Replies

That doesn't mean that we need to rework the legal code to give orang-utans the right to have library cards, its just a classification system.

At one time science (perhaps a long time ago?) defined man as the animal species that uses tools. And further defined tools as any object taken from nature and altered to suit a specific purpose. That is until it was discovered that chimpanzees take green twigs, strip the leave off, and insert them into termite mounds to catch termites as food. The comment that I recall reading was that, "we either need to redefine man, redefine tool, or accept chimpanzees as man."

"I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape," Buttars said.

This kind of comment really shows the true underpinnings of the debate. It's not about science, and maybe not even religion. It's about ego. A lot of people feel truly insulted at the suggestion that there is some kind of connection between humans and "lower" species. You don't get that kind of response from a simple intellectual debate. There's a certain amount of hurt pride involved.

It's not simply a case of narcisism or a superiority complex, either. Evolution is a true challenge to an entire worldview: one that positions man as privileged and special instead of just another one of those stupid things crawling around in the muck. The thing is, we are privileged, even if we came from what we perceive to be rather humble beginnings. Acknowleging our connection to the rest of Earth's creepy-crawlies does not diminish the accomplishments of the human species or make Mr. Buttars any less a man.

Yeah, I guess the real test of speciation between humans and chimps would be if a union between the two somehow produced fertile offspring. Such an experiment, however, is not one that ANYONE would EVER want to permit or undertake. I got the shudders even typing this post.