When good scientists go bad.

Though it’s a bit of old news now (‘old news’ in this day and age meaning older than one 24 hour news cycle) the scandal that has come to be known as ‘Climategate’ continues to reveal the depth of the corruption in climate research.

Though there are a number of aspects that could be commented on (the media and leaders ignoring the story, the legitimacy of gaining information through hacking, etc.) I think what is most telling as the whole event unfolds is the degree to which scientific endeavors are corruptible by human nature. Science, which is understood by the materialist to be the be all and end all of human knowledge, is held up as ultimately reliable because it is based on testable observations, rigorously reviewed by knowledgeable peers, who have no interest in a particular result.

Of course that is the ideal; in reality science is conducted by human beings, and if there is one certain universal truth about human endeavors, it is Lord Acton’s axiom, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. That truth is a cornerstone of American political philosophy, but it is a concern in any human institution – economic, religious, and yes, even the scientific sort.

In the case of the climate research going on at University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, whose work was central to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) purposes, hacked e-mails reveal that power and politics did indeed do the work of corrupting reason and research. And it isn’t just the occasional remark which indicates how the research was manipulated; lengthy chronicles of the manipulation of data are now available that show how little of the research was based on robust, consistent data, but instead was massaged, directed, and contradictory data was ignored.

And to add to this travesty of ‘science’ is the revelation that the original data upon which the studies were based has all been lost, keeping others from effectively examining the research.

But most of this is little surprise when one realizes that climate research has become big business and big politics – governments make international treaties based on this research, politicians and celebrities make movies and win awards by advancing the claims, and those who give knowledge gain a prestige that is hard to come by in the course of ordinary academic investigation. Power and fame are the most addictive intoxicants known, and being a scientist does not make one immune to their effects.

The reality is that science is best when it limits itself to readily observable phenomena, providing explanations and solutions for those events which can be reproduced in controlled circumstances, researched by multiple independent observers, whom are free to express dissent and skepticism of the ever changing consensus.

Science is at its worst when it strays outside of this pervue into politics and metaphysics, where it’s pronouncements are based on vague and unique data sets, susceptible to interpretation based on the bias of the researcher, which take the form of unassailable dogma. This sort of ‘science’ mocks dissenters and skeptics, insists on adherence to a consensus, and resists contrary explanations in an attempt to hold onto power and reputation. In short science that has given way to all too human inclinations. Such tendencies are common to all human institutions, but science has all too often held itself up as a special form of knowledge which is immune to human nature, when it is in fact only one of a number of forms of human knowledge, limited to certain uses, but impotent beyond that.

Understanding and acknowledging these limitations is critical not only to good science, but to good policy and a good society. Lord Acton added to his common dictum these less well known thoughts:
“Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

Our society would do well to remove science and scientists from the pedestal of authority they now enjoy, if for nothing else, to save science itself.

Does Darwinism Lead to Murder?

Pekka-Eric Auvinen, Finnish Shooter

Causing no little consternation as of late is a recent article in the Science section of the Sunday Times Online which chronicles the apparent link between the evolutionary (and once revolutionary) ideas of Charles Darwin, and the propensity for violence among youth.

The article in question, Charles Darwin and the children of the evolution, by BBC journalist Dennis Sewell suggests that a number of high school killers, specifically Columbine killer Eric Harris, and Finnish shooter Pekka-Eric Auvinen were motivated by Darwin’s idea of natural selection, however twisted their understanding of this idea was.

Another recent link was made from Darwinism to violent behavior in the pages of the science journal Nature. There author James Pusey explains the foundational role Darwinism played in the mega-murderous regime of China’s Mao. Most of this isn’t particularly surprising; I have written myself about the direct connection between Darwin and the early 20th century ideas about eugenics that led to so many deaths.

