Gibbons living in the Khao Yai National Park in Thailand have been found to communicate threats from predators with bird-like singing--the first time the behaviour has been discovered among non-human primates.
Ever since Jane Goodall observed some chimps using twigs to fish termites out of a mound four decades ago, we have been treated to a non-stop litany of "discoveries" from biologists and other scientists that purport to prove how similar animal behaviour is to that of humans. These announcements are usually characterized as breathlessly exciting and purport to overturn some putative conventional wisdom about how different mankind is. No doubt many people have an unquenchable thirst for learning about animal habits, but anyone who tracks these stories over time will sense there is a very non-scientific impetus driving all this. No modern or even traditional layman would find it in the least astounding that gibbons sing out warnings or that they share lots of DNA with us (as do bananas) or that get jealous about rival suitors or learn to avoid heavy traffic or even recognize two dozen words, but over and over the point is hammered home that they are just like us in so many ways.
But of course they are not. The gulf between humans and animals is both qualitatively and quantitatively vast, but modern science treats that screamingly obvious fact as a kind of dirty secret one doesn’t mention in polite company. Why? What do they fear? And why do foundations and governments continue to fund such ideologically predictable nonsense?
More to the point, why do we require increasingly lengthy, analytical and sophisticated arguments to convince us of the obvious?
5 comments:
The gulf between humans and animals is both qualitatively and quantitatively vast, but modern science treats that screamingly obvious fact as a kind of dirty secret one doesn’t mention in polite company.
Sorry, that's just not true.
Rather, as we become more aware of how animals live, the continuity between them and us becomes more and more apparent. The gap between animals and humans is undeniable; but just as undeniable is that there is no element of humanity (other than writing) which constitutes a sui generis.
Peter:
Religion, by postulating special Creation, makes the notion of continuity between us and the rest of the animal kingdom completely optional.
Evolution, on the other hand, makes it completely necessary.
It isn't that science can't dream of these things, but demonstrating them is a different matter entirely. It is the demonstration that is important: discovering whales have something like culture should be eye-opening.
Seen a lot of animals bury their dead?
You got me there; my assertion of a negative was too strong.
That said, I have seen animals (mothers, nearly always) mourn their dead offspring.
Many scientists, or science popularizers, like to knock Man off his pedestal. A lot of it is poking a thumb in the eye of religion and Man's special status vis a vis God. Some of these people are animal rights true believres, or at least sympathizers. Who else would make a career of studying creatures in some steaming, leech infested jungle.
Now I'm all for putting Man in proper perspective and keeping him from getting a swollen head and all that. Bud I don't see why that should mean I'm not allowed to show any favoritism for the home team. We don't hold dominion over the beasts due to an act of God, we hold dominion over them because we can. We are definitely special creatures.
Our sense of dominion, though, is overblown. We can drive whales and polar bears to extinction if we wish, but if we think that we can win an all out war against viruses and bacteria, then we're just fooling ourselves. If you listed the top ten hardiest creatures on this planet, we wouldn't make the list.
Religion, by postulating special Creation, makes the notion of continuity between us and the rest of the animal kingdom completely optional.
What do you mean, optional? For months now you've been arguing that absolutely nothing is optional for the religious, who are bound to follow the dictates of their scriptures literally and without question or ce consigned to Hypocrites Hell. Suddenly, when it suits you, you start arguing it's more like a buffet. Skipper, has this anything to do with your lack of sleep?
Peter:
No.
IIRC, Genesis asserts special creation, then goes on to say that each animal is of its own kind.
In this view, there is no tree of life, but rather something directly akin to dragging a comb across the sand: their is no joining inheritance relationships.
Consequently, it directly follows that, for instance, we are completely unrelated to chimpanzees, that there is absolutely no continuity between us and them.
Conversely, evolution insists (correctly, if evidence is a thing about which we should be concerned) that we are related, and should, therefor, expect all manner of continuities proportional to relatedness.
The reason I used the term "optional" is not because I believe it is true, but rather because religionists are famous for extracting whatever meaning they require from the words at hand.
OJ has done so on this very subject.
Post a Comment