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

First of all, "So long, and thanks for all the fish."

Regarding the type of intelligence we have compared to animals, certainly if the dolphins drew up the test, they would include echolocation, and we would appear to be idiots. And this has parallels in neuroanatomy where the portions of the mammalian brain responsible for things like this are enlarged in dolphins compared to us. But, if there is any objective criteria the EQ is one of them, and despite a brain that is quite different than ours, our brain size compared to our body size is still larger than dolphins, easily, but they are clearly second, (and rats cant compare to birds, so Doug Adams got that wrong.)

But this is a difference in degree and not kind. My contention is that humans differ in kind because of the presence of an eternal soul, whether or not this is accessible to objective observation or not.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Merv
  To: David Opderbeck ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:50 PM
  Subject: 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> 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 18:56:29 2008