As I study the Origins debate, I repeatedly come across the claim by Evolutionists that there is no difference between human beings and animals. Though I believe this is an absurd claim, I think it's necessary to address it. Today I want to look at some evidence from language.
Quotes and comments;
1. - 'Ordinary language, as most of us are at least vaguely aware, serves various functions in our day-to-day lives. The twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein thought the number of these functions to be virtually unlimited.
Thus, among other things, language is used to;
- ask questions
- tell stories
- tell lies
- guess at answers
- form hypotheses
- launch verbal assaults
- tell jokes
- flirt with someone
- give directions
- sing songs
- issue commands
- greet someone... and so on.' [1.]
- When you stop to think about all the things you can do with language, it truly is amazing how flexible language is.
- To be able to claim there is no difference between animals and human beings you have to be able to use language. (No animal can make such a claim or deny such a claim.)
- Animals don't use language to do any of these things. (At least not in the same way human beings do.) Imagine not being able to tell stories; not being able to sing songs; not being able to tell jokes; not being able to ask questions, etc. (And what would our pols do if they couldn't lie :=)
- The following is a partial list of some more things we can do with language; be sarcastic; use irony; form puns; form symbols; create metaphors; form analogies; write poetry; create rhymes; form equations; demonstrate logic; demonstrate illogic; criticize bad theories; do thought experiments; express worship; form arguments; form faulty arguments; to pretend we believe one thing when we believe another; to read; to write; to denounce religion; to praise political schemes; to write history; to offer evidence for metaphysical positions; to plagiarize; construct cosmologies; and so on.
- to insist, in the face of this evidence, there is no difference between human beings and animals would appear to be nothing more than ideological bias. (i.e. an exercise in buffoonery.)
Notes;
1. the above comes from; 'A concise introduction to logic' - Hurley p/78
2. And what would evolutionists do if they couldn't slander creationists? How poor Mr. Dawkins would suffer :=)But does anyone imagine animals engage in slandering other animals for their metaphysical views?