IS THE CHIMP-MAULING DARWIN'S FAULT?

Is the Chimp-Mauling Darwin's Fault?

Sean McDowell

This week we received the sobering news that a 55-year old woman was nearly killed by a 200 pound chimp. Her face was so severely disfigured and unrecognizable that one news station reported the victim as a man. In case you are wondering how a chimp could be so powerful, an animal expert on CNN (Larry King Live) reported that chimp's are roughly five times as strong as human beings. The poor woman was utterly outmatched. My heart is truly broken for this woman and I hope and pray she will experience fully recovery.

Nevertheless, we need to ask a basic question: How could something like this happen? How is it that we live in a culture where people think it's safe to have a chimpanzee as a pet? Where do people get the idea that we ought to take a wild animal and treat it like a human being? The chimp owner treated the animal like a son who ate at her table, slept in her house, and even drove her car.

Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. In fact, there is one culprit for the idea that human beings and chimps are really not that different and should be treated that way: Darwinism. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always taught that humans and chimps are different in terms of kind (Genesis 1-2). While animals are a good part of God's creation, it is uniquely humans who bear the image of God. Many animals are wild and should be kept that way. On the other hand, Darwin propagated the idea that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and only differ in terms of degree (See Darwin's The Descent of Man). If humans and chimps are really not that different, then why not expect chimps to act civilly? After all, ideas have consequences.

Last week the world celebrated Darwin's 200^th birthday. Universities placed tributes to Darwinism on their home page (examples include Oxford and Cambridge) and major networks such as BBC ran extensive programs devoted to Darwin's great contribution to the world.

Yet, ironically, this week we witness a brutal act that seems to logically follow from Darwin's ideas. You may be wondering how I can possibly link Darwin to this atrocious event. But think about it, if humans are deeply related to chimps then why not expect them to act that way?

Darwinists regularly point out the genetic, structural, and behavioral similarities between humans and chimps (of course, they conveniently overlook the profound differences). Yet, since Darwinists argue so fervently that humans are closely related to chimps, then shouldn't chimps be expected to act like humans? Shouldn't Darwinists take some responsibility when some people actually put their ideas into action? It's certainly not the Christian worldview that would encourage people to treat wild animals like human beings. The Christian worldview places tremendous emphasis on our need to care for creation, but it clearly highlights the fundamental differences between humans and all other animals. Humans are moral beings; animals are not.

Darwinism is not only false, it's a corrosive idea. Equating humans and animals results in the devaluation of both. As I said before, my heart truly goes out to the victim. But this should be a wakeup call for our culture. Treating humans and animals as moral equivalents is a bad idea. What is it going to take for us to realize this?

