Culture Darwinism Human evolution Intelligent Design News

So to whom is it news humans are unique? Why?

Spread the love

In response to Vincent Torley’s Leading thinker on human evolution admits: we’re more than just an ape,
Anaxagoras
writes at 2:

I feel reassured that at least some scientists understand that humans are unique.

Most laymen allready knew that.

Yes, and that’s the critical mass of the stinking corruption that infests science media on this subject today: Everyone knows it’s true, yet science media continue to shovel garbage at us, such as that chimpanzees are entering the Stone Age or can handle high-level abstractions. No one is supposed to ask: If so, why are they still swinging in the trees?

If the purveyors of this stuff are sane, they must realize that it cannot be true. But they must also know that they can make the world believe it. And compel tax support for it. And compel it to be taught in schools.

Well, at least they are right about their ability to do that stuff, if about nothing else.

Cf. Taiwan vet commits suicide over putting dogs to sleep ( “A (human) life is no different from a dog’s; I will die from the same drugs that we use to put dogs peacefully to sleep.”)

and

Nearly half of Americans now think humans are not special

See also: Darwin’s “horrid doubt”: The mind

4 Replies to “So to whom is it news humans are unique? Why?

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    AMEN. since chimps will disappoint as to ability despite how many research papers tHEN they will drop it.
    I know in language stuff, like this Chomsky guy, they invoke sudden mutation of genes to explain the language leap.
    So I think they will drop the apes is us thing. Embracing genes as having changed things.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Human exceptionalism is just as dangerous as any other sort of exceptionalist thinking. Just look at human history to see what happens when one group of people gets to thinking they are better than all the rest. Perhaps VJT would like to post an OP discussing that.

  3. 3

    Seversky advances the idea that humans are equal and one group is not exceptional in comparison to another; how can Seversky justify such a notion? Obviously, as a matter of physical fact, some humans are indeed exceptional in various arenas – intellectually, physically, etc. Some are exceptional wrt interpersonal relationships, some are exceptional motivators or public speakers. Etc.

    The only premise that allows for the notion that one group of humans are not exceptional in comparison to another in any essential way is a spiritual premise that humans are somehow metaphysical equals.

    Humans are obviously – at least right now – the top of the food chain. We are obviously exceptional in a very meaningful way when it comes to comparing us to any other known life form. Our capacity for abstract reasoning is indeed factually exceptional because it (our intellect) puts us on top of the food chain despite not being the physical equal of many other creatures.

    What premise can justify Seversky’s notion that humans are not exceptional animals when it comes to all life forms on the planet? Is there some other animal that can send rockets into space, build mile-high towers and fashion habitats to survive in virtually any condition? In many objectively measurable ways, humans are factually exceptional creatures.

    Does Seversky think there is some danger in simply admitting what is obviously true – that some humans are exceptional, and that humans themselves, in general, are exceptional in very significant ways compared to other animals?

    From where does Seversky derive this patently, provably false idea of strict equality for all life-forms?

  4. 4

    One also wonders why seversky considers it “dangerous” or points (rather vaguely) to examples in history of “what happens” when one group considers itself exceptional. Well, in the case of, say, Europeans and Native Americans, one group was in fact exceptional in ways that gave them a clear advantage over the other.

    Isn’t this what happens in evolution? Those with an evolutionary advantage supplant those that are inferior competitors in the environment? Isn’t it only “dangerous” for those who cannot adequately compete? Is there some spiritual reason we should not embrace the survival and thriving of the exceptional as they supplant those less competitively successful?

Leave a Reply