While we’re here anyway, a friend lobbed this at me from a forthcoming edition of Harper’s,. It may as well go in here as somewhere else, as there’s no link, just a footnote:
I believe that realizing we are apes is a crucial part of enlightenment. Until we see the extent to which our behavior, institutions, culture, and ethics are the product of ape biology, we can have no true understanding of ourselves. I am fascinated by how political the lives of chimps are, and how much they are defined by tyranny and revolt. When a leader or a bully exerts relentless force over a group, the group lives in fear. There is submission but also constant deceit and subterfuge among those trying to find some small satisfaction behind the back of the alpha. – Colin McAdam, “Memoir,” Harper’s Magazine, Feb. 2014
Some people seem deadly serious in believing that ape biology, not a tendency to do things we know are wrong, is our problem.
And on the face of it, which of the two explanations is more logical? Apes have ape biology yet can’t do wrong because they don’t recognize the concept. Would we behave better if we had had, say squid biology? Or insect biology?
The friend tells me that a friend of his was converted to Christianity by experiencing actual apes, afer years of fancying himself one. It’s happened elsewhere too.
A conversion to Christianity? Doubtless, but not so fast.
I call it a conversion to reality first. One can only consider the claims of a coherent philosophy or religion if one is prepared to see oneself and one’s life as it is. At one time, people imagined themselves to be gods, saints, or heroes, and conversion meant getting over that. But times change, and it can’t be a good change that they imagine themselves an ape. – O’Leary for News
To “realize” that we’re “only” apes is a denigration of everything that makes us uniquely human. Obviously, we’re not satisfied with crashing about in forests, munching on fruit and the occasional infant monkey, and mating or defecating whenever and wherever the urge to do so strikes.
So what could possibly be the purpose of this scholarly enlightenment? Is it to promote the idea that humans are nothing special and will not be held accountable for our actions and attitudes?
-Q
“News” (which I guess in this case is Denyse) what makes you think that they are mutually exclusive? We do things wrong – one of the many reasons is that we are apes and share some behaviour traits with other apes. Yet again an IDist is confusing the cause of moral behaviour with the justification. Is it so very hard to understand?
Mr. Frank, and, other than you presonal druthers, exactly why is a Darwinist throwing ad hominem feces at anyone who disagrees with them morally wrong, whereas a chimp throwing actually feces at people not morally wrong?
Casey Luskin points out that the following anti-ID philosopher even goes so far as to publish a peer-reviewed paper saying that the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists are justified since many ID proponents happen to be Christian:
Anti-ID Philosopher: “Ad hominem” Arguments “Justified” When Attacking Intelligent Design Proponents – Casey Luskin – June 4, 2012
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....60381.html
She (a Journalist) said she was a creationist. Then the firestorm began. – December 27, 2013
Excerpt: Q: What adjectives would you use to describe the reaction?
Angry, defensive, fearful, histrionic, sometimes misogynistic, hazing. Something more than an academic argument about cosmology and consciousness was at stake.,,,
http://www.al.com/living/index.....onist.html
Darwinists protesting too much (Over “Darwin’s Doubt) – Telling signs of a worldview in trouble – By Subby Szterszky | July 23, 2013
Excerpt: “Their online followers echo the disrespect in even harsher tones; any rare voice of dissent in support of Meyer is promptly browbeaten into silence. The attitude is not unlike a bunch of insecure schoolyard bullies, closing ranks and reassuring each other by trading insults aimed at the uncool kid across the yard.”
http://www.focusinsights.org/a.....g-too-much
“In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ”
Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyAOCesHv0
Why do humans want to be related to apes? To me that is the strangest part of being an evolutionist- they actually want to be related to apes. I say that because the “evidence” that we are related is directly proportioanl to that want.
Well Joe, according to the latest evolutionary pig/chimp (PIMP) hypothesis, based on comparative anatomy, and many women would probably tend to agree at least for men, humans are more closely related to pigs than to monkeys,, 🙂
Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article showing that the pig-chimp (PIMP) hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than neo-Darwinists had first supposed it would be:
Supplemental notes:
We are related to apes in the design and engineering sense. This is why apes and humans have so much genetic material in common. Why should the designers reinvent a huge genetic design database from scratch? Reuse is a mark of both intelligence and design.
This is a great quote:
Comparing us to apes only insults the apes.
Of course, you are spot on.
bornagain77 mentioned that
Some people think that
Apparently, we even taste like pork according to informed sources.
-Q