Science & Religion: A Handbook for Interpersonal Dialogue, Discussion and Debate

By John Ross Jr.

Science and Religion: Interpersonal Dialogue, Discussion and Debate is a unique handbook for college students and adults interested in exploring the persuasive and rhetorical strategies surrounding todays fashionable topics in science and religion. Offered in three accommodating sections, John Ross presents valuable chapters on Humans, Communication, and Language; the Importance and Meaning of Interpersonal Dialogue; and a very timely chapter entitled Avenues of Dialogue: Dissimilarity, Discord and Alliance. Part II explores captivating issues surrounding Faith, the After-Life, Apologetics, and Atheistic Scientism. There is also an innovative section on the human brain, higher intelligence, and even on the questionable phenomena of neuroethology, UFO cults, and the disputable God Helmet. The final chapters explore contemporary miracles, creation accounts, astrobiology, and the current challenges surrounding SETI in its quest for extraterrestrial life. Ross eloquently addresses the possibilities of alien life and the resulting consequences and challenges it brings for Biblicists in the world of Christian fundamentalism. The book also includes a synopsis of the major world religions and a final section entitled Group Presentation Models in Science and Religion. This handbook is unique in that it smartly combines principles of communication, rhetoric, and public speaking with contemporary issues in science, theology, and religion.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Dec 19, 2016
• ISBN: 9781524565008

John Ross Jr.

John Ross, Jr. holds graduate degrees from Boston University and Harvard; and also holds a Graduate degree in Theatre from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He is the author of four previous poetry collections including the popular: Genes, Germs, Geodes and God (2016) along with Where the designer came from: Evolution, Creation, Hominids and the Skirmish of the Double Helix (2011). He teaches communications and theatre at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago.

Book preview

Copyright © 2017 by John Ross, Jr.

ISBN:      Softcover      978-1-5245-6501-5

      eBook         978-1-5245-6500-8

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. [Biblica]

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 12/19/2016

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

724901

CONTENTS

Preface

PART 1. COMMUNICATION & DIALOGUE

1. Humans, Communication and Speech

2. The Importance and Meaning of Dialogue

3. Persuasive Strategies and Grounded Argumentation

4. Avenues of Dialogue: Dissimilarity, Discord and Alliance

PART 2. SCIENCE & RELIGION:. CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

5. Faith, the After-Life, Apologetics and Scientism

6. Purpose, Grace, and the Nature of the Universe

7. The Human Brain, Higher Intelligence and Neurotheology

8. Miracles, Creation, and the Mission of Astrobiology

PART 3. AUXILIARY INFORMATION

Table 1. Timeline: History of Science and Religion

Table 2. Synopsis: Major Religions of the World

Appendix 1. Organizing a Presentation for Dialogue or Debate

Appendix 2. Voice Dynamics and Styles of Delivery

Appendix 3. Group Presentation Models in Science and Religion

Preface

The increase of religious fundamentalism in the early 21st century has been emulated by an escalation in scientific fundamentalism and neo-atheism in the public forum. The resurgence of live and online debates between Intelligent Design vs. Evolution has become a virtual unwritten combat zone, with each side sketching lines in the sand and refusing to take any first steps toward civil dialogue or healthy conversation. And oftentimes during any given election season, it seems things only intensify. The social and mass media on both sides of any given debate, is prone to overstate and magnify their overall alleged position.

Underneath the publicity surrounding such fiery topics as the Origin of the Universe, Creationism, Resurrection from the dead, Miracles, Aliens, Extraterrestrials, and even Stem Cell research, there are renowned scientists, philosophers and theologians endeavoring to square the differences and endorse their common tenet that science, religion and philosophy can all work together in the 21st century; myself among them. The surprising truth is that numerous scientists are indeed religious, and in turn many religious leaders are inventors, researchers and bone fide scientists themselves. By my estimation (and that of many others) the reality seems to suggest that the religion vs science debate involves a limited number of extremists. These are ‘zealots’ who endeavor to screech louder and make their voices drown the opinions and voices of the more peaceful majority.

