Hard to know what to make of this abstract and paper:
Abstract Some contemporary theories about the origin and the nature of language resort to concepts with no bearing on Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis or evo-devo perspective which are both based on the reconstruction of species morphological structure transformation. These theories, which evoke qualitative leap, cultural evolution, structure/function coevolution as esplicative principles for human evolution, in our opinion, result compatible in some points with the most recent Intelligent Design (ID) accounts. Attempting to substantiate itself as a scientific theory, the contemporary ID is ready to give up (or suspend) creationist explanation just to impeding Darwin’s fundamental idea according to which it’s possible to explain evolution only through a gradual material modification of structures. For comprehending a complex phenomenon as human language – according to ID – it’s necessary appealing to a second substance, whatever it is. This idea seems to be at the bottom of all those theories which have rejected monistic structural explanation (modification of physiological structures) for embracing functional, psychological or cultural accounts. We consider these kinds of explanation real unresolved residuals of ID, residuals nested in the heart of the most accredited scientific theories.
– Pennisi, A., & Falzone, A. (2014). Residuals of Intelligent Design in Contemporary Theories about Language Nature and Origins. HUMANA.MENTE Journal of Philosophical Studies, 7(27), 161-180.
They seem to have grasped that human language cannot be accounted for in Darwinian terms and they are mad about it. But it’s a fact.
See also: The real reason why only human beings speak: Language is a tool for abstract thinking—a necessary tool for abstraction—and humans are the only animals who think abstractly. (Michael Egnor)