Chimps are people too?

Take a look at this photo of an apple and a pear. Wouldn’t you say that even a 3-year old will be able to tell you that they are different? Do you need learned scientists with big degrees behind their names to conduct all sorts of elaborate tests of their composition, juiciness, mineral content, DNA structures etc. to tell you they are simply not the same?

(Photo by Flickr member Monikahoinkis)

And yet, I saw this highly-touted “documentary of the week” on Channel News Asia recently, where they tried to argue that chimps are actually the same as human beings. The title of the documentary was; Chimps are People Too. It was produced by Horizon and presented by Danny Wallace, a British Comedian and writer. To make sure I really understood where these people are coming from, I recorded the show and watched it a second time.


Danny Wallace travels to many places and interviews a number of experts in areas, and here are some of his conclusions:

1) Dongo National Park, Africa – Wallace spends a full day here observing the behaviour of chimps in the natural environment. He learns that chimps could make a variety of sounds. They can even communicate sentences like “I found really good food.” His conclusion? Chimps have the “beginnings of a language”.

“Look into the eyes of a chimp. You do get this weird sense of recognition. So this make me think, that more and more, really, in my opinion, chimps are people.”

2) Philosopher – Next Wallace speaks to a philosopher, and learns that a full grown adult chimp has a lot of sophisticated awareness of itself and its environment. It is more advanced than a new born child. His conclusion?

“It just might be possible that chimps could be people too.”

3) Sexual attraction – Next Wallace goes to Cambridge University and learns about a ‘ground breaking experiment’ where 3 women are asked to sniff the dirty T-shirts of 3 male subjects – 2 men and a chimp, and choose the one each found the most attractive. All three women found T-shirt B to be not very attractive or unattractive. In other words, they could not tell the difference.

So what? I am completely lost??? Have they tried a similar experiment with a bear or a cat or a donkey?

4) Chimp Trainer in Hollywood. This guy trains chimps to do ‘human things’ like nod head (good), shake head (bad), do hand signals, bare teeth etc. He treats his chimps like 5-year olds and even disciplines them. Wallace’s conclusion?

“What they were doing were people-like. They looked fairly human. I’m not sure if it’s enough.”

4) Geneticist. Chimps and human share 99.4% of DNA and are almost identical genetically. He believes that the difference is due to ‘thousands and thousands of years of culture.’

“Layers and layers of culture which we build up over thousands and thousands of years that make us increasingly more sophisticated. If you take them outside that cultural context, you might find that their behaviour is a little bit more like a chimpanzee.”

5) Primate Center in Atlanta. Here Wallace asks the question, “Do chimps have culture.” Here he observes chimps learning 2 different methods of getting M&M’s from a device which required them to lift or poke something. His conclusion?

“The experiment proves absolutely that chimps have a capacity for culture and pass it on to each other down the generation

6) Bonobos – Wallace’s final visit was to a centre which studied bonobos (pygmy chimpanzee) by treating them like humans. Wallace finds that he could communicate with the Bonobos through some kind of computer software, play with them and even ‘bonds’ with one them. He is completely convinced.

And his parting words.

“Ultimately, I think all this is a question of potential. Give them time. Again …
So should they be treated as if they are people too? Well that’s up to the chimps that got there first: Us.”

And my conclusion: Danny Wallace certainly has a great deal of faith in his ‘religion’ – Evolution. He sets out fully convinced that humans evolved from chimps. He looks for the slightest hint of similarity and declares it as scientific proof. If this is not evidence of faith, I don’t know what is.


Interesting, I also saw an hour-long video webcast of a studio discussion about this same show which involved a panel of experts here. Surprisingly, a straw poll amongst the audience indicated that more people believed that chimps are not people after watching the show than before watching the show.

During the discussion, one of the panelists, Dr. Mark Thomas, a human evolutionary geneticist at University College London said that it was over-simplistic and misleading to attach too much to this 99.4% similarity in DNA of humans and chimp, because bananas have 60% and rats and more than 90% similarity in their DNA with humans.

As for me, I believe that for such a simple question, there is no need for scientific tests. What constitutes human-ness anyway …. looks, behaviour and personality perhaps?

(Photo by Flickr member Gandalf Grey)

- Does this chimp look 99.4% human?

- Does he behave 99.4% like a human? Can he talk, reason, argue, write, read, design equipment 99.4% like a human? (Of course evolutionists say; give the guy a couple of million years, and he will. But then, we won’t be around to verify that would we?)

- Can he devise elaborate systems to capture and enslave other chimpanzees and ship them half way around the world to be sold for profit?

