Why Are There Still Monkeys?

A ridiculous argument, but one, admittedly, used by myself when I was a young believer: "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"  I remember the feeling of having a piece of information that seemed to slip by my teachers, and that I was happy to have it, but even happier to share it with them.  And dumbfounded when they would disagree.

To recognize a ridiculous argument, one should prepare by learning what some of them are, but more importantly, how to spot them.  An excellent resource I have leaned on in the past, and would strongly recommend to people who haven't already, is watch the YouTube video by QualiaSoup entitled, "The Burden Of Proof."  I've added the movie below.  Take a moment to watch it if you wish to see some examples of what I'm talking about in regards to logical fallacies.

There was one particular event in my life that I can recall when I did my "good son" duty, and informed my mother of the grade five lesson of the day that involved a look at Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.  Keep in mind my mother is a devout evangelical christian, so her response was that of a mother whose child was perhaps denied medical treatment for a broken arm.  She called the school immediately, and sat with me in the principal's office, visibly upset, and arguing against the merits of evolution, seeming the intellectual superior in the discussion.  It was here that I first heard the monkey question gem.  It made complete sense to a 10-year-old.  How could we possibly come from monkeys if I see them at the zoo?  Wouldn't they be humans too?  It seemed ridiculous to me at the time that something, that was against such simple logic, would be taught to students in school.  So lucky for me, and my education, that I had a mother to fight tooth and nail to protect her child.  Right?  No?

While, alone, my mother's logic (borrowed as I now know it to be), was seemingly unassailable, if I had the curiosity and drive to, I could have easily asked my teacher what he was talking about, read about the subject - researched!  But I was content with my witty argument against the notion that my species' history somehow shared the daily activities of a monkey.

When I reached high school, I had a history teacher who was teaching us about Charles Darwin, and his brilliant theory.  This, again, was divulged to my mother.  Her reaction this time was much more calm, and reserved.  Instead of lighting the torch and sharpening the pitchfork, she bought me some (christian) literature focused on the 'evolution vs. creation' debate, with a somewhat lengthy section on Darwin.  It was through this booklet that I placed into my 'quiver of refutes' another of the famous and failed arguments.  By now, I hope, most of us have heard the common argument that Charles Darwin recanted his position on natural selection on his death-bed, and the quote mine with the human eye used as an example and that evolution by natural selection would be, "absurd in the highest degree."  The proverbial 'head-shot.'  Or so I thought.

Again, had I dared to actually examine the claims made by my mother, and the source she provided me with, I would have discovered the fallacy of the argument she would have had me arm myself with.  I, instead, took it at face value and marveled at the rest of the world's level of stupidity at rejecting the evidence right in front of them.  We didn't evolve from monkeys; we share a common ancestor with the great apes, and our evolution was a slow, gradual process.  The Charles Darwin deathbed confession needs to find a deathbed of its own.

I had a relatively recent experience I would like to share that highlights another ridiculous argument some of you may be familiar with, or have had to endure yourselves.  I was invited to my sister's house for Easter this year, and when I arrived, there were tablecloths hanging from the ceiling in the dining room.  My first hunch was that the kids were involved, and I said, "oh cool, who's playing fort?  I'm in!"  She told me it was part of the Jewish Sadr (?) tradition that we would be observing this year.  Our family is not Jewish.  This was odd, I thought to myself.  Their kids all gathered around to hear about the meaning of the traditions and rituals they were being introduced to.  For example, the bits of horseradish they ate to represent the bitterness of slavery, or binding my niece's feet, and placing her under the table behind chairs to represent the death and burial of Jesus.  This, of course, the kids loved, because they got to do the binding of her feet.  The kind of fun that is rarely accompanied by parental consent.