The squeaky wheel always makes the most clamors, but the reality remains that for as long as humanity has entertained the existence of a divine creator, philosophers and theologians have attempted to quantify and evaluate the veracity behind faith, supernatural belief and all forms of practiced religion. The only verifiable truth which seems to remain is that we can be scientifically certain that no one really knows to any significant level of certainty or uncertainty (or with any definitive proof) the final declaration either way. Both sides rely heavily upon a ‘faith’ commodity if you will: the older disposition is religion and the younger being empirical science. Religion is by far, quite older than science, and the ancient Greek philosophers were one of the first cultures to observe religion and science jointly, and reflect and observe their assumed coexistence.

The Greeks largely believed that there was no grave discrepancy between science and theology; that each was part of a greater harmonic continuation. Classical thinkers, such as Plato and Aristotle (5th century B.C.E.) supposed that science was a process of human struggling, a battle to understand the natural laws behind all of observable creation. It was by their pre-Christian analysis that creation was mathematically flawless; and that logic and human reasoning could ascertain and perceive the minds of the gods and goddesses. Namely, they believed what was knowable could indeed be celebrated and known. In the Middle East, the same sentiment seemed to prevail several centuries after the advent of the Christian churches. Thus, a history of peaceful coexistence indeed has a precedent. And various eras of coexistence have come and gone throughout human history.

The expansion of Islam, from the 9th century C.E. until the 12th century C.E., saw revitalization in science, known as the Islamic Golden Age; and the Caliphs (i.e., successors to the Prophet Mohammed) of the Islamic world believed in enlightenment, and commonly designed an investigative ‘Houses of Study’ for enquiring investigation. Great urban centers such as Baghdad became hubs of information and wisdom, containing great libraries and lavish universities. Huge advances in medicine, astronomy, mathematics, geometry and agriculture were produced. All such success was understood to be of ‘divine essence,’ for all was a part of the will of Allah (the one true God). Like with the earlier Greeks, there was very little distinction between philosophy, science, theology and religion; and no discernable rifts between religion and science per se. This all-inclusive landscape brought many developments, with Muslim scientists developing processes such as citations, peer reviewing, validity and analytical observation.

The philosophy of science in Islam was explored within a noticeable structure for the Scientific Method. It rested upon the earlier classical works of Aristotle and the ancient Greek philosophers of antiquity. Whatever resolutions they found, the Islamic scholars preserved the knowledge of the Greek philosophers and further added their own new understandings, intuitions and insights.

Following the Islamic Age, 12th Century Renaissance Europe became the place of knowledge and exploration; and again there was no meticulous gulf between science, philosophy and religion. A series of natural and political misfortunes (in the 14th century) changed European demographics. Thus, this period saw the earliest budding of a religion vs science debate that would fester and mature for hundreds of years to follow. One which culminated in the theological dogma that the Bible should be read and understood literally; and that challenging this view constituted sacrilege, heresy and even blasphemy. Trouble between science and religion from largely a Christian perspective now began to prosper and initiated a long legacy of extremism into the 21st century, where it is on the ascent once again in the form of zealotry.

Many scientists suffered earlier on by this new form of extremism, the most famous of all being Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543). He postulated the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, an abomination to the Roman Catholic Church at the time. The Church boldly proclaimed that the Earth was at the center of the universe and this was an inflexible and biblical truth. A priest named Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was burned at the stake, for expanding upon the ideas of Nicolaus Copernicus. He also suggested the insightful theory that other stars may have worlds revolving around them as well.

Galileo Galilei became the next challenger to the central theological and biblical views of dominant Christianity, building upon the earlier assessments of Copernicus. He spent the last years of his life, from 1634 to 1642, under house arrest; and labeled as a dangerous eccentric religious heretic and rebel. His legacy has been lauded by current scientific celebrities such as Carl Sagan, Steven Hawking, Michio Kaku and even earlier by Albert Einstein, as the father of modern experimental science and the initiator of scientific knowledge based upon careful observation.

