise instructions in a language. They had hunting patterns as sophisticated as those of the modern humans that lived near them - an intimate knowledge of where to be and when to be there depending on season. A neanderthal I'd probably take to the pub (after letting him borrow the shower, a razor, and some clean clothes.)
2006-10-12 07:08:12 · answer #2 · answered by evolver 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure I understand the question completely, but here's my thoughts.
If Creationists believe that modern man was created by the intentional act of a diety (either physically, or a pre-existing species was imbued with a soul by divine intervention) then they would be a sort of racist.
'Sort of' because the 'missing link' wouldn't have essential human characteristics. So they would be discriminating on a valid basis, like saying that a deaf person is not really the best person to be a piano tuner.
But this also drags in a sort of spiritual version of the famous Turing Test. Would one person know that another one had a soul/spirit/consciousness. So would a Creationist be able to reliably tell the difference between the last being without a soul and the first one with?
I'm inclined to think that Creationists are psychologically predisposed to daemonisation, so in all probability I think they would act in a racist way towards anyone or anything they suspected of being a missing link.
2006-10-12 07:08:07 · answer #3 · answered by Hal W 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not sure I understand the question, but I consider myself a member of the Human Race. The missing link is just someone's imigination.
I Cr 13;8a
10-12-6
2006-10-12 06:59:04 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well the missing link in evolution is macro evolution to homo sapiens. so if I say I don't believe in the theory of macro evolution, as it has not been proved yet.
Don't worry I believe in micro evolution is has been proven since times long ago!
It doesn't mean I'm racist for believing not it just means that not every scientist believes in the same theories.
(Yes I believe in God and can be a scientist at the same time)
2006-10-12 07:38:42 · answer #5 · answered by hints_dont_work 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a creationist I don't believe there is a missing link, so bit of a difficult question. As a Christian I believe everything has been created by God and for God, so to be racist to anyone would be well out of order.
2006-10-12 08:01:34 · answer #6 · answered by welshing 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. Perhaps, given ancient interpretation of how we came to be, the missing link could have been "Adam and Eve". Who really knows...belief isn't always rational.
2006-10-12 07:01:22 · answer #7 · answered by redcoat7121 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
thay might because it will not fit into that fairy tale it fits in to evolution and creationlists do not beleave that thay live in never land with adam and eve talking snakes and spare ribs
2006-10-12 07:41:10 · answer #8 · answered by andrew w 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no missing link, you silly! Every time they think they've found one, something doesn't add up.
2006-10-12 12:28:29 · answer #9 · answered by Brigid O' Somebody 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Christians should never be racist to any person.
2006-10-12 08:16:45 · answer #10 · answered by waycyber 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
most likely
2006-10-12 06:58:56 · answer #11 · answered by llamedos 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