After dinner, I had questions, as any rational person might.  Why the ritual, why now, what does it really mean, etc.  During the conversation, my oldest brother (an intellectual hero of mine) caught something I had said to my sister in response to one of her questions (I unfortunately do not recall the question, or my answer) that betrayed my position on the subject of evolution.  If you haven't guessed by now, we don't believe in evolution in my family!  So he stopped the conversation to ask me directly about my position on evolution.  My immediate reaction betrayed me, so I told the truth, and said that I subscribe to the theory of evolution.

I was alone, debating and defending, against four of my siblings, the theory of evolution.  I answered their arguments of,"you can't believe in God and in evolution," with, "tell that to the Pope," or "the Bible is very clearly against evolution," with, "don't you think it's arrogant to say your understanding of the bible is greater than the Catholic church?"  But, the silliest argument came in the form of, "if it's a fact, why is it still called a theory?"  This is the argument I spoke of.  The use of such an argument is either ignorant, or dishonest, and I'll explain why.

Let's consult a dictionary for help on this matter.  A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.  Not to be confused with the common use of the word theory which would be a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation.   Much of what we know about the universe and reality is under the umbrella of a theory; theory of gravity; germ theory; theory of relativity, etc.  Should we also stop teaching these in our schools?  Now that would be ridiculous.  What needs to change is the understanding of what a scientific theory means.

**UPDATE: I've removed a quote picture that appeared here because I recently found out that it was falsely attributed to Neil DeGrasse Tyson.  I bring attention to it because I value honesty.

If something fits your world view (as these ridiculous arguments might be described as doing for fundamentalist Christians), don't take it for granted, and accept it outright.  That would be intellectually lazy.  Research what you hear, or read, or any other pathway information comes to you.  Question everything (within reason - your sister telling you she ate a tuna sandwich is unlikely to be of any consequence, and doesn't require substantiation).  Can the subject matter be demonstrated?  More importantly, if you investigate something that highlights a disconnect with your current position on a subject, be bold and wise enough to change your position accordingly, and to do so again in the future if other evidence is discovered.

Obviously my tune has since changed, and I have adopted the practice of being a skeptic, and questioning everything.  Sitting here, I simply cannot pinpoint the exact time or moment things changed for me in that regard.  Realistically, I would have to say that it was a slow process.  Years, maybe.  But however I got here (or how any of us got here), the point is I am here.  Not because I have traded in one movement to blindly follow for another; that's absurd.  I'm here because I have opened my mind to the beauty and, in my opinion, necessity of critical thinking.

It is my sincere hope that the days of the ridiculous arguments that are thrown about so casually will soon come to an end.  Our generation has the most powerful information distribution apparatus at our disposal; the internet!  Use YouTube to search for informed discussions or debates by people who are not only educated and leaders in their respective fields, but who are actively shining the light on the archaic and misinformed (and dishonest, really) arguments that hold up progress in letting the correct information permeate society.

Is The Bible Moral?

I wasn't always an atheist;  I was a fundamental Christian for most of my life.  Evangelical, that is.  Basically, I believed that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit were all the same person (triune), but more importantly that the Bible, in its entirety, is the inerrant word of God, and the final authority in all matters. 

 When I was in my early twenties, I went to teach English in China for a year; in part to travel and explore the world, but also as a means to get away from the pressure from family to attend church every Sunday, and just 'breathe.'  That wasn't the cure-all for me, but it was a beginning I think.

Later I came home, reconnected with friends and family (I had a new niece that was born just before I left, so I was anxious to meet her), and quickly fell back into the church routine again (a consequence of having to live with the folks while I looked for work, not that I particularly wanted it).   I dated and married a girl who I had grown up with, and who I had kept in touch with while I was overseas, all the while going to church, getting involved in things, but still harbouring my doubts.  We started out our relationship and marriage founded in the church and religion, but slowly, over time, we went to church less and less, until not at all.

