How long till we have to answer these same questions about another bipedal hominid?



From the BBC:

well put.

This from the chap who wrote "HorseWatching" and other such books, in which he essentially tells us that what we in our naive way consider evidence of love, emotion, etc. in animals is really just some kind of evolutionary response to certain stimuli to ensure further prospering of the species. Exactly what that force or will is that causes such remarkable behavior for such a noble aim is unexplained.
Of course there are folks who do seriously hold that view, but it just doesn't stand up to the reality- untidy- of animal/human relationships, or even of wild animal behavior.

My beef with this guy is that he seems throughout his writings to have some kind of vendetta not just against religion, but almost a compulsion to tear down and scoff at the beauty of nature and whatever bits of sublimity humans attain on earth. Maybe he was traumatized by a hymn book or something, but his almost gleeful anticipation of the complete collapse of religion is not rational- nor is his deep-seated loathing of the "fallacy" that your dog actually loves you.

In this article, Desmond works on the assumption that the sole alternative to apes is "miniature humans." Is it beyond the realm of possibility that there is, or was, a kind of intelligent/rational being that is neither human nor animal? This concept has been a staple in folklore and science fiction for years...yet it's still awkward to get one's mind around as a possible reality. In any case, needing something to be "human" so that humans can be "set firmly in the animal kingdom" is a bit pathetic. Why does he want this so much? If large segments of the human population are backward enough to believe that God made the world, why should that bug him? He and his fellow illuminati (sapiens sapiens) will just eventually evolve into supermen (with extra-pointy noses, very erect postures, and mighty brains) and leave the rest of us in the dust, poking primitively at our campfires and picking our flat little noses.

Anyway, he states that Flores man as a "human" would cause problems for religious leaders, by which he means those religions which teach creation, inherent value of that creation, and a personally, minutely involved diety.
Actually, quite the opposite is true- the Biblical book of Genesis mentions not only "giants" but also a mysterious group of beings called "sons of God" who interbred with humans. So this multiplicity of rational species is old hat to religious leaders, not some shattering new heresy. Debate on whether or not a creature of the non-human, non-animal persuasion has a soul is rather a strange thing for a man who believes that souls don't even exist to dabble in, but again it's already well-trod ground for theologians. In short, Flores man, human, ape, or none of the above is a crisis of faith only for those whose faith is desperately pinned on the progressively losing proposition to which Morris clings.

Regarding "consecrated ground", that's a pretty old-fashioned concept and Morris perhaps doesn't realize (or doesn't like to consider) that the standard for burial in such ground had nothing to do with being human. Dogs and horses and no doubt many other animals have been purposely buried in "consecrated ground" throughout history.

There are people, religious and not, who believe that experimenting on animals is torture, and that the humanity or animality of the victim is not the basis on which to call such activities right or wrong. Science, divorced from human moral responsiblity and theological considerations, has not historically endorsed this belief, charging ahead with vivisection and other jolly experiments of the sort that used to be described in biology and psychology textbooks alongside pictures of maimed rats and insane baby monkeys. I won't even go into the current issues of stem cell research or elimination of the brain-damaged or physically disabled. But again, it's not religious leaders or even "fanatics" who would be given pause to rethink their basic beliefs if presented with Flores man in any form.

All this goes for our friend Sasquatch too, as I've said before, and to be fair I'll even include those little green aliens reposing at Roswell.

The essential irony of this is that Morris and his cronies, while insisting that humans are nothing special, not a special creation, only a sort of advanced animal, etc. nevertheless consider humans (and only those who look like what they call homo sapiens) to be the only possible? rightful? desireable? tolerable?
possessors of rational intelligence. It's anthropocentric and anthropophobic at the same time.
So-called scientists who feel it necessary to try to destroy what they call "religion" are in fact fighting a one-sided jihad, desiring that their own faith and doctrine should triumph over everything else. In reality there is not any disparity between the human search for truth and the human search for knowledge. It's only in a badly confused mind that the two become mutually exclusive, or that the wisdom gained by one pursuit must not be allowed to have any positive relationship to the information gained by the other. In modern times, because of that, science itself has become a religion. It's a sort of schizophrenia that shows up in the love/hate view Morris and co. have of the human species.

Just thought I'd give my thoughts on this since it seems to be getting blown into such an hyped-up issue and there's actually no danger of the celestial dome falling quite yet. If anybody's genuinely curious about how this all fits into the actual Christian world view (as opposed to what the media think is religious dogma, or what the Catholic church may have done or said) the writings of C.S. Lewis (fiction or non) are a good place to start.

"advanced possessors of rational intelligence"......yet sometimes our actions are not even worthy of "animal status"-

New Homo floresiensis article:

Early 'Hobbit' human smarter than expected
Published: March 4, 2005, 11:12 AM PST
By New York Times Staff
The New York Times

http://news.com.com/Early+%2527Hobbit%2527....html?tag=st_lh

Just an FYI.

This maybe the same articleHomo floresiensis had higher brain function

[quote=bipto,Oct 29 2004, 12:09 PM]

...If the island of Flores is not quickly awash with teams of eager investigators I shall be very surprised, and I can't wait to hear the results of their explorations. [/QUOTE] [/quote]
Explorations? Seems more like exploitaion!

People are already exploiting Bigfoot in nearly all forms of media. when this bipedal is discovered, unfortunatly, it will be turnrd into a cash cow. It seems some research orginizations are already doing this with their pay for play expeditions and book of the month clubs. Just my synical observations. :badguy:

Yeah, actually. Basically the same article,...only I hadn't seen that one before. It's a bit more detailed, in fact. - Thanks!

These issues were explored in a somewhat entertaining 1970 Burt Reynold's movie, "Skullduggery"

Skullduggery movie review

http://icsurreyonline.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...-name_page.html


It's getting ready to rain.

Mr. Morris has illustrated a keen lack of knowledge of both anthropology and religion.

Who says these creatures didn't (don't?) have souls? Can he (or whoever found these bones) find a soul buried with them?

As current events prove, Darwin put a stop to nothing; he (and his religious followers) started something.

Who knows; maybe the discovery of a bipedal "ape" will shut them up for a while.



Why not? If Mr. Morris is such an "evolutionist", why couldn't he accept the evolution of the soul?



Does any particular language qualify as "talk"? I've heard canines communicate vocally. Does that mean they're human?



Morris's "longing" brands him. He's not a scientist. He's a religious fanatic, himself.

And if sasquatch, when discovered, doesn't talk? What does that "prove"?



"Field workers" (which this man is clearly NOT) might be able to find evidence of spriritual rituals, and they might not. That means only that they didn't find any. Period.

But if they DO find it, that pretty well takes a dump on Mr. Morris's "prayer" that religions "re-examines many of their basic beliefs", doesn't it?

In fact, that should require Mr. Morris to re-examine his own basic beliefs.

As a "religious fanatic", I don't have much at stake when talking s**t.

Mr. Morris advertises himself as an anthropologist, then procedes to let the flow go before the "field workers" have done their thing.

Actually, I'm not surprised in the least.