Why do Creationists have a problem with us being "apes" but not with us being "mammals"?

Answer 1

I'm not sure how Creationists continue to deny that humans are, in fact, apes.

Every zoological classification that can be used to categorize the great apes (chimps, gorillas and orangutans) also applies to humans.

We share every adaptation, every bit of skeletal and internal anatomy.

Even our teeth show exactly the same, unique cusp pattern on our molars (known as the Y-5 pattern) that is found amongst all of the great apes, and ONLY the great apes. There are only five living species amongst all of the mammal species on the planet that have that particular tooth morphology, and we're one of them.

The only major anatomical difference we really have that separates us from the other great apes is that our legs are longer than our arms.

Even if (for some bizarre reason) you refuse to believe the paleontological evidence that directly links humans to other apes, there is no logical way to deny that we are actually great apes ourselves.

Answer 2

Well first of all not all Creationists have a problem with the idea that we descended from apes. Just those who don't believe in Macro evolution, like myself.

A mammal is just simply a scientific way of describing a certain category of life on this planet. Humans as we observe them today fit all of these characteristics.

I suppose "ape" is also a name for animals with certain characteristics. However humans don't meet all of these characteristics. What i have a problem with is the suggestion that through random chance apes turned into humans I've heard no reasonable explanation how this could have happened, at least not without intelligent intervention of some type.

Answer 3

Just because plants and people are both "living things" doesn't mean we came from plants. Just because apes and humans are both mammals, doesn't mean we came from apes.

I agree the creation process involves some evolution, but not to the extreme of humans coming from apes. Clearly, there were primitive humans who were not like the homo sapiens of today. But that doesn't mean those primitive models came from apes either.

I think apes and humans are distinct species. I think Adam and Eve represent the first human lineage capable of self-awareness and conscience (which led to generational troubles that further spiritual evolution is required to reach maturity and overcome).
I don't think apes or any other nonhuman species are part of the human spiritual evolution lineage. I believe cats, dogs, apes and other animals have a certain degree of sentience and understanding, but they don't carry family and generational karma like human beings and are not part of the same process.

I think many objections could be addressed by not making creation and evolution an "either-or" question, where one side is right and the other is wrong. Even the previous Pope stated there was room for both. I think by framing the question in this competitive way incites protest and inhibits rational discussion and mutual sharing of ideas that would lead to resolution.

Answer 4

Because they're extremely selective about how they use their religion to view the real world.

Here are some more ideas:

Vaccinate the kids,
call childhood cancer "God's will"

Lament increased divorce rates,
ignore domestic unhappiness

Associate Genesis with the Big Bang,
equate Evolution with Atheism

Celebrate eternal salvation,
mourn the death of family members

Believe in the teachings of Jesus,
support preemptive warfare
(Not all, obviously, but didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?)

Value freedom of religion,
shove their own into government

Utilize modern medicine,
decry contemporary stem-cell research

Support Democracy,
uphold biblical literalism (the bible advocates tyranny)

Obviously, these are generalizations and will not apply to everyone or every denomination. But they are good starting points on some of the major contradictions.

Answer 5

What else can they believe? If they mistakenly believe that man was created as man, how on earth could it be that he descended from another species? Putting mankind in amongst the mammals is an easy decision to accept because it doesn't interfere with the creationists first belief.

Answer 6

I suppose because it is much more obvious that humans are mammals than it is that the species is descended from earlier primates. It is really quite difficult to suppose that humans are not mammals.

Answer 7

My main problem with us being apes is why are there still apes? every other animal that has evolved doesn't exist anymore. apes do. The definition of a mammal is a warm blooded creature that is alive also the guide lines which are gives live births and has hair! Can't really disagree with that. It's a name for our species. That doesn't mean we came from apes.

Answer 8

You are very limited in your concept of creation. Creation is the source for all that exist in the universe not just the nature of man. There is no doubt that the genetic makeup of animals is able to change but there is no evidence that the nature of man has anything to do with genetic makeup. It is very poor science to make assumptions that have no basis in fact. There is no evidence and no gene has been found that gives man the ability of intelligence. In fact, there is no understanding of the nature of life, man or animal.

Answer 9

Are you trying to analyse Creationists? Most religions cannot stand up to strict analysis, let alone the 'crazy' varieties.
Good luck! ;-D

Answer 10

Thanks a lot. Now I've got this image in my head that I've been having sex with monkeys for all these years.