Biblical Discussions

The Knowledge of Make Believe


Everybody ‘believes’. It is as completely human to believe certain things, just as it is to know certain things, and very often the distinction between the two is very blurry. Even those of you who would tell me that the only things we could know for sure are those things that can be scientifically, empirically shown to be true. These people are expressing a belief. Their very assertion is one of blind faith and it is even self-refuting. It cannot be empirically verified and therefore there is no reason to accept it as true under its own criteria. They believe by faith that their dogma is true, and by that belief undermine the very foundation they attempt to build.

Like it or not, we all believe. Even when the things we believe have been determined by empirical evidence, this is usually based not on our own observations of the evidence, but on acceptance of the findings of others. This is especially so in this increasingly specialized world.

The study of why we believe/know the things we believe/know is called epistemology. We believe some things by social/cultural conditioning, they are the things we have been taught to believe. We believe them because our parents, our culture or someone we respect or who was possibly influential in our lives believed them. We generally call this conformity and so many vehemently reject this label.

We also believe some things out of pure contrariness to what others believe. We might like to label this as non-conformity although some might call it rebellion, often in reaction to beliefs of parents or teachers, regardless of its credibility or lack thereof.

Like it or not, we all believe.

If we are honest, we would have to admit that even some of the things we ‘know’ to be true, are actually beliefs we have absorbed from the common consensus of our family, culture, club, college or congregation. This is knowledge that we have absorbed passively or under pressure. The approval of our peers, acceptance, funding, prestige, promotion and fear can all be powerful influences on what we choose to believe.

Most people will go beyond these factors to personally think through and verify the reasons why they believe certain things- but that is far too few. In regards to the really important questions such as where we come from, purpose in life, existence or extinction beyond the grave and so on we just assume that which has been impressed upon us.

The answers to these questions are literally a matter of life and death; both physically and temporally; spiritually and eternally, if our existence does indeed continue beyond the grave. But even in these important categories, there are so many facets involved, that to some degree or another, we will always believe certain things to be true based on the authority of others. The reason we choose to believe these authority figures may be due to their academic credentials, their fame, their ability to influence our personal circumstances, their leadership and communication skills, their achievements in life, how broadly their teachings have been accepted by society or many other possible criteria. This is true of both religious and secular belief systems.

These perceived authority figures have included such people as Plato, Aristotle, Hitler, Muhammad, Marx, Darwin, Freud, Oprah and even Jesus Christ. Probably the most common basis of belief, whether the faithful like to admit it or not, is that the ‘majority’ (as in “everybody knows” or “most scientists accept”) believe it. Conforming to the beliefs and biases of our peers and contemporaries is a powerful motivator. Going against the flow of professional or public opinion incurs a cost that demotivates questioning the status quo. There is a feeling of strength and even invincibility in numbers that helps us avoid as unnecessary the need to research something objectively ourselves. In the current age of Facebook and Blogging, one can get many other individuals to echo your point of view and assist you in confronting anyone who dares posit a conflicting opinion. Based on these motives for belief, what are some of the great ‘falsehoods’ that ‘everybody’ has believed at different times in history?

In the religious realm, indulgences and scores of heavenly virgins awaiting martyrs (murderers) come to mind. Nevertheless, there have also been many dogmas in the scientific realm that have in the course of time been proven to be profound mistakes, but were accepted by the scientific elite and therefore by the public at large. These theories were zealously defended and opponents fiercely resisted until the body of evidence against them became too overwhelming for continued defense.

The Ptolemaic and Aristotelian idea of geocentrism, the theory that the earth was at the center of the universe and all the heavenly bodies revolved around it, is a famous case in point, believed for almost 2000 years. Most educated Greeks from about the 4th century BC, believed that the earth was a sphere around which the heavens revolved. As the Roman Catholic Church increased in influence from about the 4th century AD, it did so in a philosophical and scientific environment that had wholly accepted this system. Islamic astronomers later also accepted the model. As the heavens were increasingly explored and discovered, ever more complex models were developed to continue to prop up a geocentric system.

Due mainly to perceived philosophical implications, as Copernicus and Galileo developed their heliocentric models in the 16th and 17th centuries, they were strongly opposed by the Catholic church. It was the creationist Johannes Kepler who hit the final nail in the geocentric coffin with his combination of a heliocentric system and elliptical planetary motion.

