It is problematic if someone defines us wholly as being merely primates. I have no issue with classifying us as such but to do so alone is disingenuous. There is something about us that evolution has no answer for. Why are our ancestors still using sticks as their greatest tools and we build particle accelerators? Saying humans are merely primates is like saying the 9th symphony is merely vibrations. This is a theological forum so I am pointing out the deficiencies in calling us merely animals.
Yes, and i was addressing a theological problem. Mainly, what does it mean to be in the image of God? So, my question to you is: why did God decide to use apes as a design model for the most important creation of His and not, say, elephants, whales or velociraptors?
Apart from the possible logistic problems concerning the redeemer of elephants being crucified, i don't see any reason, given that dinos were pretty promising and whales and dolphins are not so bad either.
So, maybe, apes are not so bad, after all. There must be something about them, that God likes better from the design point of view. And who wants to criticize the ultimate designer?
To some it might but that would not change the fact it is a brute fact. We are different in ways that have no parallels known in the entire history of evolution. If I use the bible to make predictions this difference between us and chimps is exactly what I would have predicted.
Well yes, of course, given that the bible has not been written by chimps, I presume.
I grant we have many similarities but I am saying the similarities are theologically trivial and irrelevant. We are not having a genetic debate but a theological one. So I am pointing out what is theologically significant in the great chasm hat separates us from the merely animal. I am not denying our connection but it is not really applicable.
Thank you for granting the obvious. And, as I said, this is theologically relevant. But you are begging the question I think. You single ourselves out because of our "intelligence". But there are things we cannot do, while other animals can. Probably, if there were shark theologians, they would invoke their superiority against any other inhabitant of the ocean and the big chasm that exists between their teeth and the ones of the other fishes.
Our evolution from primitive brute to astronaut has been in a geological instant. NO other instant in evolutionary history is similar. A distant second would be the Cambrian explosion but even it's massive changes pale in comparison. I see you wanting a genetic debate and I am not interested or qualified to do so. My arguments is this. Which explain human reality better.
1. Naturalism alone.
2. God without naturalistic processes at all.
3. Nature plus a mysterious and seemingly miraculous force which has no natural explanation.
I think 3 is the best argument. Please make your argument relevant to that question. You do not have to but I really find genetic debates too boring to engage in one I am not qualified to have.
Yes 3 works. It was very effective to explain lightnings, earthquakes and rainbows in the past, too.
The problem, of course, is that explanations tend to move from the spiritual to the material. The contrary never happens, for some reason.
I do not think brain size does explain intelligence. Other brutes of nature have larger brains than us. That is my point, there is something about us nature does not sufficiently explain alone. That is not even an arrogant claim because our levels of evil are also not explained by nature. We are remarkable to the nth degree from all other known life forms be it good or bad. We have to account for this disparity and nature is of little help.
i hope you are kidding. Nature cannot explain our level of evil...as nature cared or had a concept of evil, which is a mere human/biological construct. Nature does not care about anything. The closest thing to purpose we have is to spread our genes. As long as we are not on the verge of extinction this purpose is fulfilled, if it were a purpose. With evil or not, whatever that means.
And if we are eally so "evil" to cause our extinction...who cares if not us only?
Actually I studied feral children for a bit. They would be expected to have limitations but those who were assimilated back into society displayed all manner of abilities no animal has. I am making a generalized point that partial exceptions have no effect on. The human race is astronomically more capable than any other. I have every reason to expect that given God and no reason to expect it given evolution alone.
Sure. They have to be reprogrammed. I don't contest that. Even the most primitive members of some tribe in new Guinea can be trained to be a physicist or an astronaut. But suppose that they are not reintegrated, do you think they will be able in no time to reinvent averything we did?
No, they will start with sticks and stone and guttural noises, if they are smart enough.
That is true. Chemistry and biology bore my to tears. Bored or not, I have seen many debates primarily on evolutionary morality and a best they are educated guesses that do not account for human behavior as well as God in many of those who are not as ignorant as I in these matters. It appears to me to be the result of assuming evolution can explain everything and doing a poor job in the attempt to force it to.
Belief in God or gods or some external forces is an adaptation too. Therefore, it is not surprising that it promises extensions to fight our survival instinct, aka immortality, and things like our innate need of reciprocity, aka justice, or how we should behave for our sake, aka morality. So, i am not sure what you are saying.
Ciao
- viole