Browse By

If We Came From Apes, Then Come And Answer This Question, Smartypants!

seneca bible baptist churchThe Seneca Bible Baptist Church, outside of Seneca Falls in upstate New York, has issued a challenge to all the secular eggheads in the area, their neighbors who actually believe in the theory of biological evolution through natural selection as proposed by the original Darwinist, Charles Darwin. The church has posted the sign you see here, asking the rhetorical question: “If we came from apes – Why are there still apes?

Brilliant! Genius!

Who could answer this penetrating question? As we all know, after all, to come from something is to destroy it. Why, just look it up in the Boxford Dictionary of Universal Wisdom, which defines the verb “come” as follows: Come, verb. 1. To obliterate entirely. 2. To cause to wither away in irrelevance.

The battle song “Oh, Susannah”, for example, is the ballad of a soldier who has arrived in Mississippi after a Civil War battle that saw the thorough devastation of the Alabama Confederates. “I’ve come from Alabama with my banjo on my knee,” brags the triumphant soldier. “Banjo” was a term used by soldiers of the time to refer to scars earned in victory.

When one person asks another, “Where do you come from?” It’s a challenge, suggesting that a person had better explain their past conquests if they want to be taken seriously. Are you bad? Did you come from someplace?

We don’t have to say, “I come from France, and I wrecked the place.” The wreckage is just implied. This is how we know that no one really ever came from Europe to the United States. If we came from Europe, how come there is still a Europe?

At least, that’s how it is in real, red-blooded America, where the blood is red, instead of puce, or teal, or off-white, or some other wimpy color like “goldenrod”.

Sure, in liberal havens like Portland, the word “come” merely refers to the action of arriving out of a different context, passively, without destroying anything. Liberal wimps use the word “come” to say limp little things like “I come from a long line of academics,” or “My ancestors came from Sweden.” Yeah, but they forget that when people CAME to America from their Old Countries, they utterly obliterated their old homes first!

Sissy progressives, when they “come home from work”, just mean to say that they had a hard day at work, in which sitting in their office chairs for too long made their backs stiff. Poor babies! Those of us who live in real, rough and tumble Christian America, on the other hand, will only say that we have “come home from work” when our shirts are soaked in blood, having hacked and blasted our offices into unrecognizable, smoking wreckage!

Really, who could say that human beings came from apes, when there are still apes around? Weaklings. That’s who!

Thank you to the Seneca Bible Baptist Church for reminding us of this, God’s truth!

21 thoughts on “If We Came From Apes, Then Come And Answer This Question, Smartypants!”

  1. paul corbin says:

    Charles Darwin when looking at the eye of any living creature made this statement in his Origin. Chap. VI, he has a section entitled “Organs of Extreme Perfection,” which begins, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus for different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” He then goes on to state it could have happened. This shows that even in the light of immeasurable truth a person who has a heart to disprove god exists has no choice but to express the truth when faced with undeniable logic and facts. Yet he will still continue hos folly because truth was never at the heart of this theory, its always been a game of “did God truly say” all the way back to the Garden of Eden.
    Be Blessed

    1. Juniper says:

      Paul, you don’t understand Charles Darwin. His intent was never “to disprove god exists”.

      By your logic, if you find one person who is incapable of doing a thing, then we can know that there isn’t a single human being capable of doing that thing. So, if we see that one kid can’t ride a bicycle, could we then conclude that no children can ride bicycles?

      1. paul corbin says:

        My logic is not in question. But it is sound.

        1. Juniper says:

          Oh, yes, you must be right… because you said so! That’s the way to prove you’re logical. Just say, “My logic is not in question.”

          You gave the example of one individual saying one thing, and then said that because that one individual said that one thing, no one else could ever be capable of thinking differently. That doesn’t make any sense, Paul. Can’t you see that?

      2. paul corbin says:

        And this is exactly what I was impying. There are people who avoid the truth to their own ends.

        1. Juniper says:

          I’m sorry, but what? This is exactly what you were implying? This? Or this? That there are people who avoid the truth?


          That’s not what you wrote, Paul. You wrote that what Charles Darwin said about eyeballs proves that no one has the option to avoid the truth.

          That’s the opposite of saying that there are people who avoid the truth.

          I think it’s time for you to say that you’re logical again.

          1. paul corbin says:

            You know as well as i do anyone can avoid the truth. There is a responsibility not too. The truth is once I realize that your wasting both of our times, I can unsubscibe and you can argue with yourself. Thats logical

  2. Juniper says:

    You know as well as I do anyone can say that they believe in gods or fairies or unicorns. There is a pepperoni pizza too. The truth is once I realize that I would like some olives on my pizza, I can get some.

    The above are all disconnected, rambling statements. They aren’t part of a reasonable argument in which ideas follow from facts. They have nothing to do with logic.

    Do you know what logic is, Paul?

  3. Jim Kidder says:

    Actually, the answer is more simple than that. The reason there are still apes is because we and the modern apes share a common ancestor. The recent Ardipithecus find is very close to that branching point but it may be further back than that, somewhere in the late to middle Miocene, around 6-7 million years ago. It is worth pointing out that the modern apes don’t look much like their fossil forebears.

