Monkeys have bad images and ideas tied to them, so how about horses or eagles or tigers? These species are much more symbolic and respectable to most people.
2007-06-05 01:00:48 · 15 answers · asked by driving_blindly 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Primates have such a bad image primarily because they ARE so much like humans. They look and act for all the world like very stupid humans.
Tigers and horses are considered majestic precisely because we have no idea what it's like to be a tiger or a horse.
I doubt that most Creationists would care either way. Their primary complaint is not the lineage presented by evolutionary theories. Rather, it's the fact that evolutionary science clearly conflicts with the origin of life as described in their scriptures.
2007-06-05 01:10:15 · answer #1 · answered by marbledog 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I personally have retro-elected to evolve from another species entirely. I don't think the primate line is durable enough. I am making the retroactive election to choose a more stable and survivable line. I would have already done it, but I haven't decided firmly which line. My gut says go with ants or roaches, but there are some rodents that are quite impressive.
2007-06-05 08:58:24 · answer #2 · answered by OPM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here's the problem: it isn't our common ancestor with other modern primates that has hard-core biblical literalist Creationists' panties in a knot. Somehow they have it in their heads that evolution, a natural process, negates belief in their god. These same people don't think that the natural process of weather negates their belief in god, and they're perfectly willing to take medication, use man-made materials, and watch TV developed with the same scientific processes as the (scientific) Theory of Evolution (which is only still called a Theory b/c of political/religio ridiculousness). Evolution doesn't in any way speak to the existence or non-existence of a Creator. It only refers to observable facts about the creation--and that's the best we can do. It looks like these same people would crusade against the teaching of plate tectonics in science classes, but they don't.
2007-06-05 08:39:06 · answer #3 · answered by Jenny S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well creationist believe that we are from God so it doesn't matter what species it is. It would still not be accepted by creationist. Also if you ever studied biology it never said that we evolved from primates. It said that primates and Humans are from a common ancestor.
2007-06-05 08:06:21 · answer #4 · answered by bunnygrl43 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think its a question of what we evolved from, they are just unwilling to believe we evolved at all because its a complete contradiction of the theory that God was the creator of us.
If its said explicitly in a holy book, there are no degrees of disbelief towards it from the religious.
2007-06-05 08:10:51 · answer #5 · answered by Devolution 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question...they probably wouldn't be as upset, but that still goes against their beliefs. And it is highly unlikely that we did evolve from tigers.
2007-06-05 08:05:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the fault lies not with what species you claim we came from, it is because the entire idea has too many holes to claim any sort of validity.
2007-06-05 08:12:29 · answer #7 · answered by arewethereyet 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I am "ONE" with my primate-ness. I find nothing disrespectable about primates. Why would anyone?
2007-06-05 08:06:24 · answer #8 · answered by AuroraDawn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have personally seen people who look like they evolved from woodchucks, ferrets, rats, or pigs, so your question is not so far out there as you might think! ;=)
2007-06-05 08:29:19 · answer #9 · answered by Black Dog 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
OMG, I *LOVE* red dwarf!
I am Lister pre-incarnate!
And fundies are screaming hordes of Rimmers!
Is it back on?
2007-06-05 08:07:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