Home » Human evolution, Intelligent Design, News » A veil is drawn over the Adam and Eve war?

A veil is drawn over the Adam and Eve war?

In “A Veil Is Drawn Over Our Origin as Human Beings” (Evolution News & Views,
July 6, 2012), David Klinghoffer comments on the Adam and Eve war (here):

Darwinists and creationists, rivalrous twins in many ways, would like it to be otherwise, yet a veil is drawn over our origins as human beings. That’s the simplest summary of Science and Human Origins, the new book from Discovery Institute Press.

On the intelligent-design side of the evolution debate, we have made our peace with a certain agnosticism. From the scientific evidence, it is stubbornly uncertain how the first humans arose, whether from a lineage including ape-like creatures and far humbler ancestors or not.

This is in contrast to the insistence of theistic evolutionists like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins. As Casey Luskin points out in Chapter 4, “Francis Collins, Junk DNA and Chromosomal Fusion,” Miller and Collins speak about human-chimp cousinship as having been demonstrated by “case-closed” evidence, “leading inexorably” to a “virtually inescapable” conclusion of common ancestry.

But it’s not so.

Hey, if it is as simple as Darwin’s Christians claim … Why ARE the apes still shrieking in the trees?

Note: Highly sophisticated and intelligent persons have warned UD News that the correct term is “pan hoots.” So after all these years, they are still pan-hooting in the trees. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Or understanding. Or getting it right the first time. (An alert reader says the correct term is pant hoots.)

Har de har.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

13 Responses to A veil is drawn over the Adam and Eve war?

  1. It’s ‘pant-hoots’ actually.

  2. And only chimpanzees pant-hoot.

  3. 3

    Really? The “if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes” argument? Really?

  4. No, not really, Nick. It’s the why the heck are apes still so unevolved, argument. And the evolutionary “answer” is “because they are”- which is a hoot.

  5. Joe,

    No, not really, Nick. It’s the why the heck are apes still so unevolved, argument. And the evolutionary “answer” is “because they are”- which is a hoot.

    Apes are ‘evolved’ very well into the environmental niches they fill. By what criteria do you say they are unevolved? What does unevolved mean?

  6. Jerad:

    Apes are ‘evolved’ very well into the environmental niches they fill.

    That is your opinion. Please let me know when your opinion means something.

    Why aren’t apes technologically capable? Heck they have had more than enough time to become so.

    As I said all you can say is “because they ain’t”- pathetic.

  7. Joe,

    Why aren’t apes technologically capable? Heck they have had more than enough time to become so.

    As I said all you can say is “because they ain’t”- pathetic.

    Very well, why do you think they aren’t technically capable?

  8. They don’t produce any technology.

  9. Joe,

    I asked: why do you think they aren’t technically capable and you replied:

    They don’t produce any technology.

    I suppose I could rephrase it: why do you think they haven’t developed/evolved the ability to produce technology?

  10. I hope that no one here is actually making the argument, “If we evolved from monkeys then why are their monkey’s?” I just posted on another forum that Creationists and ID-ers do nto actually use that argument. Please don’t prove me wrong.

  11. “monkies” not “monkey’s”

  12. Jerad:

    I suppose I could rephrase it: why do you think they haven’t developed/evolved the ability to produce technology?

    Evolution is very limited.

  13. Joe,

    Evolution is very limited.

    Hey, I more or less agree with you about that!!

Leave a Reply