I and countless others contend that the contemporary Religion vs Science split was not as wide as traditionally believed; and the two disciplines often worked jointly together. Scientist-philosophers such René Descartes (1596-1650), Robert Boyle (1627-1691), and John Ray (1627-1705), strived to reunite religious beliefs and scientific exploration. They believed that the study of the laws behind divine creation were not at all heretical, and were simply a part of the world of knowledge, invention and discovery. The eagerness of the Spanish Inquisition, partly responsible for causing the Protestant Reformation, diminished, and the two sides became reconciled and the science vs. religion debate once again settled into the surroundings, at least for a short while.

It was Sir Isaac Newton’s work which first signaled the key public challenge to all the Christian churches including the Roman Catholic Church. Newton’s belief that there was clockwork perfection behind the universe became a landmark in Enlightenment physics, and the clear signs of a serious rift between science and religion became blatantly even more apparent. Up to this point, scientific progress has been debated between the Christian Churches and science, but the French Revolution and Napoleon heralded the first major entry of blatant politics into the religion vs science dispute. For the first time policymaking also became a major part of the situation, fueling a rise in the status and eminence of science. Napoleon defended the changes of the French Revolution, and was the first major trailblazer to advocate secularism and an acceptance of all religions and faiths! This development in the reputation and prominence of science brought about a change in the perception and even the very assessment in the controlling power of theology and religion, an amazing accomplishment in its time.

Today contemporary debate largely centers upon Darwinism and evolutionary thought. Unfortunately, this ignores the impact of the many other scientists who reconciled their religious beliefs with their scientific minds quite earlier. A host of scientists managed to merge their religious beliefs with science, and made some groundbreaking discoveries in the exciting interim. For example, Gregor Mendel (an Austrian monk 1822-1884) first proposed the basis of heredity, and those who were quite devout around him, seemed to find no major quarrels. Physics, also, saw little sign of the religion vs science contest. For instance: Michael Faraday (1791-1867), and Max Planck (1858-1947; two of the greatest physicists of all time) are fine examples of religious and spiritually devout scientists themselves. Their attitude shows that the whole science vs religion debate is largely a red herring.

Also Robert Millikan (1868-1953), a Nobel Prize winner in physics, wrote excellent work reconciling religion and science; and the first advocate of the Big Bang Theory was a Roman Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966). His work about a ‘creation or genesis event’ at the beginning of the Universe pre-dated Edwin Hubble by two years, and even had Albert Einstein revising his own views about the universe. Of course, these historical examples of faith and secularism working together, are quite clouded by the needless debate between creationists and evolutionists wrangling once again in the 21st century.

Nowadays the evolution argument dominates the media, yet so few scientists and theologians actually pay close attention to it at all. Most are quite happy to reconcile and respect each other’s differences, but the extremist Christians, (mainly in the U.S.), have prevented any cooperative move toward a more rational and peaceful approach. Intemperate atheistic-scientists have responded in equal measure, and the debate is now raging maliciously and at times borders on serious public insults and communal defamation. Both sides seem to be out for mutual and long-lasting destruction. This damage honors neither the virtues of religion, nor the merits of empirical science.

The good news is that mainline Christianity has largely accepted that evolution fits in with contemporary biology and the latest views of the universe, but the fundamentalist extremists attempt to persistently upset the emerging status quo. The mainline Protestant churches (also called mainstream American Protestant) and sometimes old-line Protestant are a group of Protestant denominations in the United States that contrast in history and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations. By contrast, the evangelical and fundamentalists declare damnation for those who do not credit their version of the truth and privilege the Bible above any and all apparent ‘evidence.’

On the other side, equally radical views, put forward by many atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, further alienate any moderate or middle-of-the-road mindsets. By watching and listening to the media, it would seem that there is little room for negotiation between the two opposing ‘armies,’ especially when prominent politicians become involved as well.

