Evidence for God from Science

Is it a strawman argument to claim that anyone who adheres to the theory of evolution believes that humans are descended from monkeys?

Jad wrote:Is it a strawman argument to claim that anyone who adheres to the theory of evolution believes that humans are descended from monkeys?

Depends on the context of how you're saying it, but in any event, it's inaccurate in terms of what evolutionists actually believe. They believe that there is a common ancestor between man and apes or monkeys and not that man evolved from monkeys themselves.

As a strawman argument by definition is putting words in your opponents mouth in order to set up a phony argument that you then procede to knock down, it's probably safe to say that in most instances, a christian making that claim of evolutionists would be engaging in a strawman argument. It's been a common statement though for a long time, going back to the Scopes Monkey Trial of the early 20th century.

The statement "that humans are descended from monkeys" can be argued is technically correct. The last common ancestor of humans and apes are described as ape-like. I still don't know the difference between ape and ape-like myself...if something is ape-like then it is likely an ape. We know it was not human, according to the hypothesis.

The problem with the statement, as is so often the case in these kinds of debates, is that it is often employed as a rhetorical tool to try and score cheap points.

IT goes to the common but erroneous claim that if humans were descended from monkeys/apes, then why are there still monkey's/apes? It is a question that is arguing something that is not refelctive of the evolutionary model. I understand what you mean but from the context of the arguments, the person making the argument isn't implying that.

Well my thought was that according to neo-darwinian evolution we did not descend from apes like we see today. That's a given. But if we descended from a common ancestor and that common ancestor is an ape then it's not a strawman argument by any stretch of the imagination.

All you have to do then is demonstrate where that claim is accurate in terms of evolutionist claims. Can you demonstrate that evolutionists (generally and collectively as a group) claim that men and monkeys have a common ancestor which is properly categorized as an ape or a monkey? It's not enough to demonstrate that people accuse evolutionists of doinng this. You should find primary evidence from evolutionists themselves doing this.

I'm not seeking to defend evolution on a broader scale by making these comments by the way. I'm just trying to respond to your question and help identify if this is an accurate claim about them in general.

Jad wrote:Well my thought was that according to neo-darwinian evolution we did not descend from apes like we see today. That's a given. But if we descended from a common ancestor and that common ancestor is an ape then it's not a strawman argument by any stretch of the imagination.

the difference is in the usage of the term. When one says
"oh we descended from monkeys...."
"no we descended from a common ancestor of a monkey and man" and then the response is
"oh, but that common ancestor is an ape"

....the word ape there is a reference to a group of similar organisms....in that regard Man would simply be an ape. But what most people are saying when they use that argument is that a chimp or a similar animals evovled directly into a human. Which is why you typically have the statement "if man evovled from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

In that case it would be a strawman because it is not what the evolutionary model proclaims.

Well I had an evolutionist on a forum say two things which looked to me like they were talking out of both sides of their mouth. Here are the two things said...

It is a straw-man argument to say that anyone who adheres to the ToE believes that humans are descended from monkeys.

It most certainly is known that we share a common ancestor with monkeys, apes, gorillas, chimps etc

I didn't see it as a straw-man argument so he then accused me of getting all my evolution information from creationist websites so I perused through some evolutionist websites to get the facts and demonstrate my point as you have suggested Canuckster1127. According to WikiProject Human Genetic History and what I thought was a given, the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last individual an african ape, that both humans and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.

So here is my logic...

Premise 1: According to neo-darwinian evolution we share a common ancestor with monkeys, apes, gorillas, chimps etc
Premise 2: According to neo-darwinian evolution the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor an african ape.
Conclusion: According to neo-darwinian evolution we descended from an ape.

The only equivocation is that perhaps that the word Monkey was used instead of Ape in the supposed straw-man argument. So my conclusion would therefore be that no it is not a straw-man argument to say that anyone who adheres to the ToE believes that humans are descended from apes.

Does that sound right?

You are right as well though I think zoegirl. It does lend itself to the thought "if man evovled from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" I understand that is wrong thinking and I would never use that argument. But I think with a proper understanding of neo-darwinian evolution the logic I have used here is solid. I am after anyone's thoughts on this though, just in case I missed something.

That's a reasonably presented argument and makes sense to me. Just realize that when you make a statement like "evolution teaches that man evolved from monkeys" that not all people will understand that you're saying that until you go on to explain more, as you just did. Until they know better what you're saying they'll tend to hear you and respond emotionally to how that statement has been used emotionally in the past by many Christians who respond emotionally to the evolutionary thesis with statements like that, which are made to ridicule, not further understanding between one another.

Canuckster1127 wrote:That's a reasonably presented argument and makes sense to me. Just realize that when you make a statement like "evolution teaches that man evolved from monkeys" that not all people will understand that you're saying that until you go on to explain more, as you just did. Until they know better what you're saying they'll tend to hear you and respond emotionally to how that statement has been used emotionally in the past by many Christians who respond emotionally to the evolutionary thesis with statements like that, which are made to ridicule, not further understanding between one another.

Yes very good point. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I didn't realise this at the time as I honestly thought it was a given. I fear I may have crossed that line or pushed the 'emotion' button already though.