“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”.