While science and religion are always going to differ upon some crucial details, the vast majority of theologians and scientists are quite happy to respect each other’s positions. They do not stubbornly subscribe to the religion vs science framework, which frequently retains a hidden agenda from both sides. The truth is that ethics is one area of science where the contribution of religion and theology is deemed as valuable. Morality and ethics urgently need to be mediated by religion. As such, religion and faith must be able to evaluate facts and give balanced and reasonable views, rather than impassioned oration and judgmental rhetoric. Science provides truth and religion (aided by philosophy) offers inspiration on how science can best be utilized for the benefit of all human persons and governments.

In short, the religion vs science dispute is not nearly as extreme as many media sources would have us imagine. Many individuals merge science and religion, but their voices are drowned out by unconvincing rhetoric, sensationalism comingled with muddled and contorted logic. The fact remains that religion and science have always had an anxious relationship, with one side or the other frequently in the slight direction of ascendancy. Fresh approaches have begun to once again separate the two, even if most people see no problem with accepting the beliefs of the other side. Pseudoscience and junk science are increasingly portrayed as fact, with the extremists on both sides drowning out reasoned discussion and debate in support of their own stiff fundamentalism.

It is my intention that Science and Religion: Interpersonal Dialogue, Discussion and Debate offer the reader a sensible resource for exploring a wide array of religious perceptions on scientific questions, and scientific perspectives on topics of interest to various religious groups and those in practical theology and communication studies. Although designed for students in university courses offered in debate, public speaking and persuasion, this book is also designed for anyone interested in a general exploration of the relationship between the natural/physical sciences, and religion/theological studies in general. Although it takes on a textbook veneer with a list of terminology and questions for discussion at the end of each chapter, it is certainly a handbook for the general public as well. The all-purpose goal of this guide is to help everyone from the daily conversationalist riding on the subway, to the persuasive community debater in a public speaking course, to become more mindful of the sometimes incendiary views represented by passionate believers and antireligious atheists alike.

Chances are that science and religion debates, disagreements and controversies are not going to leave us any time soon (at least in the U.S.A. anyway!). Perhaps the most reasonable analysis in the end is a drop of wisdom offered from `Abdu’l-Bahá, son of the founder of the honorable Baha’i faith. In his valuable appraisal, we discover why we as a global society need maximum contributions from both science and religion in our societies and in our world views. For `Abdu’l-Bahá the ruling dictum was largely: Religion without science is empty superstition; and science without religion is empty materialism. Hopefully Science and Religion: Interpersonal Dialogue, Discussion and Debate will help those who make use of it to sidestep a bit of hollow materialism, and in turn, a sizable quantity of empty superstition as well.

John Ross, Jr.

Cambridge, Massachusetts

April 2016

PART I

COMMUNICATION & DIALOGUE

Speech is so essential to our concept of intelligence that its possession is virtually equated with being human. Animals who talk are human, because what sets us apart from other animals is the ‘gift’ of speech.

—Philip Lieberman, Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution

1

Humans, Communication and Speech

The fact that the apes exist and that we can study them is extremely important and makes us reflect on ourselves and our human nature. In that sense alone, you need to protect the apes.¹

—Frans de Waal

Humans as ‘Naked Apes’

In the introduction to his classic 1967 bestselling book: The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris courageously states:

There are one hundred and ninety-three living species of monkeys and apes, One hundred and ninety-two of them are covered with hair. The exception is a naked ape self-named Homo sapiens…he is an intensely vocal, acutely exploratory, over-crowed ape, and it is high time we examined his behavior.²

Way back in 2003 the National Geographic News cleverly argued that bonobos and chimpanzees are so remarkably related to we humans, that they should actually be included in our general biological classification which we call hominids. Hominids are the biological family which includes Homo sapiens (i.e., humans) and several other families of apes and monkeys. Chimpanzees, bonobos and other great apes have historically been separated from humans in all biological classification schemes, with humans deemed the only living members of this hominid family.³ However, with the advent of molecular techniques to compare chemical relationships in human DNA starting as early as the mid1960s, most scientists have come to acknowledge the fact that yes, we and our fun-loving chimpanzee friends, are far more closely related than perhaps we could ever imagine or even appreciate.