Aristotle was also the most influential founder of another scientific view that held sway for 2,000 years before being proven false by another creationist. That theory was the spontaneous generation of life from non-life or abiogenesis. Without the benefit of modern microscopes, he believed that some plants and animals, under certain circumstances, were ‘self-generated’ and ‘grew spontaneously’. This was a theory that was accepted by the early evolution theorists as it provided a mechanism to get the evolutionary ball rolling. It was Louis Pasteur who by empirical experiment and observation finally put the myth of spontaneous generation to rest in the same year as Darwin’s publication of Origin of Species. Since then all biological and medical science, whether by evolutionists or creationists, is done on the assumption of biogenesis, that life only comes from life. This left evolutionists with a quandary of how life, upon which natural selection was to do its magical work, began. An evolutionist today still has to cling to some form of the unscientific notion of abiogenesis.

Big beliefs have big consequences and this is nowhere more evident than in the effect that Darwin’s ideas had on the western world’s perception of race in the 19th and 20th centuries. As the late Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist himself, recognized, although racism has always existed in some form or another, it was Darwinism that led to a profound increase in racist ideas and beliefs. Darwin predicted that if his theory were true, a subjugation and even extermination of the ‘lower races’ was inevitable. Most scientists of the late 19th through to the middle of the 20th century were Darwinian in their beliefs and promoted scientific racism as a logical consequence. Scientific racism, imperialism and rapacious colonialism became dominant themes of both sides of the turn of the 20th Century.

If ever a theory deserved to be abandoned based on its fruits, Darwinism is that theory, and yet while racism has been largely discarded, the core ideas remain. I guess in the minds of its adherents, the benefits of the theory, namely, the ‘death of God’, outweigh its inconvenient consequences like the millions killed in racial genocide last century. Darwinian evolution does not even have the benefit of empirical verification.

Perhaps you choose to believe in the dominant ideas of this age, foremost among them being evolution, largely for their cultural dominance. If so, you are in the good company of those who believed in geocentrism, abiogenesis and Darwinian race theory as well as many other ‘scientific’ discards that were once the ruling paradigms of their day.

I choose to believe the teachings of the most qualified and accredited individual to ever walk this earth, Jesus Christ the Son of God. The Creator, an authentic teacher, instant healer of disease and disability, raiser of the dead, calmer of the seas. He was the greatest non-conformer to the dominant ideas of this world and paid for it with His life. But in the most profound of His credentials, He arose from the grave. Millions have also gone against the dominant beliefs of their culture and age, to put their faith in Him and many have paid the ultimate price for their non-conformity.

We all ‘believe’ many things. As you look for solid ground upon which to place your faith, are you looking for reality or acceptance?


Charles Darwin’s birthday

Americans Support Teaching Students the Evidence For and Against Darwin’s Theory by Overwhelming Margin


Just in time for Charles Darwin’s birthday on February 12, a new nationwide survey reveals that 81% of American adults believe that “when teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution, biology teachers should cover both scientific evidence that supports the theory and scientific evidence critical of the theory.” Only 19% of Americans believe that “biology teachers should cover only scientific evidence that supports the theory.” Finally, parents are becoming aware of the BS that is being taught their children.

Support for teaching the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory is overwhelming regardless of age, gender, religious affiliation, geography, party affiliation,and household income:
79% of men and 83%of women support teaching the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory
85% of theists, 65% of atheists, and 79% of agnostics support
this approach.
79% of Democrats support teaching the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory,and so do 82% of independents and85% of Republicans.
85% of middle-aged Americans (ages 45-59) support teaching the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory,and so do 81% of young adults (ages 18-29) and senior citizens (ages 60 and older).

To read the full article:

Evillution, Intelligent Design, The Science of it All

Detailed Geology

Can plate tectonics happen quickly? Clues from mineral physics and Venus

I will admit that I am not an expert in this field- however, I have read two recent books on Geology and one on Paleogeology1. It doesn’t make me an expert, but it can at least help me explain some of the difficult terminologies and concepts that will follow in this article. I am happy to discuss anything in further detail with anyone – as long as I can use my reference books.

As far back as the early 1960s, it was known that for materials whose effective viscosity is described by an Arrhenius-like relationship2 the phenomenon of thermal runaway can potentially occur. The Arrhenius equation is a formula for the temperature dependence of reaction rates. It can be used to model the temperature variation of diffusion coefficients, creep rates, and many other thermally-induced processes/reactions. It also expresses the relationship between rate and energy.


