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

Well, "42".

But why echolocation? And I'll be first in line to take the test, once the
dolphins work up the questions, do the statistical validation, program it in
a web-based app, and send me a password.

Still waiting. Still waiting.....

On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> 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 <mrb22667@kansas.net>
> *To:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; 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 22:52:00 2008