And of course is the same sort of argument that got Ben Stein in trouble over a year ago when he made it in the Intelligent Design documentary ‘Expelled’, which generated heaps of derision on Stein from the atheist/evolutionist circles. And the anger over these current articles is coming from the same quarters. Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago Professor of Ecology and Evolution (and not surprisingly atheist apologist) bemoans the connection Sewell makes between Darwin and bad behavior , and points out atheists are capable of being moral too:

Apparently Sewell hasn’t heard about the secular origin of morality, or the fact that, as even many theologians admit, we cannot philosophically ground right and wrong on divine fiat. And what’s wrong with accepting one’s morality as “matter of personal choice”? Isn’t it more admirable to act out of reasoned principles of morality than out of fear of eternal immolation for disobeying the Sky Dictator?

All of this rather begs the question about whether or not evolutionary theory is true; obviously if that is the case, then it is what it is, whatever morality it provokes. This being said, if evolution does provoke such behavior, then it perhaps deserves a scrutiny that other scientific explanations, less directly related to human behavior, might garner. Whatever the realities of dark matter for example, its existence is highly unlikely to incite dark behavior.

Beyond this though I think evolutionists wrongly deny, or are simply don’t realize that evolution is more than a mere scientific theory, even while they utilize it as a basis for their own metaphysical beliefs in agnosticism or atheism. Coyne exemplifies this when he says sarcastically in his response to the article, “I hadn’t realized that Darwinism was a “world-view.” Silly me — all along I thought it was just a theory meant to explain the development and diversity of life.”

Of course even a casual observer realizes evolution is both, and as much as there is dispute over evolution between various interests, I think the primary dispute comes down to the worldview evolution seems to suggest.

On one hand, narrowly understood evolution is a comprehensive theory composed of various natural events – mutations, natural selection, adaptation, speciation, etc., some more readily observable than others. The totality of these events is believed to be responsible for the origination of all life on earth – however that is not all evolution says about us as humans.

Because of evolution’s presumed critical role in the origin of humans, and all that defines us – our minds, our societies, our behaviors, our concepts of right and wrong behaviors – evolution forms a metanarrative, or a comprehensive explanation of human knowledge and experience. In short it claims to tell us what we are and how we came to be what we are, and as much as it does this it forms a basis for acting according to that narrative.

The very fact that strong evolutionists so consistently cling to a particular metaphysic (agnosticism or atheism) and so consistently cite evolution as the foundation of that belief demonstrates how evolution serves as a metanarrative. So it isn’t a great leap to consider that behaviors provoked by strongly held evolutionary beliefs might in turn be consistent under similar circumstances.

In fact, one might say it is obvious as the beak on a Galapagos finch.

For the sake of anti-science

Michael Hawkins, in a recent post at the atheist/evolutionist site (n.b. – his conflation, not mine) ‘For the Sake of Science’ tells a tale of his youth where he encountered his first ‘anti-science’ stance. In his story, he first learns about the earth spinning on its axis via a kindergarten teacher. Fascinated by this new knowledge, he excitedly shares it with his young neighbor friend as soon as he gets the chance. Alas, there is a problem; his friend is skeptical of his claims! He thus concludes:

I really had no response to this. I had basically been told some facts which were consistent with observation. I didn’t have a full grasp (nay, nary a tenuous grasp) on gravity or anything that would have helped me explain to David [the young friend] why he was wrong. I was only able to repeat what I was convinced was true. This was the first time I had been frustrated by someone taking an anti-science stance. I didn’t know his position was in opposition to science since I was about 5 or 6, but that’s what it was. Fortunately, his position can be excused since he was about the same age. But this raises an interesting question.

What is everyone else’s excuse?

It is always interesting to me that those who claim to speak for science, nay, have a blog presumed to exist ‘For the Sake of Science’, display so little knowledge of what science actually is. Let’s begin with a breakdown of what happened.

Young Mikey gained new information from a teacher, a trusted authority, about certain natural phenomena. So far so good; that is the purpose of educators, to convey the most current information about such things.  Lil’ Mike then shared this information with his friend as fact; his friend responded with skepticism. Michael concludes this is ‘anti-science’ because he considered it a denial of what is plainly true, much as those evil evolution deniers do. However, nothing which transpired between Hawkins and his friend qualifies as ‘scientific’ except perhaps, the reaction of his very young friend!