The viscosity of such materials varies as e(E*/RT), where T is absolute temperature, E* is the activation energy, and R is the gas constant. A large variety of materials including silicate minerals behave in this manner. A graphic representation of the equation would be like this:

In particular, Gruntfest in 1963 showed that, with this type of temperature dependence of viscosity, both the deformation rate and the temperature of a viscous fluid layer subject to constant shear stress increase without limit, that is, it becomes out of control.3   What does this mean? It shows that what is required is that the time constant associated with viscous heating of rock material is much smaller than the characteristic thermal diffusion4 of the layer. Confusing? Read on.

Several investigators explored the possibility of thermal runaway of lithospheric slabs in the mantle in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Anderson and Perkins, for example, suggested that the widespread Cenozoic volcanism in the southwestern US might be a consequence of thermal runaway of chunks of lithosphere in the low viscosity upper mantle with resulting surges of melt expressed in episodes of volcanism at the surface. 5 Such lithospheric slabs, because of an average temperature some 1,000 K (1,340 F) or more lower than that of the upper mantle but with a similar chemical composition, are several percent denser than the surrounding rock and therefore have a natural ability to sink.

The gravitational body forces acting on a slab lead to high stresses, especially within the mechanical boundary layer surrounding the slab. As a slab sinks, most of its gravitational potential energy is released in the form of heat in these regions of high stress. If conditions are right, the weakening arising from heating can lead to an increased sinking rate, an increased heating rate, and greater weakening. This positive feedback can result in runaway.6

Experimental studies of the deformational behavior of silicate minerals over the last several decades (by a variety of secular and Biblical scientists) have revealed the strength of such materials also depends strongly on the state of stress. At shear stresses of the order of 10-3 times the low-temperature elastic shear modulus and temperatures of the order of 80% of the melting temperature, silicate minerals deform by a mechanism known as dislocation creep in which slip occurs along preferred planes in the crystalline lattice.7


(The above diagram kind of shows how the crystal shape can deform without losing its actual structure. Now how scientists can actually calculate this and determine it for a fact is a mystery to me, and I read all the articles and am trying to provide a summary for you folks. If you can’t make ‘hide nor hair’ of it then please read the articles referenced by 6 and 7 above and tell me how you can explain it better. All of the reference articles can be loaned to your local library or community college library. Thank you. LEM).

In this type of solid deformation, the deformation rate depends on the shear stress in a strongly nonlinear manner, proportional to the shear stress to approximately the third power. At somewhat higher levels of shear stress, these materials display a plastic yield behavior, where their strength decreases in an even more nonlinear way, in this case inversely with the deformation rate. When these stress-weakening mechanisms are combined with the temperature weakening discussed above, the potential for slab runaway from gravitational body forces is enhanced dramatically. A point many people fail to grasp is that these weakening mechanisms can reduce the silicate strength by ten or more orders of magnitude without the material ever reaching its melting temperature.7

(Basically what he is saying that with a large crystal silicate structure that is under a great deal of stress it can become a runaway structure without reaching it’s melting point).

The NASA Magellan mission to Venus in the early 1990s revealed that Earth’s sister planet had been globally resurfaced in the not so distant past via a catastrophic mechanism internal to the Venus mantle.8 Magellan’s high-resolution radar images showed evidence of extreme tectonic deformation that generated the northern highlands known as Ishtar Terra with mountains having slopes as high as 45°.9


(The outline of the United States is superimposed on the radiographic image of Ishtar Terra to give an indication of its size. It’s slopes are at a 45 degree angle. By comparison on the U.S. Interstate highway system the steepest grade allowed is 7 %


Some roads that I know of, the Wickenburg to Prescott highway, Salt River Canyon road, and the Guadalupe pass in Southwest New Mexico are up to 15% and have ‘runaway truck exits at most corners going down hill.)

