A recent article published in Popular Science magazine titled ‘Should animals have the same rights as people?’ was based on the idea that humans should not regard themselves as different to other animals. The aim behind this idea, which many people may find harmless at first sight, emerged later on in the piece.
The article was intended to support the idea of the theory of evolution; that man and animals are descended from a common ancestor.
It is a known fact that animals use tools, solve problems, communicate among themselves, possess social lives and intelligence and exhibit love and affection. The evolutionist perspective based on that then suggests that animals are individuals with rights like humans. The article compares animal rights with those of humans and goes on to suggest that animals should be able to be represented by lawyers in court, but contains absolutely no scientific evidence. What is presented as evidence is the claim that animals and humans have similar brain structures.
In this response, we will discuss the unscientific aspects of Darwinist indoctrination adorned with the notion of love of animals that may seem very innocent and attractive at first sight, but is actually a sinister tactic intended to indoctrinate people with the idea that humans are no different to animal species.
1. The ability to use tools cannot be acquired over the course of time through evolution:
A crow can extract food from inside a bottle using a two- or three-stage plan. A bee can collect food and then direct its companions to a field full of flowers when it returns to the hive by means of a dance involving fine mathematical calculations. An otter can build an architecturally perfect dam to stop the flow of water, and a fish can calculate refraction angles to spit water at an insect in a tree branch and bring it down. All these intelligent tactics are marvelous forms of behavior that living things do not acquire gradually, but possess from the moment they are born without being taught. All these and similar innumerable forms of behavior are described as instinctive, and are clear indicators that those living beings are motived and are made to behave in that certain way by a Sublime Mind. These behaviors are inspired in them by God.
2. Animal communication cannot be explained by evolution:
Animals live social lives and communicate among themselves. That applies even to life forms described as very simple and “primitive” by evolutionists. We now know that bacteria with no nervous systems, let alone brains, communicate between themselves using special chemicals. (http://jb.asm.org/content/190/13/4377.full) Plants communicate with chemicals or even speak to one another by making sounds. (http://www.medicaldaily.com/scientists-confirm-plants-talk-and-listen-each-other-communication-crucial-survival-240775) However, these vitally important communications systems cannot be interpreted as meaning that they developed them over the course of time or that they are taught from one generation to another. As we have seen, communication is possible without nerve cells or brains. Different life forms have been created with matchless communications systems. The more examples one sees, the better one can understand incomparable creative artistry of God.
3. Blood transfusions between monkeys and humans are not possible
The article says “Human and chimpanzee blood is interchangeable, allowing for transfusions in either direction as long as blood types match.” This is a claim unheard of in the world of veterinary and medical science. Although the magazine describes itself as scientific, it is clearly understood from such mistakes that the magazine has no scientific editor whatsoever. Contrary to what readers were told, although the blood groups of monkeys are called “ABO”, similar to the well-known blood groups of humans, they are completely different in terms of antigens, and blood transfusions between the two species are not possible. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4258062/)
4. A similar brain cell structure cannot represent the source of intelligence
The article claims that speech, understanding, love, affection and other forms of social behavior in animals are associated with spindle cells in living beings’ brains. These special neurons have only been identified in whales, elephants, great apes and humans. All these creatures have complex organs comprising their circulatory, respiratory and digestive systems. Therefore it is quite natural that their nervous systems should have a similar network structure as well. In addition, it is incorrect to assert that spindle cells are the source of behavior similar to that of humans, because while cats and dogs have no spindle cells, they are clearly animals with very high levels of love, affection and social behavior. Similar social relations can be seen in all living species, and the absence of spindle cells of course refutes that idea. Evolutionists’ claims are contradictory in all details. They claim that spindle neurons emerged 15 million years ago in humanoid monkeys, but disappeared from small primates and only remained in larger ones. However, according to the theory of evolution, whales and monkeys diverged from a common ancestor long before that, 30 million years ago. In order to cover up this inconsistency, Darwinists resort to the myth that, ‘the two branches of whales underwent parallel independent evolution several times and subsequently acquired spindle cells.’ As in this instance, Darwinist claims, myths within myths, are devoid of any supporting evidence.
5. It is the soul that perceives, not matter
In order to deny the fact of the existence of a supra-material entity, evolutionists seek to “reduce” the human mind to matter, and make claims incompatible with reason and science for that purpose. Since materialists reject everything apart from matter, they also insist on denying the existence of the soul. They therefore seek to reduce human consciousness to the material that makes up the brain. The essential hypothesis they employ for that purpose is the concept of “organized matter”: In other words, they claim that it is the connections between the neurons in the brain that give human beings consciousness. They maintain that the chemical and electrical activity between these neurons creates the awareness that we call “self-identity.”
It is totally illogical to maintain that human beings’ thoughts, powers of judgment, ability to make decisions and feelings such as joy, excitement and disappointment are merely interactions between neurons in the brain. If materialists were to reflect honestly on this subject they would realize that they and all other people are very unique, distinctive entities, not mere masses of neurons or atoms. Despite being a materialist, the brain expert Wolf Singer admits this in the words:
‘There is “something” in the most complex matter in the universe that perceives itself as “me”.’ (Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik magazine, 7 July 2001, No. 746, p. 18)