What Makes Humans So Special?

What Makes Humans So Special?

Many animal rights advocates argue that we should treat animals the same as humans. To do otherwise is what they call “speciesism,” and they consider it perhaps even worse than racism. Why should humans be favored over other species? What makes humans so special?

An article in Scientific American caught my attention. It was written by Kate Wong and titled “Humans Are Not So Special After All.” The article points out that since 1960, when Jane Goodall observed a chimpanzee using grass and twigs as tools to coax termites from their nests, people have discovered that animals can do things previously thought only humans could do. Wong suggests that humans are not unique and that even plants can think and count.

Observations have shown that animals can perform amazing feats, but isn’t it possible that they do these things because they were programmed for survival by their Designer? It seems to me that the examples Wong provides fall short of proving her point. What makes humans so special involves more than the intelligent actions animals perform.

One example Wong uses is that brown capuchin monkeys decline a treat when they see another receiving a better one. She claims this shows a “sense of fairness,” but couldn’t it also indicate a sense of greed? She states that apes, monkeys, and elephants “mourn the loss of bonded individuals.” However, those species are programmed with a group/herd mentality that depends on each other for survival. She also mentions how mice and rats are affected by the pain or suffering of a fellow species member; but rather than compassion, could that not be fear for their own safety?

Wong also mentions an orca that made worldwide headlines for carrying her dead calf for 17 days while swimming 1,000 miles. To me, that appears to be a programmed survival instinct that failed to recognize there was no hope for the calf’s survival. The Eurasian magpie that “recognized itself” in a mirror reminds me of a turkey rooster that “recognized” his reflection in my basement window and kept tapping on the glass to challenge this supposed “competitor” for his territory.

For an example of plant “consciousness,” Wong presents the Venus flytrap and the fact that it “remembers” being touched. After two touches, it closes to trap the insect. After five touches, it secretes enzymes to digest the prey. But this does not demonstrate “thinking.” It is very simple to program a counting subroutine that causes a device to perform an action after two, five, or any number of signals from an outside source. That is programming, not thinking. The same applies to plants that produce chemicals summoning predators for defense when an animal chews on them. Again, it seems to be a survival program built into the plant.

Wong mentions anthropomorphism as “ascribing human thoughts, feelings, and motivations to animals.” While that is something people often do—particularly with dogs—I think Wong herself may be guilty of it.

The bottom line is that none of the examples Wong cites can compare to what makes humans so special. Humans alone are created in the image of God. We have minds unlike the brain functions of any animal. When we see animals do amazing things, we should give credit to the Creator who gave them those survival abilities.

— Roland Earnst © 2025

 Reference: “Humans Are Not So Special After All” by Kate Wong in Scientific American, September 2025.

Brain Uploading

Brain Uploading
How would you like to have your brain uploaded before you die so that your consciousness could be preserved? That is the goal of a brain uploading company called Nectome.

The company wants to deliver a “100-percent-fatal” service to terminally ill patients. They are developing a process that fills the patient’s arteries with embalming fluids. The result is that the patient will die, but the brain will be preserved. Their process is supposed to preserve the links between the neurons in full detail. Then Nectome will view those links with an electron scanning microscope. Their goal is to preserve those links to revive the consciousness of the deceased person. The company hired lawyers to work out the legality of this process under California’s physician-assisted suicide law.

Nectome was founded by graduates of the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and received funding from a famous Silicon Valley startup incubator. The brain preservation project involved a collaboration with MIT and received a grant of almost a million dollars from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). They also received a prize of $80,000 from The Brain Preservation Foundation for preserving a pig’s brain using their process. MIT severed ties with Nectome just a few days ago after previously publishing a favorable article in the MIT Technology Review on March 13.

After the article in MIT Technology Review, several leading neuroscientists criticized the idea of brain uploading after preserving a brain from a live person. Nectome has removed a statement about being able to “back up” people’s minds from their website. They are now saying that they have no plans to do this in “the foreseeable future.” Robert McIntyre, the co-founder of Nectome, recently said, “…we don’t mean to imply that electron microscope image data is the only thing we would need to reconstruct consciousness or even memories.”

We have said for a long time that there is more to humans than just the physical body or the neurons in our brains. There is a spiritual aspect that cannot be preserved by any scientific means. By its very nature, it cannot even be adequately studied by any scientific means. We are created in the image of God with a soul that can live forever. Brain uploading, if it ever works, can never preserve the essence of who we are. Only God can do that. We must place our hope in Him, not in a company no matter how prestigious or well-funded it might be.
–Roland Earnst © 2018