- Can he look up to the night sky and be so captivated by its beauty and order that he is moved to write words like these in praise of his creator?

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth forth His handiwork.” [Psalm 19:1]

So then, why do these brilliant scientists go to such pains to deceive themselves? I think the answer is found in something the apostle Paul wrote nearly two thousand years ago.

“Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” [Romans 1: 19–22, New International Version]

Einstein and Faraday are Scientifically Illiterate

Gay activist and widely-adored blogger, Alex Au would have you believe that anyone who believes in Creationism is stubborn, stupid and ‘scientifically illiterate’.

In a lengthy article titled, Man at Faregate Refutes Creationism, in his website Yawning Bread, he argues that unlike the Theory of Evolution, the Creation Model simply does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

But the fact is that there are many scientists (see list here) who believe in Creationism, including Albert Einstein who said:

“The religious feeling of the scientist takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law – which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection”.

Many of the great scientists of the past, like Michael Faraday, Isaac Newton, and William Thompson Kelvin were Bible-believing men who saw no conflict between their Christian faith and their scientific careers. It was Newton who spoke of “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”. Believing in an ordered, well-planned Universe, a number God-fearing scientists have made immense contributions to scientific discovery. The belief in design and purpose in the Universe prompted such men and women to understand better the order already placed in the Universe.

Yes, one can argue that many of these scientists lived before Darwin’s time. And, while it is true that many Christians have succumbed to the onslaught of evolutionary thinking and twisted the words of the bible to conform to the populist views, many others have the courage to scrutinize evolution theories and have come to the conclusion that evolution is as religious an assumption as special creation.

My Views of the CNA Documentary, War On Science

INTRODUCTION

The Sunday before last, I saw the documentary, War on Science on Channel News Asia. From what was promised in the many trailers that they showed, I was expecting a balanced presentation of the two opposing theories of origins, Evolution and Intelligent Design, leaving the viewer to make up his own mind. In fact, I thought the title was, War OF Science. How naïve of me. The documentary turned out to be an indictment of the Creationists’ proposal that there is ample scientific evidence to support the view point that life on this planet did not evolve from lifeless chemicals, but was created by a presumably superior being. I think the show should more aptly be titled, Intelligent Design: Religion Masquerading as Science.


IN A NUTSHELL

This is what the show says.

1) In 1859, Charles Darwin published the Theory of evolution to explain the origin of species. All reputable scientists today accept this as a fact of science.

2) The Theory of Evolution contradicts the account of creation as given in the Book of Genesis in the Bible, where God was supposed to have created all life on earth supernaturally in 6 literal days.

3) Fearing an abandonment of the Christian faith, Christian fundamentalists came up with a new theory to explain the origin of life called Intelligent Design. Through not entirely honorable means they tried to compel some schools in the US to teach this new ‘pseudo science’ alongside Evolution.

4) A United States federal court recently ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that Intelligent Design is an alternative to Evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

5) Even the Catholic church accepted the Theory of Evolution, saying it did not contradict Catholic doctrine. The documentary even hinted that Creationists have manipulated one prominent Catholic bishop to publish an article in a reputable newspaper denouncing the Theory of Evolution.


MY THOUGHTS

1) To their credit, the producers did attempt to give an accurate explanation of Intelligent Design and its 2 supporting concepts Irreducible complexity and Specified complexity through interviews with prominent protagonists. Basically, I think the argument is that life is so complicated that it must be the work of an intelligent designer (aka God) rather than the result of evolution. Statistically, it was impossible for life to evolve.

2) The arguments put forward by one of the expert witnesses (Miller) to refute this was accepted by the court. But frankly, I was unable to follow his explanation. But that is my problem; I concede.

3) To be fair, I personally believe there is some truth in the accusation that Creationists are somewhat biased because they approach the issue with a pre-conceived assumption that “there is a God”. Thus, when they look at the facts, they are looking for evidence to support their assumption. I admit I am like that. I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Whilst it is not a book of science or history, what is recorded cannot be contradicted by science or history. Hence, when I read of scientific explanations which support this view, I feel vindicated.

4) Now I come to what I think is the biggest flaw of this documentary. It refuses to acknowledge that evolutionists are guilty of exactly the same bias. They claim to be non-religious, but yet they begin with the assumption that “There is no God”. David Attenborough said on the programme that Evolution is based on scientific observation and analysis. It can explain the majority of natural processes. Where it can’t, we should admit our ignorance and try to learn the truth, and not conveniently attribute it to an almighty God.

Well, I think the truth is closer to this. Evolution can explain only a small fraction of natural processes. In the majority of cases where it can’t, evolutionists simply bring out their magic wand called ‘millions of years’. Creationists say, "With God, nothing is impossible". Evolutionists say, "With Time, anything is possible".