Like many evolutionists Hawkins concludes that the word of an educators or expert is equivalent to science – it’s not; science relies on repeated observation, and experimentation, not the opinion of experts or authorities, who have repeatedly been proved wrong in their claims. Indeed, an ‘appeal to authority’ is an oft used logical fallacy. However, one key component of science is skepticism; that is not taking what someone claims at face value, not even the supposed experts – exactly the attitude his friend displayed.

So what really happened was that Michael heard something from someone he trusted, a claim that appealed to his own thinking – and so he adopted it as true, which is actually an act of faith not science. His friend questioned that claim, which is the beginning of rigorous scientific inquiry. So in this case it was actually Micheal himself who was being ‘anti-science’.

The question I have for Michael is why as a grown-up who is supposed to be trained in science, is he still defending such faith-based thinking?

Species, baramin, or kind – the inadequacy of classification schema

Frequently in discussions between evolutionists and creationists, a central point of disagreement revolves around the origin of species, of which evolution claims to be the primary engine. Creationists deny that evolution is capable of such a feat, and even deny that species as a proper classification of organisms. In keeping with Biblical text, they instead adopt kind, or more properly baramin as the proper distinction between different types of organisms, and deny evolution the power to create this level of distinction.

 The problem with both classification schemas is that they are both based on either vague or arbitrary criteria. In the case of baramin, the Bible gives no detailed description of what distinguishes one ‘kind’ from another or any criteria by which to measure such a distinction. As Genesis is not a detailed science text, such criteria are not expected.

 However the term ‘species’, despite its long history and centrality to both biology and evolutionary theory, fairs no better. In fact the species problem is a long recognized issue in biology. In the simplest terms a species is an interbreeding population which is reproductively isolated from other populations; in reality populations are in constant flux, and despite years of relative isolation populations often find ways to interbreed.

 And the problem gets worse when considering the prehistory of life; indeed, a recent analyses of dinosaur ‘species’ found that up to a third of the dinosaur species may in fact not be species at all, but instead be different age groups and sexes of the same type of dinosaur.

Species or stages?

Such a finding also underlines the weaknesses of fossil interpretation when investigating life’s past. Indeed, this has the potential to call into question much of the supposed record of evolution said to be found in fossils, which purports to demonstrate the gradual appearance of species over time.

 As someone who favors intelligent design and who is a critic of evolution, I don’t necessarily have a dog in this fight. Indeed, I think it is better to focus on the origin of information, body plans, living systems and capabilities rather than quibble over classification schema that are virtually impossible to actually define. But I have found, clarity is rarely the goal of such discussions.

Meyer vs. Ward Transcript

In a previous post I linked to an audio of the Peter Ward/ Stephen Meyer Intelligent Design debate. Here is a transcript of the debate for those with slower connections (or for those that prefer to read).

It highlights again the eminently reasonable arguments of Intelligent Design.

A Primer on Intelligent Design

I mentioned in an earlier post that I had long been interested in the science of life and its origins, and I have spent a number of years exploring the intersection between science and faith. In recent years, the conversation has centered primarily on Intelligent Design, a theory much talked about in the media, courts, schools, and scientific circles. To that end, I wanted to give those unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the issue an overview of the discussion to date.

Below are a series of questions and answers about Intelligent Design. I attempted to be as even-handed as possible, though I readily acknowledge that in general, I support intelligent design as a scientific theory.

What is Intelligent Design (ID)?

Intelligent Design is the scientific theory that states that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as mutation and natural selection. It is a theory promulgated to answer this question, posed by William Dembski, an originator of the theory of ID, and one of its primary proponents:

Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

That question can be asked by anybody regardless of metaphysical belief; and the answer, presumably, wouldn't require a particular belief either.

To that end, two main criteria have been proposed to determine the earmarks of intelligent activity in the formation of an object (or organism) – they are irreducible complexity, and specified complexity.

Irreducible complexity is drawn from a statement by Charles Darwin:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
–Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189

Thus Michael Behe describes an irreducibly complex system this way:

"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"
–Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p. 9

In simpler terms, if you have a mechanism (for example, a mousetrap) you can only reduce that mechanism down to a certain number of parts before it ceases to function in any useful way; in biological terms, all the parts to a irreducibly complex biological system must be in place at once in order for it to function in any useful way and confer a survival advantage to the organism. Thus, such systems could not be formed by a series of gradual modifications as required by Darwinian evolution.

