The importance of the animal/human distinction

As I follow the Origins debate I've noticed an increasing frequency in the last few years of people politicizing evolutionary theory. One of the most far fetched examples can be read below.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'A new practical use for Darwinism has come to light: natural security. Two recent articles claim that we can learn from evolution how best to protect ourselves.

A. Natural security: Darwinism can be practical, thinks Rafe Sagarin, an ecologist at Duke University. Science Daily reported that he is using Darwinian principles to write and speak about “Natural Security: A Darwinian Approach to a Dangerous World” Sagarin thinks the Department of Homeland Security is going about it all wrong. More guards, guns, and gates – this is not how organisms defend themselves, he said. Invoking “a mode of thinking—informed by Charles Darwin’s insights into life’s struggle for survival and fecundity,” Sagarin is looking at security from the point of view of the evolutionary arms race: “If I’m an adaptive organism, how would I cope with this?”

- The idea (metaphor) of an 'evolutionary arms race' is myth making. This attributes human behavior and thinking to animals. Animals don't think about how to respond to threats, they just react instinctively.

B. "In nature, a threat is dealt with in several ways. There’s collectivism, where one meerkat sounds the alarm about an approaching hawk, or camouflage, where the ptarmigan hides in plain sight. There’s redundancy, like our wisdom teeth, or unpredictable behavior, like the puffer fish’s sudden, spiky pop.
Under the unyielding pressure of 3.5 billion years of evolution, the variety of defenses is beyond counting. But they all have a few features in common. A top-down, build-a-wall, broadcast-your-status approach “is exactly the opposite of what organisms do,” Sagarin says. [1.]

- One of the major mistakes made by evolutionists is to ignore the animal/human distinction. This error sabotages a great deal of the writing (and ideas) of evolutionists. Once you make this mistake, you cannot be correct. Human beings aren't animals; they belong in a category of their own, and to conflate the two groups (categories) is to pave the way for countless errors. This bit of Darwinian 'insight' is nonsense. On what basis can you make a connection between animal defensive strategies and human beings living in a technological civilization? The only connection is imaginary.
The author suffers from a delusion of competence. (We see here yet another failed attempt to pretend darwinism has some relevance to the real world.)

- Since animals act in terms of instinct (in case the professor doesn't know) one wonders how this can be of help to human beings, who have to deal with non-instinctual ingenuity. Animals are equipped to deal with animals; they have no defenses against humans. Animals are the targets of animals in search of food or territory, and this determines how they defend themselves. That this isn't necessarily the case with human beings doesn't need to be pointed out I hope. That the tactics used by animals would be useful when used by humans is pure fancy; it hasn't got a thing to back it up. (Like most of what evolutionists try to pass off as science.) This isn't science; it's just one more attempt to persuade people that evolutionary theory has something to contribute to modern life. (It's a theory that's contributed nothing to technology, and nothing positive to modern life. If it disappeared tomorrow no one would even notice, let alone miss it.)

- You might have noticed that Darwinism always ends up agreeing with the views of Politically Correct university professors. Odd how that happens; must be random chance I guess. (Sometimes called Darwin's wax nose.) Darwin is always interpreted in tune with the political/social ethos of the social elite of the time; with the Victorians this meant social Darwinism, empire and colonialism, now it means something approximating the opposite. (That nose sure gets a workout.)

- We already know how professors deal with a dangerous world; they lobby for tenure, and the right to keep opponents out of the guild.

Notes;
1. Can Evolution Keep You Safe? Creation/Evolution Headlines 02/25/2009