AIG Explains Why We Resemble Apes

This one is really exciting, dear reader. The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — have answered one of the greatest questions plaguing mankind in this new post: Why Did God Create Apes with Human Features?

It was written by Karin Viet and Darius Viet. We can’t find any information about them, but they write for ol’ Hambo’s website, and that tells us all we need to know. Here are some excerpts from their article, with bold font added by us:

They begin with this question, which allegedly was asked by the son of someone named Peter, who then wrote to AIG seeking help:

If God knew that apes and the like would be used so passionately by evolutionists to support their theory, why did he create them?

Peter sent his question to the right place. Here’s how AIG answers it:

Your son has likely encountered evolutionary drawings of the supposed evolution of man from an ape-like ancestor. While the artist adds the imaginary “missing links,” similarities between apes and humans are striking. Since God knew these similarities would be misused by evolutionists, why did he create apes?

AIG provides a detailed, three-part answer:

First, similarities between organisms — like those between humans and apes — cannot be used to prove evolution. All living creatures down to bacteria share similarities … . We can argue that the similarities are actually evidence for a common Designer. Why wouldn’t God create living things using similar principles? After all, an artist or builder will often create different works with a similar design.

Whether one interprets similarities as evidence for evolution from a common ancestor or evidence for the Designer depends on one’s presuppositions. The evolutionary idea of homology — inferring common descent from structure similarity — is an assumption by those who reject the Creator’s account in the Bible.

Okay! That’s a good start. Let’s read on:

Second, God designed apes to show His creative power, but belief in man as a highly evolved ape may become a sign of judgment when man honors the creature rather than the Creator [scripture reference]. Although man was created to know and glorify God, the first man and woman rebelled against Him for a satanic lie. Satan, the “father of lies,” deceived Eve by distorting the truth and leading her to doubt God’s Word [scripture reference]. Eve was deceived, and Adam willfully ate the forbidden fruit. Their sin brought death and suffering into the world [scripture reference]. Ever since the Fall, Satan continues to employ his insidious method: taking God’s truth and twisting it to deceive sinful man.

This is great! Similarities merely demonstrate a common designer, and Satan always lies to us. The explanation continues:

One of those lies is evolution. Atheists use evolution to deny the truth of God’s Word, relying instead on man’s fallible reasoning alone to explain the origin and design of the world. They replace God, purpose, and morality with nature, chance, and relativism. Man pretends as if God does not exist.

Yeah — don’t listen to that ol’ devil! Here comes the final part of AIG’s answer:

Since the all-knowing God knew evolution would deceive many people, why did He create creatures like apes, which evolutionists would use to support their dogma? If God had not created apes, however, evolutionists would just find another “common ancestor.”

That’s right! There are all kinds of candidates out there — birds, frogs, insects, worms, etc. The list is endless, and those evolutionists will grasp at anything! Moving along:

The problem is not the evidence, but sinful man’s faulty interpretation of the evidence made in a futile attempt to avoid recognizing the Creator, Law Giver, and Judge. Instead of not creating things Satan would warp for evil, God sent the remedy for the deadly disease of sin: the Lord Jesus Christ.

Perfect response — absolutely perfect! Here’s the last paragraph, and this is the best part:

In conclusion, our pastor often gets tough “why” questions from his daughter, but he says the answer is ultimately easy: “Because God wanted to.” Knowing God’s infinite wisdom and holy nature, we should trust His will and ways [scripture reference].

Your Curmudgeon has never been more impressed. Of course that’s the answer — “Because God wanted to.”

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

35 responses to “AIG Explains Why We Resemble Apes

  1. Doctor Stochastic

    So how does using a common design explain the different methods animals have of flying? Were some not so good and thus discarded?

  2. But the whole point of homology is that it often reveals “similarities” not related to function. If all similarly was evidence of common descent we would not need the term “analogy” at all in systematics would we? It’s amazing to me how these idiotic, long discredited creationist “explanations” just won’t die. It’s tiring.