For many decades it has been known that Homo sapiens and chimps are between 95% and 98.5% genetically identical.⁴ This is an astounding biological reality. There is an evolutionary conviction that all humans are clearly related to apes. Whether this is unanimously acknowledged or not, there are many (including religious leaders), who believe the comparisons between the two are so clearly substantial, that a serious biological relationship is clearly not out of the question. Today there are roughly 15 separate species of apes.⁵

We humans however are far more comparable to gorillas in that we do not have the natural capabilities to scale high foliage, climb trees or swing effortlessly from limbs like stereotypical monkeys in a zoo. None the less we certainly have strong arms and legs similar to that of apes, and of course no tails—only a coccyx.⁶ An ape’s body is of course quite similar to a human’s body, and both humans and apes have what are known as opposable thumbs.⁷ Additionally, both have very intricate nervous systems, notochords, and an overall complex system of brain chemistry and anatomy.

As Desmond Morris points out in his book (of the same name), we are indeed naked apes. There is clearly more hair covering the complete body of any given species of ape, than collectively on any given human being. The abundant mass of human hair is found only on our heads and chests in men. Both sexes share pubic hair, leg and arm hair, and even under the arm pits. Human and ape muscles are also quite similar, as they both are well developed, and even become more robust when used to haul, pull or push large objects.⁸ Working out at the gym indeed can keep we humans as fit as any active ape in your local jungle or at the zoo (and no one can forget those ‘monkey bars’ in school playgrounds around the world).

Anthropologists and behavioral psychologists have found many other similarities between humans and our cousins the apes, the very first being intelligence. Intelligence is the remarkable ability for self-identity, problem solving, tool making and even calm reflection. Like we humans, all apes have clearly confirmed their ability to discover, learn and even comprehend new and innovative information and concepts.⁹

If we were to anatomically examine a human brain in contrast to that of an ape, we would most likely see many obvious similarities and many more differences as well. Our human brain is far more complex, and can be divided into distinct lobes called cerebral hemispheres.¹⁰ These hemispheres are the two halves of the human brain or cerebrum. They are connected by what is labeled as the corpus collosum, which coordinates those activities which efficiently help facilitate both intelligence and language. Language is the great hallmark of human accomplishment. It is a unique method of individual communication (either spoken or written) consisting of words in a structural yet predictable and codified manner. Language consists of signs, symbols and sounds.

Nothing among the ‘hairy apes’ can even compare to this uniquely human trait. As a result, naked apes have dominated hairy apes who have been in decline and unfortunately heading toward extinction.¹¹ Language is a major key to human success and technological development. Because of language we proliferate and survive. We are (at least in the 21st century) not in danger of any approaching extinction.

Tragically enough, most species of apes are now endangered. Mostly due to aggressive human intrusions and the cruel foray of what has become: ‘jungle sport.’ The vast population numbers of apes were at one time in the many millions and were plentiful.¹² Bearing in mind the evolutionary evidence for the astounding relationship between humans and apes, it clearly seems paradoxical that we humans are at this given moment in earth history, the primary cause of many apes’ species becoming extinct and endangered. While there may seem to be many biological dissimilarities between talking humans and grunting apes, there are no other crucial biological harmonies between humans and any other higher mammals. The ape-human association is unique. Humans and apes are clearly interlocked. We are forevermore very close relatives.

