Below is an article written by evolutionist Nick Haslam in The Conversation:
"Although only some animal metaphors are highly offensive, most appear to be somewhat negative in their connotations. One study found a clear majority to be judged uncomplimentary – especially
those most often addressed to men – and another showed animal metaphors primarily represent negative attributes.
Our research suggests the most common of these negative attributes are depravity, disagreeableness and stupidity. In essence, when we call someone an “animal” in the general sense, we are ascribing these flaws to them. Humans are moral, civil and smart; animals are not.
Indeed, it has been argued animal metaphors reveal a deep sense of hierarchy in nature. According to the ancient idea of the scala naturae or “great chain of being”, humans sit one step above animals, who themselves sit above plants and then minerals. Just as we are on the third rock from the sun, we are on the third step from the top of the ladder, with God and angels above us.
In this hierarchy humans have supposedly unique powers of reason and self control, whereas animals represent unrestrained instinct. To call someone an animal is therefore to demote them to a lower rung of existence, a more primitive state of being where they lack human virtues." CEH
Actually, this Scala Naturae , or great chain of being, is correct, but NOT for evolutionary reasons but rather created that way by DESIGN.
Plants exist & serve a purpose
Animals exist, serve a purpose & have instinct
Humans exist, serve a purpose, have instinct & the ability to reason
Angels would be slightly higher than humans only in their advanced abilities to do what humans do, both physically & intellectually
"Although only some animal metaphors are highly offensive, most appear to be somewhat negative in their connotations. One study found a clear majority to be judged uncomplimentary – especially
 |
| Not by evolution - but by DESIGN CREATED that way |
Our research suggests the most common of these negative attributes are depravity, disagreeableness and stupidity. In essence, when we call someone an “animal” in the general sense, we are ascribing these flaws to them. Humans are moral, civil and smart; animals are not.
Indeed, it has been argued animal metaphors reveal a deep sense of hierarchy in nature. According to the ancient idea of the scala naturae or “great chain of being”, humans sit one step above animals, who themselves sit above plants and then minerals. Just as we are on the third rock from the sun, we are on the third step from the top of the ladder, with God and angels above us.
In this hierarchy humans have supposedly unique powers of reason and self control, whereas animals represent unrestrained instinct. To call someone an animal is therefore to demote them to a lower rung of existence, a more primitive state of being where they lack human virtues." CEH
Actually, this Scala Naturae , or great chain of being, is correct, but NOT for evolutionary reasons but rather created that way by DESIGN.
Plants exist & serve a purpose
Animals exist, serve a purpose & have instinct
Humans exist, serve a purpose, have instinct & the ability to reason
Angels would be slightly higher than humans only in their advanced abilities to do what humans do, both physically & intellectually
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,...
Psalm 8:4,5
