The difference of man, and the difference it makes

The uniqueness of human beings is under persistent attack in academic circles. In this post I want to look at one example (of thousands) and try and refute it.

Quotes and comments;
1. “The fact that the birds act in favor of a future need as opposed to the current one challenges the hypothesis that this ability is unique to humans.” [1.]

- I don't remember anyone saying animals can't act in terms of future need. Did anyone say this? I assume what they're referring to is planning for the future. (Some have claimed this was a human distinctive.) But do we know the birds are planning for the future? Couldn't we say they're just acting by instinct? e.g. the way they make nests or migrate. (Would they say building a nest is planning for the future?)

- the problem here is (as usual) equivocation. (This problem pops up daily in reading about Origins, etc.) These authors are conflating the 'planning' of animals with the planning of human beings. It's clear animals act (in some way) as if they were planning for the future, but the mistake is to equate this with what human beings do. When the bear fattens itself up for winter hibernation is it really 'planning' for the future? Does it picture itself asleep in some cave wasting away if not for the added fat? I doubt it.

- my point is that there is no such generic thing as planning; no such generic as planning for the future. When people say 'scrub jays are just like us' they're committing the fallacy of equivocation.

- no guys; scrub jays are Not like us. (I don't see them doing studies of humans and their ability to plan for the future :=) I don't see them planning away on how they can get tenure or a government grant.
- the old claim (formulated in a simple way) may well be false; but what is true, is that no animal plans for the future in the way human beings do. The planning abilities of man are unique; no animal foresees or thinks about the future in the way human beings do.

- human abilities are so obviously unique that it baffles me why we have armies of Darwinists insisting this isn't true. Why this campaign to deny reality? (I don't see animals engaged in a similar campaign.) The social pendulum (at least on campus) has swung so far (away from creation) that it has reached the lofty heights of silliness. The denial of human uniqueness seems to be part of a new 'nature religion' that's in the works. By denying his uniqueness man bows down to 'nature' and does homage. (He humbles himself as it were.)

Notes;
1. Science Is for the Birds - Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/19/2007
Birds, with all their variety and functionality, are a never-ending source of study for scientists. Here are some recent feathery findings:
- Memory masters: Scrub jays are like us: they can plan ahead, regardless of mood. Current Biology did a study that proved these common western birds can cache tomorrow’s breakfast regardless of their motivational state. The authors said, “The fact that the birds act in favor of a future need as opposed to the current one challenges the hypothesis that this ability is unique to humans.”
- I don't know what they mean by the motivational state of a bird. How would they know? They seem to be conflating human motivation and bird motivation. Do birds even have motivation? Isn't it wrong to use the same word for men and birds? Just asking guys.
- are they claiming the birds are 'sacrificing' for the future?
2. simple eating and drinking can be seen as taking care of future needs; but would we want to say animals are planning for the future when they eat and drink?
3. The title is taken from the book by Mortimer Adler