    1. J Clifford says:

      So, the church sign is doing the equivalent of asking, “If we come from our cousins, how come there are still cousins?” Its premises are wrong on multiple levels, as is its implicit argument.

  4. Jim Kidder says:

    Its premises are wrong because the people that are making them have no clue what evolutionary theory is or how it works. They just know they hate it, whatever it is. The fundamental evangelical community has been taught to hate evolution since the early 1900s. The hatred is unabated.

  5. Bill says:

    Ignoring the distraction of Paul Corbin’s argument, which, being of the class “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” (i.e., not an argument at all), Seneca Bible Baptist’s question is, in some ways, rather more interesting…not for what it teaches, but for what it reflects. SBB’s challenge at least makes an effort to resemble logic, rather than shutting down logical discourse with an unassailable assertion of faith as fact.

    An absolutely precise corollary of the old “then how come there are still apes, huh?” challenge is this: If you came from your parents, then why do you still have parents? I think you’d have to search long and hard to find anyone foolish enough to seriously pose this question, let alone proudly trumpet it on a large sign in their front yard for all the world to see. So what does SBB’s proud public display of obvious folly tell us?

    It tells me that man’s nervous system is hard-wired to search for meaning and purpose and cause (really all the same thing, looked at three different ways)…to sort through all the perceptions that endlessly bombard us and attempt to tie them together into a logical structure of causes and effects. Whether you believe that this hard-wired drive developed organically through evolution or was a gracious gift from a benevolent Flying Spaghetti Monster, one has to admit that this drive has, on balance, served us well as a species as often as not. The beasts of the field are largely at the mercy of chance…things merely happen to them…because they’re not very good at drawing causal connections. Man, on the other hand, makes things happen to his benefit (at least when he’s at the top of his game) and avoids letting bad things happen (ditto) because of his ability to draw causal connections. So yearning to understand causes is, more often than not, a Good Thing (I think).

    The catch, however, is that questing for causes is, ultimately, something of a forlorn hope. Take any causal chain, trace it back far enough, and you’re pretty much guaranteed to run out of logical runway…you’ll come to a step you simply can’t explain (for the simple reason that you don’t and, by definition can’t know everything). Different people react differently to this so-called search for the ‘first cause.’ Some (those I think of as ‘civilians’) shrug and say “Meh…I don’t know enough to answer that question. Gimmee another beer.” Others (‘religionists’) are driven to insist on an answer, or, as Steven Hawking has written, “Others adopt the view that the initial state of the Universe is prescribed by an outside agency, code-named God.” Yet a third group…cosmologists…keep trying to derive a logical answer, at best succeeding in extending the causal chain back another tiny step or two but always, by definition, ultimately hitting a wall. All three types are brothers under the skin…they’re all equally ignorant of first causes, and always will be. But where they differ is in what they let this ignorance do to them. Civilians carry on with life, unconcerned. Cosmologists keep banging their heads against the wall…but when they go home at night they too carry on with life, unconcerned. Strict religionists, however, find that their ‘fiat cause’ strategy binds them up in a world of contradictions, absurdities, mysteries and paradoxes impacting every aspect of their daily lives. They can’t just go home and forget about it. Their only way out, at the end of the day, is to abandon the rational quest that got them there in the first place: to simply shrug and say “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” And thus we end up with nonsense like the SBBC’s sign.

    Me, personally, I like to think of myself as something of a hybrid, call it a ‘cosmo-religionist’ or maybe a ‘religio-cosmologist.’ The answer to the First Cause problem that let’s me sleep at night is the Chandogya Upanishad’s assertion, “Tat tvam asi” (very, very loosely, “Thou art that.”). I’m just not willing to kill anybody to assert its truth.

  6. Dave says:

    Jim Kidder, your statement “the fundamental evangelical community has been taught to hate evolution” I think would need some qualifying evidence to be considered true. I know many different kinds of Christian people, and this one sect of which you speak seems to live more by the Pauline precept “let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind” than many other Christian sects do. I have noticed a tendency (the church sign above notwithstanding) that evangelicals have to doubt what men tell them at least enough to ask scientifically incurious questions about the evolutionary process and this is what rankles those who believe strongly in Darwin. In my college biology classes not one student questioned Darwinian orthodoxy and that’s the way the instructor liked it. If they did ask difficult questions, would a reasonable response from the instructor be “why do you hate evolution?”

    1. Bill says:

      “In my college biology classes not one student questioned Darwinian orthodoxy and that’s the way the instructor liked it.”

