Re: Is the new 60,000 sq.ft. Creation Museum 'anti-science' ???
- From: DaveInLakeVilla@xxxxxxxxx (Dave in Lake Villa)
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:32:36 -0500
'gee- considering we look like made-over apes,and share 99% of our DNA
with them ,does that mean that the Creator is some kind of ape.'
REPLY: Imno, When you come to the Museum, youll get answers to
questions like the one you raised . Looking forward to seeing you at the
Museum soon. Heres a synopsis to your DNA statement :
1. Furry little humans?
Creation Archive > Volume 24 Issue 3 > Furry little humans?
Dedicated research shows that evolutionary ideas about the 'people-like'
nature of apes and monkeys are largely fantasy.
Over the past half-century or so, dozens of dedicated Darwinists have
devoted decades of their lives to studying the behaviour of apes and
monkeys. The public is regaled with stories about the likes of Jane
Goodall and Dianne Fossey living with chimps and mountain gorillas,
respectively. The social structures, behaviours, communication and so on
of apes and monkeys are scrutinized for the slightest evidence that they
have thoughts and minds not all that far from our own. We are regularly
left to conclude that the differences between mankind and these alleged
'close relatives' of ours are really minor ones of degree, not kind.
Two developments in particular have comforted1 and reinforced the masses
in such evolutionary notions.
One is the high percentage of genetic (DNA) similarity which such
primates hold in common with humans. Chimp DNA is supposed to be
anywhere from 96% to 98.7% identical to that of humans, depending on who
is telling the story. The reason for the variation is that no-one has
yet sequenced an ape's DNA; other, much cruder techniques are used to
give a 'guesstimate' of the similarity.2
Bananas in pyjamas?
Baboons are said to share 92% of their DNA with us. Granted a high
degree of shared DNA, even if it were 90%, would that make them 90%
human, as most interpret this? It is worth repeating what prominent
evolutionist Steve Jones reminded his audience of recently in the
context of man/chimp DNA-sharing: 'We also share about 50% of our DNA
with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the
waist up or the waist down.'3
The other development has to do with the issue of language. The
chimpanzee Washoe and the bonobo Kanzi 'have become famous for their
ability to respond to human language in surprisingly complex ways'.4
It must be a great disappointment, then, for committed evolutionists to
read of the latest work by two of the most dedicated primate behaviour
researchers in the world.5 Robert Seyfarth and Dorothy Cheney are a
husband-and-wife team who have performed many ingenious experiments with
vervet monkeys and baboons, plumbing the depths of their social
knowledge and mental processes.
Though they have occasionally revealed previously unknown 'richness' in
a monkey's social knowledge, overall their results have caused them to
give a massive 'thumbs down' to the 'monkeys are almost human' view.
They have gradually come to the conclusion (no surprise to
Bible-believing Christians) that there are 'severe limitations on
intelligence and communication in monkeys'.6
For instance, baboons walking past a recently dismembered buffalo
carcass do not 'put two and two together' to conclude that lions are in
the vicinity. They only act alarmed once they spot the actual lions.
Also, when they see an antelope carcass stuffed high up in a tree, they
show no signs of concluding the obvious?that their mortal enemy, the
leopard, is in the vicinity.
For another example: Baboons from a foraging troop which has spread out
so that some are on either side of a forest are known to give barking
calls. It has long been assumed that they were keeping 'contact',
saying, in effect, 'Hey, we're over here, where are you?' like humans
would. But ingenious experiments have shown that the monkeys were only
lamenting their own lostness.
Seyfarth and Cheney say that, unlike humans, 'monkeys don't actually
recognize that other monkeys have minds'.7 Whatever thoughts and
emotions they may have, they cannot project them outside of themselves,
as humans do all the time. Thus, a chimp may grieve due to loss, but
chimps do not seem to comfort others that are grieving.
This inability to put themselves in another monkey's place was starkly
demonstrated when a monkey named Sylvia made a deep water crossing with
a baby clinging to her underside, causing it to drown. Since she could
breathe, she could not relate to the fact that her baby could not.
So what does all this do to the 'genetic similarity' issue? The
(definitely non-creationist) writer of the Smithsonian article which
inspired this piece concedes that these results remind us that 'just a
few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between
species.'8 Of course, we have long been saying that a few percentage
points means many millions of base pair differences?which are likely
to be in much more crucial 'controlling genes'.
