Gorilla Extinction — Why Do You Care?

You will be deeply hurt by the latest post at the website of Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. And you deserve to be hurt!

Their article is Gorillas, Endangerment, and Evolutionary Morality, written by Brian Thomas. He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” This is ICR’s biographical information on him. Here are some excerpts from his article, with bold font added by us:

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) revealed their latest Red List of Threatened Species at their World Conservation Congress in Hawaii on September 4, 2016. There, thousands of scientists and celebrities discussed recently extinct plants and others nearing extinction, but the primate declines grabbed the headlines. Two of the three great-ape kinds are rapidly shrinking. Illegal hunting continues to diminish the now “critically endangered” gorillas and orangutans, while chimpanzees are listed as merely “endangered.” Why should these losses sadden those concerned?

Yeah — why are they sad? A quote from one of the conservationist explains it:

IUCN Director General Inger Andersen told IUCN News, “To see the Eastern gorilla — one of our closest cousins — slide towards extinction is truly distressing.”

Our cousins? Yuk! Brian Thomas ain’t no kin to no monkey! He says:

“Closest cousins” refers to the supposed evolutionary relationship humans and gorillas share by having descended from the same primate ancestor somewhere in the last ten million years. Therefore, in Director Anderson’s view, humans were not made by God in the image of God. Instead, mankind represents a less-hairy hominid that evolved from an unknown ape-like creature.

After ridiculing the conservationist, Brian tells us:

If we are all products of evolution, then what basis do humans have for real morality? Does Inger Anderson’s lament go beyond mere sentiment? On what evolutionary mooring would she base her great distress about great-ape extinction?

Yeah! Every creationist knows that evolutionists have no morality. Brian explains:

The Bible says God made humans in His image, and this includes our shared knowledge of good and evil — an intrinsic knowledge called conscience placed into humans from the beginning. But good and evil have no place in evolutionary thinking, which strictly embraces survival and sees death as a means for the best life forms to survive.

Evolution is really bad stuff, and Brian can’t stop beating up on the conservationist. His assault continues:

So on what moral basis does Ms. Andersen find extinction “truly distressing?” Extinction should cause concern. But that concern comes from a Christian view of the world in which God ordained mankind to care for His creation. Did the actual image of God, including the knowledge of right and wrong and deep-seated emotions like concern or distress, come out of Inger Anderson’s mouth in the same breath as her implicit denial of that very image?

Brian is really pounding away! But it’s a righteous pounding; the conservationist deserves it! This is from the end:

Why should illegally hunting endangered animals distress those who believe that the physical universe is all that there is? That mindset offers no answer beyond personal preference. In contrast, those who attribute lasting value to God’s creations have a real basis for concern.

So there you are, dear reader. Evolutionists are evil, and extinctions shouldn’t bother them at all. Only creationists like Brian can truly appreciate the wonders of creation.

Aside from that, we know the real reason creationists may be distressed at the prospect of great ape extinction. If there were no more of them, creationists could no longer ask: If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

Copyright © 2016. 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

13 responses to “Gorilla Extinction — Why Do You Care?

  1. “Empathy is a conserved trait.”

  2. Why are humans and chimps and other apes so undeniably similar, more so than any of the other possibilites for the human body? Is that just a matter of common descent? Or is it because God had purposes in common in so designing life?

  3. So atheists slaughtered the passenger pigeon, the dodo, the thylacine? Christians have never killed, say American bison, for sport? The love of Jesus has caused Christians everywhere to care for their fellow humans and all the lowly animals and plants – not to mention FUNGI – without fail? Tree-huggers everyone.

    Next Brian will be telling us there was no extinction before 1859, just like Trumpites have told us there was no racism before 2008….

  4. The Bible says God made humans in His image, and this includes our shared knowledge of good and evil — an intrinsic knowledge called conscience placed into humans from the beginning.

    Wow, the author doesn’t even know his own holy book. According to Genesis, humans only gained the knowledge of good and evil by eating from the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”, a horrendous sin for which God cursed all mankind.

  5. I’m a bit confused here. Brian asserts that one aspect of humans being made in the image of God is the “knowledge of right and wrong”, but didn’t that come from the forbidden fruit? So some of our Godlike qualities came not from our creation but our fall? And then there’s the problem that Satan called it, “You shall be as gods.”
    As for why should an atheist care? Some of us see ourselves as a member of humanity and as such some of our motivation is to preserve the natural world for those that will come later and will be poorer for these tragic extinctions.

  6. I must admit that I don’t get the xian concept of ‘morality.’ If you only do the right thing because you hope for a reward (heaven) , or wish to avoid punishment (the Lake of Fire), then you aren’t any more moral than Pavlov’s dog.

  7. @ Pete Moulton: You’re probably already familiar with Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma and all the logic-pretzeling arising thereby from the early Church theologians.

  8. Indeed, Megalonyx, but being an atheist, I don’t concern myself much about which side of the circular reasoning some presumed deity might occupy.

  9. @Pete Moulton
    I know you don’t care.
    But the topology of creationism might perhaps better be called a Mobius strip. (When following its path, one ends up upside down.) Or a Klein bottle. (Also doesn’t hold water.)

  10. “Two of the three great-ape kinds are rapidly shrinking.”
    This statement by Brian Thomas confuses me. If there are three great-ape kinds, there would have to be a pair of each on the ark, taking up precious space. The various ape kinds couldn’t have been produced by the turbo-charged evolution after the flood, because evolution must stop a the boundary of a kind. Because of this, I had assumed that there must be a single great ape kind, or maybe even just a single monkey kind. How hard it is to determine what real scriptural Truth is!

  11. Mega is impressed by “all the logic-pretzeling arising thereby from the early Church theologians”. WL Craig beats them all


    and that includes the self-declared über expert on Thomas of Aquino and Aristoteles


    JimRoberts hits the nail on its head: “How hard it is to determine what real scriptural Truth is!”
    Just unconditionally accept everything Ol’Hambo decides. He knows, so that you and I don’t have to know.

  12. The Bible says God made humans in His image, and this includes our shared knowledge of good and evil — an intrinsic knowledge called conscience placed into humans from the beginning.

    Yes–by eating the forbidden apple from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For that sin, God kicked them out of the Garden, made them mortal, and declared that Adam (and all men after him) would have to work hard to get food (“In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread”) and that Eve (and all women thereafter) would have painful pregnancies.

    Kind of sounds as though God didn’t want humans to have that “intrinsic knowledge.”

  13. “Kind of sounds as though God didn’t want humans to have that ‘intrinsic knowledge.’”
    That depends on which God you ask. In the Gen 1 creation myth, the clever god Elohim moulds from the primordial chaos a nice environment for humans, then he makes humans, male and female, “in his own image”, that is, he wants humans to be godlike.
    In the second Genesis creation myth, the blundering idiot JHWH would like a nice garden in which he can take an evening stroll after a long day of doing whatever it is gods do, but he doesn’t want the bother of doing his own gardening (an attitude I can have much sympathy for). So he makes a gardener, but he doesn’t want the gardener to be anything like a rival god. He makes that clear in Gen 3:22, where he says, ” Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”, whereupon in Gen 2:23-24 he banishes A&E from the garden.