I think what’s actually going on here is “arguments are soldiers”: If the similarity between chimps and humans occurred totally by accident, that would be bad for evolution; evolution is the enemy; therefore I should argue that maybe the similarity between chimps and humans occurred totally by accident.
Never do they stop to think that not only is this obviously untrue, it would also undermine THEIR theory as well. The implicit assumption is that anything bad for my opponent is good for me and vice-versa.
I think what’s actually going on here is “arguments are soldiers”: If the similarity between chimps and humans occurred totally by accident, that would be bad for evolution; evolution is the enemy; therefore I should argue that maybe the similarity between chimps and humans occurred totally by accident.
Never do they stop to think that not only is this obviously untrue, it would also undermine THEIR theory as well. The implicit assumption is that anything bad for my opponent is good for me and vice-versa.