Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

Since I have only been sipping from the "fire-hose stream" of even just
this thread, I risk repeating someone else's points. But here goes...

The thought that we are different from animals only in degree and not in
kind is very rationally appealing. I love the late D. Adam's satire of
all this in his "Hitch-hiker's Guide..." in which humans are commonly
known to be the third most intelligent species on earth --- after rats
and dolphins. (we are being experimented on...to see what kinds of
amusing puzzles we will build for the rats -- you know, cute little
mazes and all that.) Seriously, though, why do we so easily buy into
the assumption that "man is the measure of all things"? If smelling
out a raccoon was a major test of intelligent capabilities, then we come
in well after dogs and probably a host of other species as well. Isn't
it convenient that we get to determine what questions are on the
proverbial test for intelligence? And wouldn't you know, we come in
first place!!! We simply have no objective reference point to draw any
conclusions. All we can say is that in the quality of "humanness", we
seem to be the clear winners.

Having noted the appealing rationality of "degree" over "kind", however,
this does seem rather Biblically clear --the other way. But do those who
favor "degree" then hold that "image of God" is something inaccessible
to objective observation? We have traditionally trotted out some
combination of "ability to reason" or "moralizing" or "advanced
cognitive development" as being the obvious choices for how we are the
"image of God". Are those, then, all taken to be red herrings away
from the greater spiritual truth?

  I don't think it has to preclude that God may work at other levels and
with other species (or whether or not animals go to heaven). But we
have faith that God sees us as at least "a" special creation if not
"the" pinnacle of creation. Would it be so theologically unsound to
afford more strength to the "what is man that out art mindful" side of
the equation? Jesus speaks to how we are much more valuable than many
sparrows, --and he has no problems eating fish and generally
participating in the culture of his day. So Christians are in no
position to start worrying about equating the killing of an animal to
the murder of a human. But I don't think this precludes that each of
God's creations couldn't be special to him in their own way and after
their own kind; after all Jesus premises his above conclusion with
"Not one of them falls to the ground apart from the will of the Father."
which he obviously saw as an a priori sentiment among his listeners.

--Merv

David Opderbeck wrote:
> On the works of art thing -- yes, we can't truly know an elephant's
> "mind". We can, however, observe and record the external indicia of
> elephant "culture." There is absolutely nothing in elephant, bird,
> monkey, or any other culture other than human, that suggests a
> capacity for sustained ethical reflection. I don't think you'll find
> any competent ape scientist who will argue that apes could construct a
> Shakespearian sonnet, or even a crude limerick. Again, show me the
> Ape Aristotle and I'll change my tune. OTOH, the fact that we can't
> truly know an ape's mind means that it isn't adequate to argue that
> "maybe apes really think thus-and-so" without pointing to some related
> circumstantial evidence.
>
> As to differences of "degree" and "kind" -- the argument about human
> infants and disabled people misses the potentiality principle. Yes, I
> think there is no gainsaying that a newborn infant's capacity for
> ethical reflection differs in kind from a full grown adults -- that's
> developmental psychology. But that doesn't mean a newborn infant
> isn't "human," because of the potentiality principle. An ape, in
> contrast, has no potential to develop the intellectual and emotional
> capacity of a human adult. (The question whether, over deep time,
> apes could evolve into creatures with human capacities is a different
> issue, because by definition you are then talking about changes in
> kind over time, not changes in individuals over lifetimes).
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Christine Smith
> <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com <mailto:christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> If I might interject...I largely concur with Burgy in
> that I see differences in morality, emotions,
> rationality, etc. between us and animals in terms of
> degree, not kind...by that I mean that fundamentally,
> the root of animals' and humans' "intangible"
> qualities are the same i.e. they are of the same kind,
> and that animals are simply less advanced in these
> areas than humans are i.e. they're are differences in
> degree.
>
> To your point/question regarding why animals don't
> produce great writings, works of art, etc. A couple of
> thoughts--one, to remind you of what you yourself
> wrote, how do we know what is in an animals' mind? In
> truth, our assumptions are nothing more or less than
> guesses. Who knows---when a bird sings a song, who
> says that there isn't more to it than just attracting
> a mate? If apes were biologically capable of writing,
> maybe they would write poetry? Since we are not a bird
> or an ape, we will never know for sure. I say this,
> not because I actually believe that birds and apes are
> talking about the meaning of life when they sing a
> song or grunt, but only to point out that your
> critique goes both ways--we can't assume that they
> experience life in the same depth that we do, but then
> again, we can't assume they don't. Secondly, as has
> been pointed out in other threads, infants and
> mentally disabled individuals also cannot write poetry
> or talk about the meaning of life or fall in love in
> the same way normal adult speak of these things--would
> you also say that because of these biological
> incapabilities, they also are different in kind, and
> not just degree, from other humans?
>
> I think the bottom line difference here between myself
> (and Burgy?) and you is our understanding of what it
> means to be created in the image of God? As I recall,
> it is the same Hebrew word for "breath of life" that
> God breathed into both humans and animals--thus, the
> ONLY distinction between us and animals is this
> "image" and what that means...from my point of view,
> this image refers to our ability, like God's, to claim
> lordship...God has delegated to us lordship
> (stewardship) of creation--we have been tasked by God
> within certain parameters, to rule the world and the
> creatures in it. We have a functional role in creation
> that is different *in kind*, not just *degree* than
> animals--both Genesis 1 & 2 testify to this function.
> To be equipped for that task, we had to possess a
> higher *degree* of advancement in emotional, ethical,
> and rational capabilities than other animals do, and
> so we evolved in a way that brought these abilities
> out from within us--in fact, I'd argue that having
> evolved along with and from the rest of God's
> creatures, it would be a better guess to assume that
> they have the same (potential) innate emotions,
> ethical nature, and rational capacities that we do,
> than to guess that they don't. It has just been
> according to God's plan and purpose that we were
> designated for this special function, and equipped
> accordingly.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 23 13:52:19 2008