In the case of specified complexity, developed by William Dembski, the idea really centers on information patterns. If a pattern is both specified, and complex, it is a reliable marker of intelligent activity. Thus a mountain side may be complex, that is made up of a variety of materials, but it isn't specific in its arrangement. A crystalline structure like a diamond might be specific because its structure is organized in uniform a pattern, but they aren't really complex.

Intelligence allows for patterns that are both specified (organized) and complex, like written languages, computers codes, and machines. In short, it allows us to discern the degree to which intelligence played a part in the formation of Mount Rushmore versus the natural formation of a cliff wall.

These two criteria form the basis of intelligent design theory.

Does ID disprove evolution?

ID is primarily a criticism of evolution on one specific point; primarily that undirected causes such as mutation and natural selection are sufficient alone to account for the current genetic diversity we see in biological systems. Beyond that, it accepts other evolutionary concepts such as common descent, adaptive radiation, and natural selection.

Intelligent Design also acts as a critique of the natural origin of life and the universe, though this is not a criticism of evolutionary  theory which attempts  no explanation of life and the universe.

Is ID Creationism?

No – ID and Creationism have fundamentally different goals; creationism attempts to reconcile the narrative of Genesis with scientific theory; ID on the other hand simply attempts to answer the simple question, Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Of course, creationists often find the information ID provides as useful (just as they sometimes find the information provided by other sciences as useful) but this doesn't make ID and creationism the same thing.

Is ID science?

This depends how one defines science. If the standard definition is used, that is the investigation of the universe through hypothesis, observation, investigation and testing, well then yes, ID qualifies as science.

If one adds the current addendum that all explanations must be the product of wholly natural phenomenon (that is, non-intelligent, or non-directed forces) as does methodological naturalism, then ID wouldn't qualify as science; but of course, methodological naturalism also conceivably disqualifies science from answering fundamental questions about the origin of the universe, life, and the origin of species by dismissing viable explanations.

Didn't the court rule ID wasn't science?

In the Kitzmiller v. Dover case Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID was not science, and as such, could not be taught in the science classroom. If one holds that courtrooms are where science is conducted, then yes, at least in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, ID is not science, though of course the court also ruled ID may be true.

It is notable that to this day, evolution is the only scientific theory which requires court protection from detractors in order to maintain viability.

Aren't all supporters of intelligent design Christians?

No, actually a number of them aren't; among non-Christian ID supporters we have Anthony Flew (Agnostic), Michael Denton (agnostic), Mustafa Akyol (Muslim), Slade Gorton (Jewish). Of course, whether or not they are Christian is rather irrelevant; one could safely say 95% of atheists are evolutionists of one stripe or another, but that doesn't really say anything about whether or not evolution is the best explanation for the existence and variety of life on earth.

Does ID hurt science or science education?

I have always been perplexed by this idea; that somehow if ID were accepted as a viable alternative to evolution that all critical thinking would end. This runs counter to two obvious facts, the first being that historically science in large part is the product of a Christian culture that had no problem reconciling the existence of a Creator with natural exploration. In fact, many great scientists, among them Newton, Kepler, Bacon, and Pascal were notable commentators on theology as well as scientific icons.

The second obvious fact is that the debate between evolution and intelligent design is perhaps one of the most vibrant scientific discussions of the twenty-first century. It has driven an interest and exploration into origins and genetic capability, and the very structure of life. There is really only one side who wants to shut down discussion in the debate, and that side isn't supporters of intelligent design.

I hope this helps further the discussion now going on about Intelligent Design, both for supporters, critics, and the casual observer.

Meyer-Ward ID debate

As I mentioned in my previous post, the confluence between scientific thought and faith has long been a concern for me. Toward that end, I have been interested in the debate between evolutionists and those who see in nature the evidence for design. When I began college the primary critics of evolution were creationists; in recent years this criticism has taken the form of ID.

