First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo17(4):45
September-November 1995
On the lighter side, are there really any differences between us and the inhabitants of farms and zoos?
‘No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals.’ So began a feature article on evolution in TIME magazine (‘How Man Began’, March 14, 1994). The more I thought about this sweeping statement the more I began to warm to it.
For example, like humans, apes have well formed rational faculties. Their ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses is quite remarkable.
Also like humans, apes have a marked faculty for language. (This, of course, is intertwined with their powers of reason.) Their vocabulary is enormous, their grammar complex, and their conversations deep and meaningful.
The apes’ ability to codify language in writing is further proof of their close relationship to humans. In this respect, it was most gratifying to see the number of apes who wrote to TIME magazine in response to the article on ‘How Man Began’. I was particularly interested to follow the line of reasoning of the orangutan who argued that apes had evolved from humans, not vice versa.
Like humans, apes also have a strong spirit of inquiry. Their research in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and physics is noteworthy.
Apes also (again, like humans) yearn for meaning in life. This is why they devote so much of their time to philosophy, theology and ethics. The religious sentiments and practices of all apes can be traced back to their intense and endless quest for meaning.
Apes are concerned about questions not only of origin but also of destiny. The best proof I can offer for this claim is the maxim by one famous ape philosopher who said, ‘Whether my life leads ultimately to the dirt or to the Judgment, either way, I've got a problem.’
Apes also have, like humans, a refined aesthetic sense. They admire beauty and long to surround themselves with it. When an ape cultivates a garden, puts flowers in a vase, or hangs up a painting, what is it doing if not expressing a love of beauty?
Again like humans, apes have a strong creative impulse. This is seen in their poetry, painting, dance, drama and music. To a lesser extent their creativity is also evident in the way they gather in weekly craft groups to weave baskets, spin wool, knit shawls, and cover photo albums.
The sense of humour shared by all apes is another proof of their close kinship to humans. Their delight in the ridiculous and their love of a good laugh is plain from the popular ape jokes they tell.
Reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour…such intangible but fundamental qualities are by no means unique to humans, as I hope I have conclusively shown. Therefore, in the profound words of TIME magazine: ‘No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals’.
This being the case, Christians are plainly wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different. And they are also obviously wrong to insist that this difference arises from the fact that God created us humans in His own likeness. And if they are wrong to insist that God made us in His own likeness, then they are wrong to insist that God has any claim on us.
Furthermore, if God has no claim on us, then we are free—free to be animals like our evolutionary ancestors—free to be as low-down as snakes, and to make pigs of ourselves, and to act like donkeys.
Did I say 'free'?
Hiss! Oink! Heehaw!
ANDREW LANSDOWN, B.A., B.A. (Hons), Dip. Ed., is a writer, teacher and pastor He is well known for his articles on social and spiritual issues, and for his poetry and fiction.
The differences between homo sapiens and other animals are legion, but evolution teaches us that we are, at a fundamental level, bound by profound similarities. Genetically almost indistinguishable from our closest primate relatives, human beings are not the pinnacle of evolution, but one tiny branch on its great tree.
The lesson of evolution is that we should expect commonalities between human and non-human in almost every respect.
Let's consider the second issue first. Singer maintains that many animals ¯ adult chimpanzees, dogs, pigs, cats and mice ¯ have the same level of self-awareness and self-direction possessed by some humans ¯ infants, the mentally impaired and the senile. If we take the lives of the former to advance medical knowledge and cures, we should be prepared to take the lives of the latter as well. Singer does note, however, that there is good reason to stay a killing hand from infant, retarded and senile humans ¯ taking their lives would add to the balance of suffering in the world by grieving their parents, friends, care givers and children and by rendering all of us anxious about our own future. This reason is persuasive enough to narrow Singer's human categories to severely impaired newborns who have been orphaned or whose parents seek their euthanasia.
Psyche 9(13): 'Is Mental Life Possible Without the Will?' by Bruce Bridgeman
Modern neurophysiology, though, leaves no room for the soul. A neurophysiologist can change our perceptions, our opinions, our motivations and memories by removing or stimulating tiny but well-defined fragments of the brain, or by administering small amounts of a hormone or neurotransmitter to the right place. What seemed a font of life is now part logical engine, part chemical soup, and all vulnerable to outside physical influences. Specific neurological deficits can make us feel that our family members are impostors, that a leg does not belong to us, that others are plotting against us, even that we are ourselves dead, all deeply personal feelings yet driven by ordinary interactions of neurons. Certain drugs or stimulation of parts of the temporal lobe can even elicit religious experiences.
Physical penetration into the depths of the self on this scale allows no free will -- neurons are affected only by other neurons, not by will or effort. The only remaining alternatives are a deterministic mechanism or an element of randomness. Determinism obviously would rule out free will. But the workings of the axons, dendrites and synapses are only determined to a first approximation. Unfortunately the indeterminacy of random errors does not help, for free will is defined as goal-directed, not random. In the neurophysiological context, randomness and chaos offer an escape from predetermination, but fall short of restoring free will.
Until recently considerations of free will have been the purview of a branch of modern philosophy, the philosophy of mind. Wegner makes short work of the philosophers, for without empirical progress there is nothing more to go on than yet another speculation or introspection. The introspection of free will, though irresistably powerful, is not science. And science is just a systematic way of looking closely at the world and at ourselves
It has been my view that the science community needs to address these ideological exploitations (or potential exploitations as in the last article) --- with great urgency.
That was cute. :-)
To: DittoJed2What about when religion gives one answer- clearly- and science disagrees? Ultimately, it is an issue of final authority.
Yes! That is precisely the issue! I assume you agree that the answers of science are just fine -- but only scientifically. So at that point it's a question of your personal ranking of information.
2,175 posted on 08/22/2003 3:34 PM EDT by PatrickHenry