  3. This is a demonstration of how useless is the Argument.from Design.

  4. *Vomits* How does he go on, day after day

  5. michaelfugate

    When you have an all powerful designer anything is possible – no matter what organisms looked like it would be consistent with their God. Hardly an answer.

  6. It looks as though this is one of the authors;

    A home-schooled graduate of Liberty University with a BA in some obscure discipline.

  7. Doctor Stochastic asks

    So how does using a common design explain the different methods animals have of flying? Were some not so good and thus discarded?

    What part of “Because God wanted to” don’t you understand?

    Your eternal paddling pool within the Everlasting Great Lake of Fire has been duly reserved for you…

  8. Oopsie yet again on the html tag thingies.

    No doubt my own place in the Everlasting Great Lake of Fire is thereby assured as well 😦

    [*Voice from above*] You seem to delight in asymmetrical tags.

  9. In my opinion, the comment “because god wanted to” is how religion came about in the first place. As a kid I could nearly drive my Dad to distraction with all my questions. I am certain that way back in prehistory, at least long before humans invented any known form of writing, some poor Dad or granddad got so sick of his little boy asking all those questions, he invented some god to be the ultimate reply. “Because god made it that way”.
    To me, that was never a valid reply and Dad got to where he told me to look it up in a book, we had a set of encyclopedia though it may have not been the latest version, still, it was a good resource and later on I found the city library and even better, the adult section where the good information was. The kids section didn’t do much for me, I knew most of the basic fairy tales of my youth. FYI, I had my 67th birthday in December 2014.
    Man created god to put a stop, or at least a non-arguable limit, to inquisitive kids and their unending questions.
    Just think for a second, way back before humans knew how/why things are as they are, they did not know why the sky appears to be blue when it isn’t cloudy during the day time. Why does the sky seem to be blue, god made it that way.
    Thus endeth my explanation of how religion/god was created by humans. p.s. sorry for being so long winded. Yeah, I do talk too much.

  10. God sometimes outwits the devil though (and makes life less easy for evolutionists) – all non human species of the Homo genus have gone extinct, thus the YECs can insist they were merely ‘archaic humans’ ie us and not in any way ‘apes’.
    “One of those lies is evolution”. Don’t hold back now, tell us what you really think!
    God also created apes with human-like sets of chromosomes – but I guess AiG only address that issue when it is specifically raised by their supporters.

  11. So how does using a common design explain the different methods animals have of flying? Were some not so good and thus discarded?

    Not to mention the multiple different designs for the eye.

  12. Diogenes' Lamp

    In conclusion, our pastor often gets tough “why” questions from his daughter, but he says the answer is ultimately easy: “Because God wanted to.”

    See? And they say creationists can’t do science!

    All those egghead dummies in their white lab coats going “Wah, why do babies get leukemia?”, blathering pompously about neoplasms and erythtocytes, kinase inhibitors and genomic therapies, when they could’ve just used the creationist scientific method and said “Because God wanted it that way.”

    None of these egghead scientists have figured out the greatest triumph of creationism: to redefine the word “explanation.” For egghead dummy scientists in their pompous white lab coats, “explanation” means a hypothesis that necessarily entails testable predictions about observable phenomena, or a deduction from known general principles. For a creationist, “explanation” means any old allegation of a cause, with supernatural causes preferred, with no supporting evidence required.

  13. Dave Luckett

    The ultimate retreat is here demonstrated. Omphalos. It happened because god wanted it to happen. Reason? we don’ need no steenking reason!

    And thus, without ever signalling the withdrawal, without bugle calls or about-faces, the armies of the night retire into their ultimate fortress, pull up the drawbridge and moon the beseigers from the battlements. Nothing can beat omphalos. “God wanted it this way” is proof against everything, a perfect armor that cannot be penetrated by any single shot.

    Why are there no vertebrate hexapods, when wings on miniature horses would be soooo cool? Omphalos. Why no chimaeras? Omphalos. Why do whales not have gills? Omphalos. Why do all mammals have differential teeth, but no reptile has? Omphalos. Why are all clades perfectly nested? Omphalos. Why are sessile species on isolated islands unique to that island? Omphalos. Omphalos. Omphalos.

