Can Apes Read Minds?

     Science (true science) is the systematic study of the world through observation and experimentation. It is essentially the human condition's logical attempt to find truth; and I love it. After all, the truth shall set you free (John 8:32).

“So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, 'If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'”

     The problem I face comes from the growing trend that MOST people who practice science, particularly as a profession, don't do it very well. Case in point would be a recent study on primate cognitive abilities. The study was designed to find evidence in support of the current evolutionary model rather than the truth.  The result, as summarized in this Science magazine article written by Virginia Morell, is one of the worst examples of science I have ever seen. Yet, it is hailed as groundbreaking. 

     The article states that “evolutionary anthropologists” have determined chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans are able to understand when someone else holds a false belief. This is an ability previously only ascribed to humans. The study seeks to prove that we share this ability with apes. This shared ability would then further support the theory of common ancestry between apes and humans (the current modern evolutionary model). This pseudo-empathy was tested by having a man place a rock in a box while an ape watched. Then, under ape observation, another man in a monkey (ape-like) costume would hide the rock in a different box before “changing his mind,” and absconding with the rock altogether. When the rocks original owner (not the guy in the monkey costume) returned, eye tracking technology reported that of the apes stared at the box they saw the human place the rock in. This behavior was interpreted to mean that the apes knew the rock's original owner held a false belief.

Absurdity abounds. That being said, let us come now to the rat killing:

1. Bias is shown firstly by the fact that the study is being carried out by “evolutionary anthropologists.” We have a problem when the person who is attempting to prove a theory actually constructs their identity based upon that theory. Let me put it this way: Is a self identified, “Bigfoot Hunter” ever going to come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as Bigfoot?

2. The ape staring at the last object it saw an individual interact with is hardly evidence of cognitive application of empathy. It could be that, or it could just be the ape held spacial association between that man and the last place the ape saw the man go.

3. While 57% does constitute a majority response, it isn't consistent enough to show a uniformed or predictable behavior that should be considered as conclusive evidence of an abstract emotional construct.

4. Even if the behavior was observed throughout 100% of the trials, the assertive leap attributing it to the ape realizing the man had a false-belief is too far to be logical. It is in fact, an act of faith not inference.

5. A man in a monkey suit. Really?

     Please understand, the issue does not lie quite in how the study was presented in Ms. Morell's article. She did a fine job of presenting dissenting opinions. The problem lies in the general state of scientific study. This study was designed to prove a theory, not test it. That is where we are at. Modern “scientists” seek only to further their chosen faith (evolution). Real science, unbiased study of the world around us in pursuit of the truth, will always point back to the One True God (Romans 1). Maybe that's why scientists have abandoned science. Perhaps we should start calling them “apologists”.

“If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. “
                    - 1 Timothy 4:6,7

What the Pope Doesn't Know About Marriage

Marriage…Marriage is what brings us together today.  The Princess Bride has some of my favorite quotable lines from any movie.  However, the sermon issued during the wedding which gives us the very title of the movie contains perhaps the greatest line. 

“Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam...”

These words of the comically inept clergyman in the big funny hat ring hilarious because of the context they are bumbled in.  I assume when William Golding wrote the line he intended the reaction to be laughter.  He succeeded.  Now I would like to turn your attention to some other words about marriage bumbled forth by an inept clergyman in a funny hat.  Unfortunately, I don’t believe these words were intended to be funny.  They certainly aren’t.

According to Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post, Pope Francis has issued a shocking statement about marriage.  In her article, dated June 17^th, she quotes Pope Francis as saying, “[People] don’t know that [marriage] is indissoluble, they don’t know that it’s for your entire life.  It’s hard”.  The pontiff’s conclusion then is that “the great majority,” of Catholic marriages are religiously null because people don’t understand what they are getting themselves into.

How foolish.  Here this man, who claims to speak for God, would teach that morality is relative.  He claims that what is right or wrong is based upon and individual’s understanding of it.  Let’s keep everyone holy.  Using this logic, the best thing the Pope could do would be to stop teaching what the Bible says.  Then no one would sin because no one would know what sin is.

Relative morality is nothing new.  It’s accepted abundance in the church is.  Paul predicted this apostasy.  He explained why and how it would come about.  Peter and John did also.  Of course, you’d have to read the Bible to know that.  On second thought, maybe the best thing the Pope could do really would be to stop teaching what the Bible says.