      My experience differs from yours here, Dave. I spent a decade as a professor of biology at one of America’s top universities, where (among other things) I taught the undergrad cell biology course. From long experience I’d come to feel that much of what we know about how biology works seems utterly random and arbitrary if you don’t consider it from an evolutionary perspective, whereas if you do then the logic of biology makes perfect sense in most all of its details. Wishing to have what I was teaching make sense to my students, instead of just seeming random and arbitrary, I would, every year, take an informal show of hands poll on the first day of class (about 350 students every year). “Let’s have a show of hands. How many of you (1) feel like you’re pretty familiar with the basic concepts of the theory of evolution, and (2) in your heart of hearts reject it in favor of a creationist viewpoint?” And every year, the result was the same. First, no hands go up. Then I lightly joke and banter with the class, pointing out how implausible it would be that among 350 students not one of them was a creationist and, oh, by the way, I don’t give a rat’s ass and no, this won’t be on the test. Slowly, a couple of hands would go up. Then a couple more, then more. By the time the dust settled, somewhere between a third and a half of the students would have their hands up. Every damn year. And this was in a top-tier East Coast research university, mind you; we’re not talking Bob Evans U. here.

      Would I have preferred it otherwise? You betcha. But not because I was offended by a challenge to ‘orthodoxy,’ as you suggest. Rather, just as teaching calculus to students who don’t believe in algebra would be a real pain in the ass, so too is teaching cell biology to students who don’t believe in evolution. If you don’t know the rules of baseball then you can’t possibly understand what all those guys running around on the lawn are doing. But, at the end of the day, it made me a better teacher. Example: instead of merely asserting that chloroplasts and mitochondria originated as bacterial endosymbionts infecting other cells, instead I’d present that theory, and then ask people to volunteer suggestions regarding what evidence they’d want to see to support that. And then I’d walk them through the existing evidence (which, by the way, is pretty overwhelming). As often as not, I’d end the discussion by saying something like “So, did God ordain those bacteria into those early cells, or did it just happen by blind chance and work out pretty good for everybody concerned? I don’t know, and neither do you, and neither does anyone else who tells you he knows. All I care is that you’re intimately familiar with the evidence and, based on that evidence, draw your own damn conclusion.”

      I soon lost count of the number of ex-students who would drop by my office just before graduation every year to thank me for teaching them how to think, not what to think. Mission accomplished. Thank you, Book of Genesis.

      Anyway, now let’s talk about your assertion that “there have been billions of years but not enough billions for [natural selection].” And your evidence for this assertion is….?

  7. Dave says:

    I for one have problems with natural selection; there have been billions of years but not enough billions for that, and yet it’s pretty much the main explanation one hears. Hope that doesn’t make me a hater. The smug and ignorant question on the sign above deserves a smug answer (humorously supplied – thanks F.G.) but I think you may be mistaking evangelical indifference for hatred. Evangelicals have a belief system that they are convinced has great import for their daily lives and life choices, and Darwin takes a back seat. Darwin has less input into their belief about origins, or anything else for that matter, because, from what I gather, they deem thinking about other things to be more relevant to their well-being. Hate is too strong a word for that.

  8. Dave says:

    OK Teach, not much in the way of evidence for my view, just does not seem to me to be evidence for natural selection as a major factor. Generationally we just have not been here long enough (we are not fruit flies, which, by the way, have their own problem demonstrating useful mutations in changing environments) and, speaking of algebra, mathematically we numbered about 4 million ten thousand years ago. What about the gene pool, etc? I have heard of “jumping genes” but has anyone actually demonstrated them? Dunno.

    1. Bill says:

      I have heard of “jumping genes” but has anyone actually demonstrated them?

      Yep. Barbara McClintock, in 1951, discovered transposable elements (AKA ‘jumping genes’) in plants, for which she won the Nobel prize in 1983. Since then, we’ve come to understand the roles they play in lots of phenomena. The pretty patterns of indian corn? Jumping genes. Antibiotic resistance spreading through a population of bacteria? Jumping genes. Haemophilia? Jumping genes. I could go on and on. This goes way beyond the realm of mere ‘theory’…today, transposable elements are essential tools in the bag of tricks of most any molecular geneticist. Nowadays, debating with a geneticist about whether transposable elements really exist is like debating the reality of hammers with a carpenter while he’s busy trying to nail two boards together. You’ll get looked at like you’re crazy…for a pretty good reason.

      1. Bill says:

        Oh yeah, and a fun new story just recently published in the scientific literature, and discussed in today’s NY Times science section: ferns able to grow in deep shade? Jumping genes.

      2. Bill says:

        And shame on me for forgetting to mention the grand master jumping genes of all time: retroviruses such as HIV and the cancer-causing Rous sarcoma virus and mouse mammary tumor virus…all of them quite literally jumping genes, donning and doffing snug protein coats that help them hop from one animal’s genome to the next. Happens every day, right before our eyes.

  9. Dave says:

    We may have to call you “Professor” as you seem to enjoy teaching. My next question would be what makes them jump, but I’ll have to read some more. Homework. Yuck.

  10. Bill says:

    what makes them jump?

    Because they can. Just think about every interesting science fiction story about robots that you’ve ever heard. Given a self-replicating system that can modify itself (such as a cell), one thing is certain: Shit Will Happen.

    Which, come to think of it, is a pretty good one-line synopsis of both the theory of evolution, and of the Bible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!