We were created with more similarities to apes than to jellyfish. Since
our bodily construction reflects our DNA 'recipe', it is perfectly
logical and consistent that we would also be genetically more similar to
apes than to jellyfish?or bananas, for that matter.
And what about the much-vaunted ape language abilities? These
researchers remind us that the circumstances were artificial. Seyfarth
says, 'You can teach a bear to ride a bicycle in the circus, but it
doesn't tell you much about what bears learn to do in the wild.'9 And
furthermore, says the article's author, 'even in the laboratory, no
animal has attained anything like true language'. Whereas humans 'embody
a theory of mind in wild excess.' We are aware that we, and our minds,
exist and that others have thinking minds too. Humans, and humans alone,
'know what we know, and we know that we know it. We possess the playful,
curious, strange and sympathetic entity called human consciousness.'9
This is because, he should have added, we were made in the image of God.
Made to think, reason, love and communicate with our Creator. Apes and
monkeys, no matter how superficially similar, were not.
As Seyfarth concludes, 'They're not furry little humans. They're just
monkeys.'6
References and notes
Evolution often functions to anesthetize the conscience against the
discomfort caused by the knowledge of sin/guilt. If Adam is your
ancestor, God sets the rules; if ape, you do. Return to text.
Batten, D. (Ed.), The Answers Book, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane,
Australia, pp. 102?106, 1999. Return to text.
Jones, S., interviewed at the Australian Museum on The Science Show,
broadcast on ABC radio, 12 January 2002,
<www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s456478.htm>, 25 January 2002.
Return to text.
Conniff, R., Monkey wrench, Smithsonian, pp. 102?104, October 2001.
Return to text.
Reported in ref. 4, pp. 97?104. Return to text.
Ref. 4, p. 97. Return to text.
Ref. 4, p. 102. Return to text.
Ref. 4, p. 98. Emphasis added. Return to text.
9. Ref. 4, p. 104. Return to text.
2. Is man an animal?
One increasingly hears phrases such as 'humans and other animals'. This
seems to be intended to attack the notion that people are special, being
made in the image of God.
The answer to the question 'is man an animal?' is not, however, a simple
one. In the technical biological sense, using the man-made
classification criteria instituted by the creationist Linnaeus, the
answer would seem to be 'yes'. Man is obviously not a plant, or a
bacterium. Creatures are grouped together using various criteria of
similarity, which do not need to have any evolutionary overtones. We
obviously have backbones, which would place us in the group known as
vertebrates. We give birth to live young, suckle our offspring, and so
on, which would place us with mammals, specifically the placental
mammals. Furthermore, we have many features in common with the group
known as primates.
But the problem is not so much with technical classification as with the
'propagandistic' effect that labelling people as 'animals' achieves. The
real point that evolutionists try to make, and which should be resisted,
is that man is 'just one more animal'.
The potential for confusion is particularly strong because the word
'animal', in the layperson's understanding, means something other than a
human being. Thus, when people say, 'animals are used to test
cosmetics', it is obvious that man is not included in this use of the
term 'animals'. (Equally, fish, insects and birds, though technically
'animals', are not usually talked about that way. E.g. 'The fire injured
many animals and birds'.)
People are definitely not 'animals' in any normal sense of that word,
nor are they related to animals by common descent. They have been made
in the very image of their Creator, and an awesome gulf separates them
from even the most similar of any other living creatures (see main
article).
The ultimate solution might be a separate kingdom in technical
classification to adequately reflect that fact. However, this is
unlikely to appear anytime soon in a world dominated by evolutionary
thinking.
In the meantime, when asked whether man is 'an animal', the best way to
avoid fostering evolutionary notions may be to:
Carefully point out the different definitions of the term.
Affirm that man is not an animal in any common usage of the term, nor in
any evolutionary sense whatsoever.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Is the new 60,000 sq.ft. Creation Museum 'anti-science' ???
- Next by Date: Re: Is the new 60,000 sq.ft. Creation Museum 'anti-science' ???
- Previous by thread: Re: Is the new 60,000 sq.ft. Creation Museum 'anti-science' ???
- Next by thread: Re: Is the new 60,000 sq.ft. Creation Museum 'anti-science' ???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