Over the years, one of the ways this difference has been explored has been through debates. I became intimately familiar with such debates in the early eighties when I helped organize a debate on the Iowa State campus between creationist Duane Gish and atheist Dr. John Patterson, then a professor at Iowa State. It was interesting, exciting, and raised many important questions, as well as sparking a dialogue on campus.

Recently, I was listening to another debate, this time between Dr. Stephen Meyer, a geophysicist and fellow with the Discovery Institute, and paleontologist Peter Ward from the University of Washington. What struck me about the debate, compared with earlier ones I had heard, was that the discussion had come a long way; both men were articulate, knowledgeable, and relatively respectful. And the science for intelligent design (ID) is there; thanks in large part to our growing understanding of the genome, ID is a science based on solid evidence – and a solid understanding of the relationship between intelligence, complexity, and design.

If you are interested in such things, I highly recommend the debate as a 'primer' on the issue. Audio files can be found here. I realize these files may be too big for some connections; unfortunately there is no transcript yet. There was an earlier debate that day between Meyers and Ward on an Oregon radio show – the transcript of that exchange is here. I would be interested in any feedback anyone has on these issues.

Fides scientia

I have been, for as long as I can remember, a science geek.

I don't know if I was born that way, or if I am just the product of  some unique environmental factors but I am certain it was a tendency encouraged by my parents. One of my earliest memories is of my father calling excitedly for my mother so she could hear me spell zoology. Another time, when I was still quite young, our wonderful neighbor Mrs. Schaeffer had a party for the neighborhood kids (she was known for having fun little parties for no particular reason) where kids could come dressed according to what they wanted to be when they grew up. I came as a pterodactyl.

Of particular interest to me was paleontology and biology; I was an avid reader early on, and my parents fed my habit with sets of encyclopedias – first the popular World Book Encyclopedia, then later a 20 volume set of the Encyclopedia of Animal life (written, interestingly, in the King's english – which to this day will still occasionally causes me to give certain words their British spelling, like colour and labour), as well as the entire Time-Life Nature library. 

One of my particular favorites in the Time-Life set was the volume Early Man. The volume included the obligatory multi-page centerfold timeline of the march of human evolution from a small ape-like ancestor to modern humans, as well as numerous illustrations of the same ancestors struggling for survival against hyenas, other proto-humans, and starvation, causing them to develop tools to hunt mammoths and protect themselves against predators. It was all so convincing.

I think it was around that time science, in particular, the study of evolution, became something more to me than a science theory; it became a faith. By faith, I mean it became something that I held to be true about life, something more than just a process, but rather something that explained why mankind was here, and where we might be going.

As I got older, and increasingly discouraged about the state of humanity – the desruction of the environment, the potential for cataclysmic war, the greed and hatred I saw around me, evolution also gave me hope. Bouyed by science popularizers like Sagan,  Asimov and Clarke, as well as the science fiction they wrote, like Childhood's End and the movie that shared it's themes, 2001 a Space Odyssey, I began to see evolutionary theory as the great hope of mankind. Just as we were once primordial ooze, and became human, so to we might overcome our earthly troubles and inherit the stars.

As a result, what little faith I might have had in God was relegated to agnosticism; I wasn't particularly hostile to the idea a god might exist, it just didn't seem to matter all that much.

Occasionally I would run into a backward thinking person who still held to the idea that God created the world and that some evidence for this existed; if I didn't automatically dismiss the person as uneducated or hopelessly wedded to some outlandish religious notions, I might attempt to dialogue. It usually wasn't long before it became a debate - and I loved to debate; particularly when my faith was being called into question. I rarely found it difficult however to knock down most of their ideas.

In 1982 I began my University career as a biology major, with plans to go on to veterinary school. It just so happened that around the same time a rather radical proposal had been made on campus; a professor of engineering, Dr. John Patterson, had proposed at a department meeting that any student who proclaimed a belief that God created the world should be denied a science degree. In addition to his teaching job, Prof. Patterson was also a widely known and very outspoken atheist – and his proposal was made in response to what he saw as the threat of creationism invading campus. Of course the proposal, once made public, created a furor on campus, with debates going on in the student paper and among the faculty and staff. I was rather amazed that even at the University level some still questioned evolution; indeed, I was becoming friends with someone who did, a fact I attributed to his small town upbringing.