More than half of the Venus surface had been flooded with basaltic lava to produce largely featureless plains except for linear fractures caused by cooling and contraction. Runaway sinking of the cold upper thermal boundary layer of the planet seems the most plausible mechanism to explain such catastrophism at the surface.10 Given such clear and tangible evidence for runaway in a planet so similar in size and composition as Venus, it is not unreasonable to consider lithospheric runaway as the mechanism behind the global scale catastrophism so apparent in the Earth’s Phanerozoic (of, relating to, or denoting the eon covering the whole of time since the beginning of the Cambrian period, and comprising the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras) sedimentary record.
Numerical methods now exist for modeling and investigating this runaway mechanism. Considerable challenge is involved, however, because of the extreme gradients in material strength that arise. 11,12 W.-S. Yang focused much of his Ph.D. thesis research effort at the University of Illinois on finding a robust approach for dealing with such strong gradients in the framework of the finite element method and an iterative multi-grid solver. He showed that what is known as a matrix dependent transfer multi-grid approach allows one to treat such problems with a high degree of success. Although his thesis dealt with applying this method to 3-D spherical shell geometry, he subsequently developed a simplified 2-D Cartesian version capable of much higher spatial resolution within current computer hardware constraints. 13





Figure 1. (Three snapshots from a 2-D mantle runaway calculation in a box 11,500 km wide by 2,890 km high at problem times of 5, 12.5, and 20 days. Arrows denote flow velocity and are scaled to the peak velocity ‘umax’. Contours denote temperatures in the upper panel and base 10 logarithm of viscosity in the lower panel of each frame. Numbers on the contours correspond to a scale from 0 to 10 for the range of values indicated beneath each plot. A viscosity of 1013 Pa-s, corresponding to the minimum value in the viscosity plots, represents a reduction in the viscosity by a factor of one billion relative to the strength of the rock material when the velocities are negligible. Much of the domain exhibits viscosity values near this minimum during the runaway episode. Deformation rate-dependent weakening, observed experimentally in silicate minerals, is the crucial physics underlying the runaway process.)

Note that runaway diapirs ( a domed rock formation in which a core of rock has moved upward to pierce the overlying strata) emerge from both top and bottom boundaries. The upwelling from the lower boundary releases gravitational potential energy stored in the hot buoyant material at the base of the mantle. Such upwelling’s from the bottom boundary have dramatic implications for transient changes in sea level during the Flood since they cause a temporary rise in the height of the ocean bottom by several kilometers.

Baumgardner showed that a 3-D spherical shell model of the Earth’s mantle initialized with surface lithospheric plates corresponding to an approximate Pangean configuration of the continents and bands of cold rock along the Pangean boundary yields a pattern of plate motions that resemble in a remarkable way the inferred Mesozoic-to-present plate motions for the Earth.14 This solution was obtained simply by solving the conservation equations for mass, momentum, and energy in this spherical shell domain starting from relatively simple but plausible initial conditions. Such a calculation confirms that a subduction driven mantle flow, with very few other assumptions, generates the style of plate motions recorded in the rocks of today’s ocean floor.

Although this calculation simply adopted the reduced viscosity observed in high resolution 2-D calculations during runaway, with continued improvements in computer technology it should soon be feasible to achieve the required resolution in the 3-D spherical model to capture the runaway behavior in a fully self-consistent fashion. The advantage of a 3-D spherical model, of course, is that its output can be compared directly with geological observation. Realization of this crucial objective is an extremely high priority for those who desire a credible defense of the Flood to a skeptical world. (Unfortunately, the computer industry is concentrating on tablets and play laptops instead of advancing high-end heavy duty computers.)




1 The Story of Earth: The First 4.5 Billion Years, from Stardust to Living Planet by Robert M. Hazen;

Geology by James Geikie and ; The Holocene: An Environmental History 2nd Edition by Neil Roberts.

2 Levine, I.N., Physical Chemistry, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 517–521, 1995.

3 Gruntfest, I.J., Thermal feedback in liquid flow; plane shear at constant stress, Trans. Soc. Rheology 8:195–207, 1963. Currently working at as an Research Scientist in Analytic Chemistry.

4 A phenomenon in which a temperature gradient in a mixture of fluids gives rise to a flow of one constituent relative to the mixture as a whole. (In other words, the solid rocks move at different speeds than the molten ones and molten granite flows at a rate different than molten basalt.

5 Anderson, O.L. and Perkins, P.C., Runaway temperatures in the asthenosphere resulting from viscous heating, J. Geophys. Res. 79:2136–2138, 1974.

6 Baumgardner, J.R., Numerical simulation of the large-scale tectonic changes accompanying the Flood; in: Walsh, R.E., Brooks, C.E. and Crowell, R.S. (Eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 17–28, 1987.