We lightly-haired apes are virtually naked and brainy. Apes are less brainy and far more hairy. We can speak on our cell phone, and they cannot even fully articulate at any level of a sustained form of structured café or pub chatting. They are no longer surviving, and we are surviving at an astronomical speed; and at a dangerous breeding pace toward overpopulation: we are in hasty reproduction mode to the point of hazardous self-annihilation. We, by our proliferating survival and growing skill and technology, are at the axis of their very downfall and possible extermination.¹³

The Uniqueness of Human Language

Because language is the great hallmark of human accomplishment, most children adore watching other creatures speak. Animation attests to our human desire to experience bouncy and articulate insects, fish, reptiles, amphibians, cows, donkeys and other creatures. They and sometimes we adults both love to talk to the Animals. The popularity of cartoons lies in our fantasy for frogs, bears, coyotes and mice to have a friendly tête-à-tête in the woods or along a flowing stream. This discussion may be among themselves or even with other humans. From Tom and Jerry and ubiquitous Walt Disney animations, to classic Bugs Bunny and Winnie the Pooh; and Dr. Doolittle, we of course can always: "chat with nature.’

As children, we quickly ask our parents why we and not they can actually speak. Why do dogs bark, kittens meow and slithering snakes hiss? Why groans and grunts from apes, but not sentences or even simple words from chimps? Inquiring child-minds want to know why the zoo is not like a chatty neighborhood restaurant or cafeteria.¹⁴ Children love make-believe, and desire a world of talking insects, birds and even purple dinosaurs like Barney.

If we are to consider contemporary evolutionary theory and data, we must accept that human language evolved as a very natural process over a very large compass of time. But to date, no group of scientists fully understands exactly how; and it appears (as far as we know) that there are no acknowledged animals which are in any transitional phase between quasi-speaking and actually chatting with us at the local zoo or even on the leash. This biological reality represents in many ways, a frustrating yet clearly thrilling challenge for contemporary evolutionary biology as well as for we zoo-attending and pet-loving humans.¹⁵

The very foundations of human vocalizations and eventual complex language, still remains one of the most momentous obstacles in evolutionary theory, even today in the twenty-first century there is a Nobel prize awaiting its electrifying discovery for any linguists, primatologists or even social psychologists who can ascertain any significant communication breakthrough. Where and how the origins of speech began is still a scientific and linguistic mystery. It is in so many ways a riddle of earthly biology.¹⁶

Of course many animals are capable of using various sounds to communicate. Nonetheless there is a colossal disparity between the ‘meow’ of the alley cat next door, the howl of a desert coyote, or the trumpeting of an elephant at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago. There is a chasm between the articulations sprawling from actors on a stage playing a feline character before a paying audience at a Broadway production of The Lion King (or the musical Cats), and those big cats roaring for a meaty dinner at your local zoological park. And of course the chimps, monkeys and apes there will only squall, grunt or dangle from inside their cages. At best, they may offer you a smile by displaying their teeth and gums on a sunny summer afternoon.¹⁷

Many language psychologists, primate researchers and sociolinguists have focused on the language potentials of gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans. They have been fascinated by both the anatomical and physiological underpinnings of primate communication, but to date it seems that only we Homo sapiens seem to have the clear-cut vocal equipment to do the job adequately. We have just the precise vocal gear for performing at a rock concert, giving a final graded speech in college, or endlessly haranguing from the US Senate floor in a premeditated filibuster about the teaching of evolution in our public schools.

In their tackling of how human language arose, scientists often link the progress of the human brain to the actual manifestation of languages. But when we reflect upon the reality that more than 6,500 human languages have survived to date¹⁸, it is inconceivable in many ways to suggest that the development of language could be viewed as some sort of straightforward addition to human anatomy and physiology alone: namely a powerful speech tool made possible by an enlarged head and cerebral hemispheres unique only to Homo sapiens. The full story seems to be far more complicated and remotely more involved.¹⁹

The human brain is not merely larger and more developed than that of the hairy apes. The intricate folds and nerve connections are immensely assorted and diverse as well.²⁰ All forms of information must first be obtained from the binocular eyes and then swiftly travel to the visual cortex in a very quick and complex neurological series of sequenced events. In short, in order for those Broadway actors to speak or sing on stage, they must invoke the auditory cortex and a series of vocal machinery in the throat, nose and even the chest cavity. This is a very impressive speech process indeed.²¹ It is far more complex than any automaton or android robot designed from Caltech or MIT robotics laboratories could dream up.

