tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post2255754502866798088..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: `Did anyone look to see who Stephen E Jones was before accepting his observations? ... we can put Mr Jones' observations in the round file'Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-91488279170093784472007-01-22T10:18:00.000+09:002007-01-22T10:18:00.000+09:00Anonymous
>re: bonobos:
Your comment was off-to...Anonymous<br /> <br />>re: bonobos:<br /><br />Your comment was off-topic under my post "Re: according to ID theory is the Designer ..." [http://tinyurl.com/ycx8t2], so I am responding to it here.<br /><br />>http://bonobos.blogspot.com/<br />mentions your post.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />>It's interesting what you say and I hope that more funding can be raised to preserve the endangered species because a). they are a an endangered species; <br /><br />I agree that *all* endangered species, including bonobos (Pan paniscus), be *conserved* (not "preserved" - which means in zoos, etc, not in the wild). <br /><br />But since there are presumably *plenty* of bonobos in captivity, there is far less likelihood of bonobos going extinct than most other endangered species, and therefore I (and I presume most conservation biologists), would regard conserving other species that are at a far higher risk of actual *extinction*, as a higher priority for scarce conservation funding than bonobos.<br /><br />>and b). there is the possibility that they are more capable of language skills and other cognitive processes than some people have so far been convinced.<br /><br />However, I disagree that: 1) bonobos "are more capable of language skills." As I quoted Steven Pinker, a Darwinist atheist linguist (so not motivated by any Christian, creationist or ID considerations) in this post, bonobos, like *all* other non-human animals have *no* human language skills. <br /><br />And 2) that that is an adequate motive to conserve bonobos anyway. I did a Conservation Biology unit in my biology degree and most conservation biologists are against giving a higher priority to conserving species just because they are more "charismatic", i.e. more attractive to us [see http://tinyurl.com/2yss5g]. That skews scarce funding into conserving a comparatively few species that are usually less in danger of extinction, away from the many, less "charismatic" species, that are usually at greater risk of extinction. <br /><br />>Would you like to see the endangered bonobo species assisted also? <br /><br />Yes, but I presume there are far higher priorities for conservation than bonobos. See above.<br /><br />>Looking after the garden and caring for the animals is probably a christian thing to do.<br /><br />Agreed, on the principle that, "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." (Gen 2:15). Although this was specifically for the Garden of Eden, which Adam & Eve (whether literal or symbolic) were later banished from: "So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken" (Gen 3:23); the command that they "work the ground" continues (see also Ps 8:6<br />"You made him ruler over the works of your hands ...") today in the wider world beyond Eden.<br /><br />But that applies to taking care of *all* species, not just the comparatively few "charismatic" ones like bonobos.<br /><br />And the Genesis chapter just before, indicates that man is qualitatively distinct from *all* animals in that he can name them, but they are not a suitable helper for him: "So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field But for Adam no suitable helper was found" (Gen 2:20). So appealing to "Looking after the garden and caring for the animals" as being "a christian [sic] thing to do" is no help as a reason for conserving bonobos specifically on the grounds that there is "they are more capable of language skills" (which they are not anyway). <br /><br />Indeed, personally I regard keeping highly intelligent and social animals like in captivity for years in close proximity to humans, away from socialising in groups of their own kind, in as close to their wild environment as possible, while trying in vain to teach them human language, is a form of animal *cruelty* (if not *extreme* cruelty-imagine if the tables were turned on a Planet of the Apes!) and should not be allowed. <br /><br />Perhaps the best evidence that none of these apes can talk, is that one of the *first* things it would say, is what *we* would say in their situation, "please let me *out* of here"!<br /><br />So, if you *really* care about bonobos, you should be advocating (if not agitating) that *all* experiments aimed at teaching human language to bonobos (and apes in general) be *stopped*!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com