By Sean McDowell Click here for bio and archived articles

I do understand why this person has taken this view Posted On: 04/29/12 08:01:39 PM Age 0, MO In this day and time when the "theory" of evolution is being preached asi if it were gospel truth , and men putting other species before it own kind (particularly our own unborn babies via state sanctioned abortions). This man is absolutely correct. People who would protest the destruction of a forest and win a court battle only to have that same forrest , for the sake of an owl become burned to the ground by rouge lightning strikes only goes to show the degree we as humans will go to , to humanize nature and its wild animals. I have a dog as a pet. and althoug he is very intelligent he does not hold auithority over me . and if needs be i would put him down should he ever attack another of my fellow humans. Now some of you may consider me a savage for doing so .... but thats only because you have humanized an animal and given it "human " emotions. And thgat is what this gentleman is saying. no body is arguing as to the difference of the chimpanzee being an animal , only the extent to which we have adopted the notion that because an animal looks "somewhat " like our selves and has some simular traits , people do , and especially environmentalist make owning such animimals look like the natural thing to do. When in fact these animals are just that animals , they behave like an animal, they have not ..... even after such a long time .... developed the intelligence of human beings. But what I would ask those who are commenting negatively on this writting is , when was the last time you picked up your kitten or dog and said " you act just like me sometimes". if you have you have just humanized that animal. There has been much i te media about cruel treatment of animals being slaughtered for food lately, and making claims that the way these abimals are killed is inhumane . But you have to understand that inorder for them to kill said animals they have to look at the animal like say a cat who will kill its prey and then play with it , to some thats natural and excepted , but if a man in the process of slaughtering an animal for food does something out of context ion the remdering of said animal he is considered a criminal. I personaly belive in the quick rendering of an animal in the processing of said animal , but i will not humanize my food just as a lion will not lionize its prey , or this woman humanized her chimp and then suffered the cionsiquences for doing so. So now since we are seeing the up and comming of the disney nature film "Chimpanzee". I would be willing to bet that there will be an attempt by humans to again associate and impliment humanizing of these "wild animals " all over again , even as the previews are attempting to do so. And we w8ill again see more of this travesty taking place . Thats my thoughts unique occurance Posted On: 02/27/09 06:25:13 PM Age 58, MN I disagree with your premise. This is a very issolated case. Very few people would think a chimp is at all human, except perhaps the deluded woman who had raised the chimp. I'm sure you have seen people raise other animals and treat them like people. I know you are just trying to make your case against the theory of evolution, but you are preaching to the choir. To the rest of us, it looks like a long stretch of logic and will only inspire ridicule of your position. This has GOT to be a joke... Posted On: 02/27/09 09:13:58 AM Age 36, CANADA You do realize that every single biologist out there would tell you that the animal in question had evolved for different conditions than a person's household, right? For examle, Jane Goodall: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090226/OPINION01/902260338/1008 Good grief. You people blame evolution on everything. How's about thinking just a little bit for once? you're blaming the wrong people Posted On: 02/27/09 05:57:16 AM Age 44, CA It's obviously the fault of Christianity, since Christians falsely believe that their deity has given them dominion over all animals to do with them whatever they want. This woman was just doing what Christianity told her. please read up on biology Posted On: 02/26/09 11:59:44 PM Age 41, CA "If humans and chimps are really not that different, then why not expect chimps to act civilly?" Chimps are a highly aggressive species. This chimp acted exactly like biologists and Darwinists expect chimps to act. In addition, this chimp was on an anti-depressant also given to humans and which also makes human being homicidal. And I don't expect humans to act "civilly" either. Just look at US murder rates. In fact, chimpanzee and human behavior, unfortunately, are very similar. "Humans are moral beings; animals are not." That morality doesn't seem to keep human beings, in particular Christians and Muslims, from murdering each other, even in large numbers. Higher Power Posted On: 02/26/09 06:40:21 PM Age 40, UT I too feel sorry for the woman involved. However, wouldn't it be more correct to say that this was God's choice rather than Darwin's fault? Unless you're implying that Darwin is somehow superior to God in this instance - and I don't think that's your intention. You're kidding right? Posted On: 02/26/09 06:20:37 PM Age 55, CA Foolishness has more to do with this than Darwin. Any animal trainer would have told this lady the dangers of having a pet that can bench press her without any effort. In fact, Darwin would have likely told her the same thing. Missing the point Posted On: 02/26/09 04:56:42 PM Age 40, AUSTRALIA I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as "Darwinism". There is the theroy of natural selection which is proposed as a mechanism of evoltuion. It's neutral on the subject of how to treat animals: like all scientific theories it's an attempt to explain the workings of the natrual world. Astronomy, biology, physics... they are not ethcial systems. Creationists/ID proponenets are deeply confusted on this issue: it's explains the process, its *not* an ethical system. Science recognises the close genetic relationship as indicative of common ancestry, nothing more. Mr Bev Posted On: 02/26/09 04:53:58 PM Age 27, AL Your a idiot meethed. Darwin does not make chimp lovers Posted On: 02/26/09 02:39:40 PM Age 32, MA "Darwinists take some responsibility when some people actually put their ideas into action?" The notion that human/chimpanzee solidarity constitutes an example of the putting of Darwinian ideas, that is evolution from common ancestry via natural selection, into action is beyond patently absurd. The fact that science has revealed that chimpanzees are our closet living relatives does indicate that scientists(Darwinsts) endorse the idea that this similarity suggests that humans and Chimpanzees are essentially the same. On the contrary, there are profound differences(differences that scientists do not over look - but these differences do not include a soul) amid the two primate species - some of which make chimpanzees potentially very dangerous. Therefore, one is not going to find to many scientists(Darwinists) who would endorse the idea that chimpanzees make good pets or surrogate children. The behavior of those who do not hold this view regarding chimps, that is those who believe they make good pets or surrogate children, does necessarily follow from Darwinian worldview, and its not even germane if it does(its not as if Chimpanzee's turning own their Darwinian owners is massive problem in this world. And even if this was a problem, it would not undermine the scientific claims that lead to this behavior. It would just call for education.) For the similarities amid chimpanzees, both physical and psychological, and humans are obvious to anyone who has come into contact with a chimpanzee. Thus you do not need to be a Darwinian, or even be aware of the science, to believe that chimpanzees, because of their obvious anthropomorphic qualities, would make good pets, or even family members.