Unlike robots, the precise technicalities involved in human speech have anatomical and physiological prerequisites which are found primarily in Homo sapiens. And as you may guess, also parrots and myna birds—although they ‘fabricate’ sounds in a different way, do possess a smidgen of language facility, but it is not very advanced. It is interesting to point out that no myna bird nor even a chimp, gorilla or loud parrot today (nor has there ever one been observed in the fossil record), possesses anything close to the human larynx (or voice box).²²

In all mammals, the larynx is the muscular organ which forms an air passage to the lungs; it holds the vocal chords and other sound or voice-making mechanisms. It is the highly sophisticated larynx found in humans, coupled with the cerebral hemispheres which permit children and adults the biological, psychological and behavioral phenomenon called language.

In short, we humans have an instinctive, built-in, hard-wired capacity to obtain and communicate multifaceted language from the moment of our birth! For the most part chimps, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and related higher mammals simply do not. It is fair to say that animals do possess a clear measure of understanding, along with a level of impressive intelligence, but it in no way compares to that of humans. Many animals indeed communicate, think, deliberate and in some cases contemplate and can even solve multifaceted problems. We love to speak with our pets and communicate with them, and they certainly can learn to respond to our simple commands and signs as well as learn clever tricks.²³ Even though apes, dogs, cats and birds can be trained to do certain clever activities and other intellectual behaviors, none remotely reaches the level of human capacity.

Animals largely communicate thoughts and behaviors centered on mating interests, nesting, immediate danger, food, etc.; and as far as we know, they still are unable to reason or converse with each other so as to have a discussion or an emotional-mental relationship. The intelligence of apes and other animals is uniquely separate and quite distinctive from us humans. And yet, new and amazing communicational discoveries are made about them on a weekly basis.

Scientists indeed have empirical and behavioral evidence of sharing, compassion, empathy and unconditional positive regard²⁴ among mammals and higher primates.²⁵ The complete verdict is not fully out. Animal psychology (or ethology) makes new discoveries on a regular basis. Research is growing exponentially. Ethology is the scientific and objective study of how animals think and behave under natural conditions; and attempting to understand them as an adaptive trait. It is sometimes referred to as animal psychology.²⁶

A Triumvirate Species

Along with the other hairy mammals and hominids, we humans experience a profound sensibility concerning: time. Time, as far as science knows, is a very uniquely human preoccupation. We all indeed have our five senses: hearing, smelling, touching, tasting and of course, seeing. But our human ‘judgment’ concerning time is quite unique unto itself, even among the other mammals. We observe time in the sense and judgment of a humanly inventive consciousness. We also regard time as an individual social preoccupation.²⁷

The adage: time is money has always seemed to be of paramount importance to us naked apes. We have also developed (along with language and time), complex societies. Ones imbued with politics, finances, industries, universities, laboratories and intricate networks of global economics. Yet it is clear that biological clocks do exist in nature beyond humans. They are clearly at work in animals from birds flying south and 17-year cicadas, to biennial vegetables such as fennel, spinach and lettuce. The plant and animal worlds do make use of ‘clocks’ and ‘time,’ but as far as we know, not to the economic and psycho-social height to which we humans experience them.

While all five of our senses make use of highly specialized sensory-receptors, there is no real clear-cut receptor designed solely for time. Yet, in all instances our cerebral hemispheres seem to be functioning as a ‘time conscious machine’ of some sort. Unlike most mammals, we develop an impression of the past, present and future a so-called: triumvirate of time. This is a sense of recognizing our environment in three clearly discernible ‘directions.’ Those directions also guide our sense of speech into present, past and future tenses.²⁸ They guide our daily schedules, construct our sense of history, steer our future aspirations and gyrate our global economies and industries on Wall Street. Children principally live and think in the present; and very young children experience time before even gaining any awareness of its actual passing. They are capable only of identifying precise points in time if they are forced to pay strict attention to them, thus translating them in terms of how long it may take to complete a fun activity, or when it is time for recess, games or a grilled