As many marriages do these days, ours eventually ended.  It was unexpected for me, so I was in a state of shock, and denial, and religion was the first place I turned to.  I eventually recognized this as indoctrination, and began to really investigate my doubts.  This led to a more in-depth look at the Bible.  This might be the most common thread people have who move away from religion;  actually reading what it is they are supposed to believe thoroughly.  There are really disturbing things in there, and I encourage anyone reading this - you may be on the same journey, or you may be looking to defend you religion - to read the passages in your holy books about subjects such as slavery, murder, incest, rape, homosexuality, etc.

I had an interesting conversation with someone the other day about the public and catholic school curriculum including the topics of homosexuality, gender identity, and so on.  This person, a christian, with three children in school, was quite upset about this subject matter being taught to their children.  Their argument was that because this subject was in direct conflict with their religion, that the education to promote tolerance violated their freedom of religion.  Further to that, teaching children about these things would lead children into thinking those "lifestyles" were acceptable, and may even adopt them themselves.

I recognize this as a specious argument.  Perhaps there would be children who would learn about this type of subject matter and realize things about themselves because those things exist in themselves, but to say that they learned about homosexuality, and because they learned about it they "decide" they might give it a shot?  There is more evidence today that our biology is the deciding factor of gender identity, and sexual orientation, be it in our genes, or brain chemistry.  The facts we DO know are that homosexuality has existed in humans in recorded history, and also in other species.  It is not uniquely a human trait.

Hatred, intolerance, or discrimination towards a person or group of people because of something as irrelevant as their sexual orientation should be a thing of our past.  Something we talk about in the sense of, "this is how our ancestors used to think; how dreary life must have been for some people, so let us strive to never return to such backward thinking."  Really, how does two strangers (to me) love ever affect me, or anyone else?  It does not.  But as soon as those two people share the same gender it is suddenly on the table for debate, scrutiny, and shame?  What SHOULD concern us, as a society, is if, in any personal relationship, both people (or their dependents) are being treated fairly and lawfully (ex. abuse).  That's it!

Now, this is where the "debate," I'll call it, turned interesting.  So far, it was about homosexuality, but the topic turned to morality in general, and I divulged to this person my problem with obtaining my sense or rules of morality from the Bible.

When asked why not, I told this person about a few of the stories in the Bible about God ordering his "children" to go into neighbouring towns occupied by people who were situated on land that God had promised to his "children," and slaughter them.  Now, this would be bad enough in and of itself, but their orders also included the slaughtering of everything that "breatheth," including women and children.  This is not to say that the killing of men is moral just for the sake of it, or for some imagined crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but, that aside, the Bible is painting a picture of God's warriors entering a town they claim is theirs, and killing all of the "trespassers,"  leaving none alive, even the children and infants.

I asked this person to imagine themselves as one of those "warriors."  They have a small infant by the ankle, screaming and terrified, not even comprehending the danger it is in, what is happening, nor does it possess yet the language to plea for its own life.  I asked also that they imagine that they have a sword pressed to the belly of this infant, ready to run it through.  Now, I asked them to take me down the road to where completing this act would ever be considered moral to them.

A tough question, I know.  But one that needed to be asked, and asked of all Christians I would say.  What struck me as deplorable, resonated as sane and justified to this person when they responded, "if I was certain God commanded me to do it, then yes, I would do it."

It is this mentality right here that is, in my opinion, why religion is a danger to humanity.  You may be familiar - if this subject matter interests you as it does me - with the quote, "There are good people and there are bad people. Only religion makes good people do bad things."  This person I was debating is certainly a good person; they are honest, kind, loyal, charitable (things they would attribute as results of their religion, but i would argue they would be good absent religion), but all it took for them to place themselves in a morally repugnant situation was the aspect of their religion (a commandment from their deity).  Shocking behaviour, but surprisingly normal and rational to them.  This is a clear, and present danger.  This is the same mentality that enables a suicide bomber to enter into a crowded area with small children and babies, and still blow themselves and them up, because of the imagined command from their deity (not to mention the promise for reward).  The same  behaviour the person I was debating with would look down upon, and despise, but had failed to see in himself.