But something else was happening that year; I was beginning to realize that whatever faith I had in nature, it wasn't sufficient to satisfy deep personal longings for meaning and purpose and change. While evolution might hold out some hope for the future of mankind, it held little hope for me personally; we might grow as a species, but I continued to fail even my own standards and expectations. I was as greedy and selfish as anyone else, and change seemed beyond me.

The same friend whose science I dismissed had an answer when it came to purpose and change, and that answer was Jesus Christ. Though I had early on dismissed Christianity, I couldn't deny my friend's life – or the joy and love and peace I saw in it. After nearly a year of wrangling with myself, and with a growing understanding of who Christ was and the reality of His existence, I surrendered my life to Christ, transferring my faith from a belief in the power of nature and myself to a faith in Christ.

That surrender, while it brought about dramatic changes in me, didn't alleviate all the questions I had. I still had a niggling feeling about the accuracy of Scripture, at least as much as it seemed to contradict my understanding of science. Thus, a lot of my twenty-plus years as Christian has been involved with considering the intersection of science and Scripture, and as a result, a lot of what I will consider here will concern that as well – my science geekdom remains unabated, so my apologies ahead of time to those whose interests lie elsewhere; you will have to endure the occasional technical discussion.  

Junkyard science

Interesting item I read recently concerning the latest discoveries about "junk DNA'; IBM has added to the body of evidence which indicates that it isn't so 'junky' after all.

IBM Discovery Could Shed New Light on Workings of the Human Genome 

From the article:

IBM today announced its researchers have discovered numerous DNA patterns shared by areas of the human genome that were thought to have little or no influence on its function and those areas that do.

As reported today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), regions of the human genome that were assumed to largely contain evolutionary leftovers (called "junk DNA") may actually hold significant clues that can add to scientists' understanding of cellular processes. IBM researchers have discovered that these regions contain numerous, short DNA "motifs," or repeating sequence fragments, which also are present in the parts of the genome that give rise to proteins.

If verified experimentally, the discovery suggests a potential connection between these coding and non-coding parts of the human genome that could have a profound impact on genomic research and provide important insights on the workings of cells.

The existence of non-coding (junk) DNA has for sometime now been an arguement for the evolution of the genome – or more properly as evidence against the design of the genome; after all, if the genetic code was designed by an intelligent designer, why would the design include so much that is useless or inefficient? This contention borders on a prediction, which evolutionary theory is generally loathe to make. Recent research though has trended to weigh against this contention; and IBM's research only continues this trend. In short, the evolutionary prediction is being proved wrong.

One question comes to mind though, is why did the initial assessors of what appeared to non-coding regions of the genome rush to see it as 'junk'? I am inclined to think this has much to do with the evolutionary bias within the biological sciences community. The assumption there is always that all organisms are the product of chance and circumstance; there was no directive force in their development, and thus there is no reason to look at the structure of organisms in a way that appreciates the complexity and the inter-dependence of of the make-up of the organism.

The IBM researchers aren't necessarily burdened with the same predilections. Being familiar with coded operations through their previous work with other designed systems which operate from codes, they are free to appreciate the genome for what it is – a highly complex coded information system – and study it accordingly. As a result, they are finding things the biologists and geneticists apparently couldn't see.

It may be this is an inevitable trend. As we become more aware of the the make-up of living organisms, and as information engineers study the codes and bioengineers seek to imitate the machinery of life , it becomes more apparent that the design of life surpasses our most advanced capabilities – and the predisposition of biological scientists to ignore this fact is becoming embarrasingly obvious.

Esos monos tontos

I am not sure where to file this one, but I think it highlights the absurdity of modern scientific/evolutionary thinking:

Socialists: Give apes human rights

The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The PSOE's justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans.

Personally, I am not sure what the Socialists in Spain hope to gain by this; I have seen King Kong, and he definitely doesn't vote Socialist.