    A slow-tolling solemn bell, with the same gravity and finality. It tolls on and on, but with every stroke it sounds its own knell. Eventually it becomes intolerable. It may be impervious, but it can slowly rot away, because anything that’s useless rusts. Eventually it becomes so thin that it ceases to sound and the light shines through it.

    Keep asking the questions, kid, and find out how useless it is to be told “omphalos”. Eventually the light will shine through.

  14. “Shut up”, he explained. Ring Lardner

    Why does the Mona Lisa have a smile? Because it was intelligently designed.

    According to ID, what difference is there between the intelligently designed sculptures on Mount Rushmore and its intelligently designed animals and plants?

    According to ID, what is the difference between the intelligently designed SuperConducting SuperCollider and the intelligently designed Large Hadron Collider? Between the shmoo and the platypus? Between the
    Penrose triangle and the Mobius strip?

  15. @Dave Luckett
    I don’t see how creationism can avoid the retreat into Omphalos.
    If creation involves a violation of the laws of nature, how can it not involve the false appearances of a prior history?
    Philip Goss made a good argument that creation logically demands breaking the circle of nature.

  16. Did anyone else think it odd that Kenny Ham chose to title his post “Why Did God Create Apes with Human Features?”

    Shouldn’t that really be the other way around — i.e, “Why Did God Create Humans with Ape Features?” After all, according to Kenny’s favorite Book, weren’t apes created before humans?

  17. @retiredsciguy
    Yes, it occurred to me, too. There are these possible reasons:
    1) The order was suggested by the questioner.
    2) He was thinking of the order of creation in Genesis 2, when God created animals after having created Adam. Or maybe the apes micro-evolved their similarities to humans after the Flood.
    3) Is there anything in this whole question-and-answer that shows any coherence?

  18. Dave Luckett

    Oh, and while we’re on the subject of omphalos, or, “it was God’s will”, stating God’s will is very tricky, and it can have deplorable outcomes. Consider the Crusades, for instance.

    So to the uselessness of Omphalos we should add its other effects. To use it as an argument, you have to claim to know the mind of God. People who make that claim are very dangerous people.

    It’s possible, you know, that Pontius Pilate had that very same thought.

  19. Dave Luckett

    And, if it was God’s will that humans be formed most closely to chimps and other apes, is that an indication for the purposes he wants for us?
    Does that mean that we should tell our kids that they should act like “monkeys”, to follow the will of God?

    In contrast to the account that the similarity is only due to common ancestry, with nothing due to divine purposes: Just because I am related to Torquemada, that does not mean that I should act like him.

    P.S. I am also reminded of people who tell us that the evidence may point to evolution over billions of years, but they have to follow the teaching of God.

  20. God created apes as the back-up plan. If humans didn’t work out…

  21. docbill1351

    You gotta love the Homeschool Cycle! Young Mrs. Know-Nothing is a qualified “Hep Mate,” like the Shake-n-Bake commercial: “And I hepped!”

    Homeschooled. Liberty University with a “degree” in Stuff that qualifies her to work for a LLC that produces,

    wait for it …

    Homeschool material!

    Well, isn’t that special! What we have here, folks, is a self-perpetuating B Ark where homeschooler begets homeschooler in a never-ending field of lilies; a bucolic class of consumers who produce nothing of value.

  22. docbill1351 says:

    Homeschooled. Liberty University with a “degree” in Stuff that qualifies her to work for a LLC that produces, wait for it … Homeschool material!

    Of course. There’s a creation science law of nature that says like begets like.

  23. It is interesting that the term “helpmate” is often a mistaken reference to the King James Version’s Early Modern English “help meet” – “fitting help”. I wonder whether one who is familiar with the Bible would use that term.

  24. docbill1351

    Actually, I would be satisfied calling her “help meat.”

  25. docbill1351 notes

    I would be satisfied calling her “help meat.”

    That gaping hole in the thin ice onto which you may have wandered was made by Sir Tim Hunt, FRS…

  26. docbill1351

    I’m not giving up my Nobel Prize!

    And remember, Mego, you can’t have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!

