Sommer, an evolutionary anthropologist, said: 'It's untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria - neither biological, nor mental, nor social.'
WHAT?!?!?! Even if our DNA is 96-98.4 per cent similar, as scientists claim, can anyone truly say there are no mental or social differences between humans and chimps? Are you kidding me? The biggest difference is this: human beings are created in God's image, and given dominion over other living creatures. Of course, I believe this because I believe the Bible to be God's inspired, inerrant Word. Once people throw out the Bible, they throw out any sense that we as humans are any different from animals. This is a big push in evolutionary education. It reminds me of the Disney song "You (Are a Human Animal)." I can't remember all the lyrics, but they say something like: "You are a human animal, you are a very special breed, for you are the only animal, who can think, who can reason, who can read." Interesting, eh? Even though the song equates humans with animals, it also (and perhaps unintentionally) points out the HUGE differences between us. Can animals think well enough to form an argument or philosophize? Can they reason (and here I'm referring to higher reasoning, not "see--banana--eat")? Can they read? NO. In the second article, one of the chimp's friends says that "Being with him is like playing with someone who can't talk." Okay--is it really? Can he understand every word you say? Is he thinking coherent thoughts, wishing he could reply? C'mon, people! This is not a human being who is merely unable to communicate freely. He is a chimp. And because I believe the Bible, I believe that human beings are made in the image of God, and chimps are not.
The other quote:
If Hiasl is granted human status, Martin Balluch, of the Association against Animal Factories, who has worked to bring the case, wants him to sue the vivisection laboratory. He said: 'We argue that he's a person and he's capable of owning something himself, as opposed to being owned, and that he can manage his money. This means he can start a court case against Baxter, which at the very least should mean his old age pension is secure.'Wait a second--did I read that correctly? He (the chimp, not Balluch) "can manage his money"? and needs pension security? Have these people truly lost touch with reality? How can a chimp manage its money? Will he line his bed with it, eat it, or poop on it? Does this man really think that a chimp has a concept of the value of currency? Then Balluch stretches the absurdity even further by saying that the chimp should be able to initiate his own lawsuit. How? Does Balluch somehow have telepathy with the chimp? Will the chimp be able to type his request up? (That could go WAY off into how long it would take a room full of monkeys....ok, I'll stop.) Is Balluch serious about this? Why doesn't he truthfully say that he and his organization want to be able to control the money that has been donated to the chimp? Balluch's "Association Against Animal Factories" has such notable acheivements under its belt as rescuing hens and liberating lab rats. So now we come to another, related issue: These people are elevating animals to human status while ignoring the plight of humans in this world. Since 1973 there have been over 46 million abortions worldwide (40 million in the U.S. alone.) Millions of children worldwide die from starvation or easily curable diseases like malaria each year, or lead lives of illness, with scarce food and no safe water. And yet these people are pouring their time, energy, and money into saving the life of one chimp.
I have no more words.