For example, evolutionists say that man evolved from apes. Has anyone seen it? Can it be replicated? Of course not! Why? Because it takes millions of years. But it has to be, otherwise it would mean that there is a God. Isn’t that what you call ‘faith’?

By the way, where are all the ‘missing links’ between apes and men? Why should links be missing in the first place?

5) One final point. I think that part about the Catholic Church’s (and Pope John Paul in particular) acceptance of Evolution does not belong in a scientific debate of this nature. The Catholic Church’s views of this matter ought to be discussed in a religious/spiritual forum, which I shall do in my other blog.

An Act of Faith

Today I came across, in the Straits Times, one of the stupidest statements I ever read.

Of course it an act of faith. We are talking about a religious book here; not the Handbook of Fluid Mechanics. If you are looking for so-called ‘fairy tales’; the Bible is full of them. You don’t need to go to the New Testament. Right in the very first chapter of the very first book of the Bible, the Book of Genesis, you can find lots of such unbelievable statements. Here are some examples:

And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)

And if you go down a few more chapters, you find that Adam and his descendents all lived to several hundred years of age! Incredible!




And then of course there is the story of Noah’s Ark, the target of countless jokes; like this one.

Anyone who believes such crap must be crazy or stupid, or both. Every modern, intelligent, educated person knows that the universe came about from a Big Bang; and that man evolved from apes, which evolved from fish, which evolved from a single cell amoeba.

Now; coming back to this man Jesus. If he cannot even walk on water, how on earth can we expect him to raise us from our graves. Yes; that is what he claimed - that one day, he will return to this earth and resurrect all the dead who have put their trust in him. Well you either believe him by faith; or you can conclude like Mr McKellen, that he was a big con man or even a lunatic.

What is this thing called ‘faith’ anyway. Well the bible defines it this way in Hebrews 11:1:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

A good example of a man with such ‘blind’ faith was Job who lived in the Old Testament times. This was what he said:

For I know that my redeemer liveth,
And that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
And though after my skin worms destroy this body,
Yet in my flesh shall I see God.
(Job 19: 25, 26)

Of course Mr McKellen is too intelligent to believe such ‘fiction’. He doesn’t believe in faith. He only believes in what is visible and scientifically proven and tested - like this account of how the Grand Canyon was formed.

Once upon a time, long, long ago, in a land far, far away ..... Wait a minute. That’s not correct. Only fairy tales begin that way. Let’s start again.


“Prior to about 35 million years ago the ancestral Colorado River flowed across a vast plain, along a course very similar to that of today.

When the Kaibab Plateau began to uplift approximately 35 million years ago the river was diverted to the southeast because it could not cross newly created barrier. The new course for the river now flowed out to the Gulf of Mexico instead of to the Pacific Ocean. The old course on west side of the Kaibab Plateau, the Hualapai Drainage System, continued to be a major drainage for the plateau itself and the regions west of it.

At some point around 12 million years ago, the river's course to the Gulf of Mexico became blocked and an enormous lake, know referred to as Lake Bidahochi, was formed as a result.

Meanwhile, on the western side of the Kaibab Plateau, a process known as "headwater erosion" began eating its way through the southern portion of the plateau. After millions of years this erosional process allowed the Hualapai system to break through the barrier created by the uplifted plateau and rejoin the ancestral Colorado.

Once the break-through was complete the ancestral Colorado River began to follow the new course becuase of its steeper and more desirable descent. The waters of Lake Bidahochi began to drain through the new course as well and the result is the gorge through which the Little Colorado River now flows. The combined flow of the Colorado River and the Little Colorado River west of their confluence continued to widen and deepen the course and created the Grand Canyon."

Please tell me, it is not an act of faith to believe all that.

Miracles Do Happen

Good news everyone. Miracles do happen.

With one swish (or more) of his magic wand called time, a scientist can turn a fish into a four-legged land mammal. A couple more swishes, the mammal becomes a monkey and then a man.


This is called evolution. Your see it in the news every day. Channel News Asia has many exciting programmes about it. They even teach it in schools.

The following is an article from the Straits Times, dated Friday April 7. 2006.

“SCIENTISTS have discovered fossils of a fish that lived 375 million years ago, a large scaly creature not seen before that they say is a long-sought “missing link” in the evolution of some fishes from living in water to walking on four limbs on land. ………

The team said the fossils are the most compelling examples yet of an animal at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod (four-legged land animals) transition. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, as suggested by elders of Canada’s Nunavut Territory. Tiktaalik means “large shallow-water fish”. "