  27. Ed says God created apes as a backup plan.

    Nope, the other way round. Apes were preliminary drafts. When he finally devised humans, it was almost sundown on Friday. They needed a little more tweaking, but he was tired and bored, so he just set them down and called them good enough.

  28. Justin asks: “How does he go on, day after day.”
    By counting his money. That’s why he’s so active lately, he doesn’t like the outcome that much anymore.

  29. I think this video neatly demonstrates how creationist arguments are recycled over and over ad nauseam while staying on topic with apes:

  30. Apparently the Viets are unaware that humans look like apes because we are apes, members of the Hominidae. Both appearance and genetics confirm that. I hope the kid who asked the question finds someone who knows something about reality, and doesn’t give him answers based on bronze age myths.

  31. TomS raises a good point: “I wonder whether one who is familiar with the Bible would use that term.”

    Many who think they are familiar with the Bible are only familiar with particular types of traditional interpretations of the Bible. I see that often with the Young Earth Creationists who protest my articles and think that they are going to instruct me in ideas that I’ve never heard before.

    [To be fair, there are also those at the other end of the belief/non-belief spectrum who think that they are going to tutor me on Biblical studies and religious studies factoids I’d somehow never heard of. A few of those hecklers even tell me that all religious studies professors joined university faculties in order to proselytize for their religion. When I point out that my department chair was an atheist who faithfully attended synagogue every sabbath and that there is basically no evangelism (i.e., proselytizing) in Judaism, they go into brain lock.]

    Pointing out the exegetical errors as well as the theological bloopers and scripture-illiterate side-splitters of famous Young Earth Creationists gets me a lot of nasty emails from “creation science” fans. Yesterday a Ken Ham groupee rebuked me with what he apparently thought was the very worst of insults: “You make friends with atheists!” Considering that he probably assigns atheists to a contempt scale at least one step below “publicans and sinners”, I asked him if he thought Jesus would make friends with atheists. He wrote back and said: “Of course Jesus would make friends with atheists. But you are even lower than atheists because you are an evil compromiser!”

    At least he didn’t call me a son of Satin which still remains my all-time favorite insult from an angry Young Earth Creationist. (I assured the exasperated fundamentalist lady that my late father was a life-long farmer and never had any ties to the fabric industry. Perhaps she thought him guilty of the mixing of fabrics as in Deuteronomy 22:11. We raised sheep but not flax, and the government bought most of the wool in those days.)

    I considered telling my critic that compromise can be a good way to encourage harmony because it recognizes the wisdom of choosing one’s battles wisely. Yet, I would also tell him that affirming what is known to be true about the evolution of life on earth is not compromising the truth. It is recognizing the truth–and didn’t Jesus tell us to seek the truth and embrace it? But I knew that that wouldn’t do any good in convincing him of anything. You just can’t out-pietize a self-righteous YEC who thinks he’s on a roll. (Just as a rolling stone gathers no moss, you can roll a YEC in evidence and he will gather no insights.)

    Then I recalled something a wise man said about the ballistics of nacreous calcium carbonate crystals produced by mollusks when targeting a particular type of even-toed ungulate. So I sent the first sentence of this paragraph to him as my reply.

    Haven’t heard from him since.

  32. Anticipating what someone will surely ask: Yes, the ambiguity as to the subject behind the word targeting was indeed deliberate. The same kind of ambiguity and interpretative question arises regularly when studying Biblical texts.

  33. Charles Deetz ;)

    @Reflectory Now you’ve just given Hambo a clear division between humans and apes … although I hear there is p*rn with similar examples, but Hambo probably doesn’t know about that.

  34. Charles Deetz ;)

    Go back an re-read the response and think of a ten year old trying to follow it. What kid isn’t going to get to the end and use an eight letter word to describe the answer they got, regardless of threat of homeschool mom sticking a chunk of soap in their mouth.

  35. My five year-old asks a lot of questions. And even he would be unsatisfied with “Cause God wanted it that way.”

    I can’t think of a better way to drive an intelligent kid away from being religious than by providing unsatisfying answers like that. Which may be part of why the Fundamentalist population is shrinking.