7 Kirby, S.H., Rheology of the lithosphere, Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 25:1219–1244, 1983.

8 Strom, R.G., Schaber, G.G. and Dawson, D.D., The global resurfacing of Venus, J. Geophys. Res. 99:10899–10926, 1994.

9 Ford, P.G. and Pettengill, G.H., Venus topography and kilometer scale slopes, J. Geophys. Res. 97:13103–13114, 1992.

10   IBID Strom, R.G.

11 Baumgardner, J.R., 3-D finite element simulation of the global tectonic changes accompanying Noah’s Flood; in: Walsh, R.E. and Brooks, C.E. (Eds), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 35–45, 1991.

12 Baumgardner, J.R., Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis Flood; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 63–75, 1994.

13 Yang, W.-S. and Baumgardner, J.R., Matrix-dependent transfer multigrid method for strongly variable viscosity infinite Prandtl number thermal convection, Geophys. and Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 92:151–195, 2000.

14 Baumgardner, J.R., Computer modeling of the large-scale tectonics associated with the Genesis Flood; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 49–62, 1994.


Evillution, Intelligent Design

Little Furry Humans?

Little furry humans?


How often have you heard the ‘humans and other animals’. This seems intended to attack the notion that people are special, being made in the image of God.

Is man an animal?  This is not exactly a simple question to answer, despite what many will think. The progressives really try to avoid discussing in detail the actual facts and just make the simple statements and hope that you will accept it as a fact- even if you kind of know that it isn’t quite right. So let us get in to the more technical biological world to answer the question. If we use the man-made classification criteria instituted by Linnaeus (did I mention he was a creationist) 1, the answer would seem to be ‘yes’.

Man is obviously not a plant, or mold or coral and does not live in the water or in the soil, and does not fly without any assistance, etc. All creatures are grouped together using a variety of criteria of similarity, which does not have any evolutionary overtones. Humans have backbones, which would place us in the biological group known as vertebrates. Humans give birth to live young, suckle our offspring, and maintain a type of herd mentality. This places us in the category of mammals, specifically the placental mammals. Interestingly these features are shared more or less in common with an order known as primates. The order Primates, with its 300 or more species, is the third most diverse order of mammals, after rodents (Rodentia) and bats (Chiroptera).

The problem is not with the technical classification as with the progressive effect that labeling people as ‘animals’ tries to achieve. The real point that evolutionists try to make, and which needs to be resisted, is that man is ‘just one more animal’.

The reason for confusion is strong when you consider that the word ‘animal’, in the understanding of most everyday individuals, means something other than a human being.        For instance, when people say (which used to be a big ‘thing’ for the progressives), ‘animals are used to test cosmetics’, it is obvious that man is not included in this use of the term ‘animals’. Similarly , fish, insects and birds, though technically ‘animals’, are not usually talked about in that way ‘The fire injured many animals and birds’.

People are definitely not ‘animals’ in any normal sense of that word, nor are they related to any other animals by a “common descent”. Humans have been made in the very image of their Creator, and an incredible gulf separates them from even the most similar of any other living creatures.

The solution might be to set up a separate kingdom in the technical classification system to adequately reflect that fact. This is unlikely to appear anytime soon in a world dominated by evolutionary thinking.

Over the past half-century or so, dozens of dedicated Darwinists have devoted decades of their lives to studying the behavior of apes and monkeys. The public is flooded with stories about the likes of Jane Goodall and Dianne Fossey living with chimps and mountain gorillas and trying t prove how “human-like” they are. The social structures, behaviors, communication and so virtually every aspect of apes and monkeys are scrutinized for the slightest evidence that they have thoughts and minds like our own. We are bombarded with ‘facts’ designed to get us to conclude that the differences between humans and these alleged ‘close relatives’ of ours are really minor ones of degree, and not of kind.

Two developments in particular have comforted and reinforced the masses in such evolutionary notions. One is the high percentage of genetic (DNA) similarity which primates hold in common with humans. Chimp DNA is supposed to be anywhere from 96% to 98.7% identical to that of humans, depending on who is telling the story. The reason for the variation is that no one has yet sequenced an ape’s DNA; other, much cruder techniques are used to give a ‘guesstimate’ of the similarity.2

Baboons are said to share 92% of their DNA with us. Granted a high degree of shared DNA, even if it were 92%, would that make them 92% human or us 92% baboon, as most interpret this? It is worth repeating what prominent evolutionist Steve Jones reminded his audience of recently in the context of man/chimp DNA-sharing: “We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn’t make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down.”3

The other development has to do with the issue of language. The chimpanzee Washoe and the bonobo Kanzi “have become famous for their ability to respond to human language in surprisingly complex ways”.4 There are ‘severe limitations on intelligence and communication in monkeys’. It must be a great disappointment, then, for committed evolutionists to read of the latest work by two of the most dedicated primate behavior researchers in the world.5 Robert Seyfarth and Dorothy Cheney are a husband-and-wife team who have performed many ingenious experiments with vervet monkeys and baboons, plumbing the depths of their social knowledge and mental processes.

