Michael writes:
Those in the science crowd who like to call creationists "apes" (in part, I think, because those people know it annoys the creationists so much) should refrain, unless a consensus can be found among primatologists that the term "ape" includes humans.
Agreed. That's why I suggested a title change in
Message 3. I was hoping for something that didn't include the word "ape", but you take what you can get.
But I think the main point evolutionists are trying to make is that Inkorrekt and creationists reject the classification on religious rather than scientific grounds. Inkorrekt no doubt accepts that humans are vertebrates just like fish, reptiles, mammals and birds. And he no doubt accepts that humans are mammals just like deer, elephants, lions and kangaroos. And he may even accept that humans are primates just like lemurs, monkeys and apes. But I believe it likely that somewhere between primates and hominids he refuses to accept that humans are in the same category as chimps and gorillas.
It's a very interesting inconsistency that highlights the religious influence on creationist thinking. They accept the grouping of humans with broad classifications of animals like vertebrates and mammals, but reject more specific classifications with monkeys and apes.
The reason they feel this way is because they see no overt evolutionary implication to lumping humans with vertebrates or mammals. We have backbones, so obviously we're verebrates. We have hair and suckle our young, so obviously we're mammals. But the evolutionary implications of grouping humans with monkeys and apes are just too obvious to ignore, and so they must reject the classification and argue for a special category for humans that doesn't include other primates.
But having a religious motivation for something doesn't automatically make it scientifically wrong. The important question is whether they can provide scientific arguments for their preferred classification.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
