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

David,
 
This clever retort only reveals your eco-centrism. If the dolphins drew up
the test it would be more like you being thrown overboard in open sea, and
then see how your intellect and computer skills help you breathe underwater
and catch fish in their environment. Bet you wouldn't be so eager to take it
then.
 
Still waiting... Still waiting... :)
 
Thanks
 
John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 10:51 PM
To: Jack
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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 <mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: David Opderbeck <mailto: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 Sun Feb 24 08:08:43 2008