They have occasionally revealed previously unknown ‘richness’ in a monkey’s social knowledge, overall their results have caused them to give a massive ‘thumbs down’ to the ‘monkeys are almost human’ view. They have gradually come to the conclusion (no surprise to Bible-believing Christians) that there are ‘severe limitations on intelligence and communication in monkeys’.6

Examples: baboons walking past a recently dismembered buffalo carcass do seem to understand that lions are in the vicinity. They only act alarmed once they spot the actual lions. When baboons see an antelope carcass stuffed high up in a tree, they show no signs of concluding the obvious—that their mortal enemy, the leopard, is in the vicinity. Baboons from a foraging troop which has spread out so that some are on either side of a forest are known to give barking calls. It has long been assumed that they were keeping ‘contact’, saying, in effect, ‘Hey, we’re over here, where are you?’ like humans would. But ingenious experiments have shown that the monkeys were only wailing about their own “lostness”.

Seyfarth and Cheney say that, unlike humans, “monkeys don’t actually recognize that other monkeys have minds”.7 Whatever thoughts and emotions they may have, they cannot project them outside of themselves, as humans do all the time. Thus, a chimp may grieve due to loss, but chimps do not seem to comfort others that are grieving. This inability to put themselves in another monkey’s place was starkly demonstrated when a monkey named Sylvia made a deep water crossing with a baby clinging to her underside, causing it to drown. Since she could breathe, she could not relate to the fact that her baby could not.

So what does all this do to the ‘genetic similarity’ issue? The writer of the Smithsonian article (who is definitely a non-creationist) concedes that these results remind us that ‘just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species’.8 Of course, we have long known that a few percentage points means many millions of base pair differences—which are likely to be in much more crucial ‘controlling genes’. And I will be producing a very in depth discourse on the most likely causal effect of chromosomal complexity- I will try to explain the cellular biology and physiology as effectively as I can, it is very complex.

When apes were created they had more similarities to humans than to jellyfish. Since all of our bodily construction reflects our ‘basic’ DNA ‘recipe’, it is perfectly logical and consistent that apes would also be genetically more similar to humans than to jellyfish—or bananas, for that matter.

And what about the much-vaunted ape language abilities? These researchers remind us that the circumstances were artificial. Seyfarth says, “You can teach a monkey to ride a bicycle in the circus, but it doesn’t tell you much about what monkeys learn to do in the wild.”9 Furthermore, “even in the laboratory, no animal has attained anything like true language”. Whereas humans “embody a theory of mind in wild excess”. We are aware that we, and our minds, exist and that other humans have thinking minds also. Humans, and humans alone, “know what we know, and we know that we know it. We possess the playful, curious, strange and sympathetic entity called human consciousness”.9

This is because we are made in the image of God. Made to think, reason, love and communicate with our Creator. Apes and monkeys, no matter how superficially similar are not.

As Seyfarth concludes, “They’re not furry little humans. They’re just monkeys.”6

In the meantime, if you are asked whether man is ‘an animal’, the best way to avoid promoting evolutionary notions would be to:

  1. Carefully point out the different definitions of the term.
  2. Affirm that man is not an animal in any common usage of the term, nor in any evolutionary sense whatsoever.




  1. A Swedish botanist (1707-1778), physician, and zoologist, who founded the modern system of naming organisms called binomial nomenclature. He is known by the epithet “father of modern taxonomy”.
  2. Batten, D. (Ed.), The Answers Book, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 102–106, 1999.
  3. Jones, S., interviewed at the Australian Museum on The Science Show, broadcast on ABC radio, 12 January 2002,
  4. Conniff, R., Monkey wrench, Smithsonian 102–104, 2001.
  5. Reported in ref. 4, pp. 97–104
  6. 4, p. 97
  7. 4, p. 102.
  8. 4, p. 98.
  9. 4, p. 104