Click for: CSSHS Archive Main Page
Vol. II • 1979       http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v01n3p21.htm

 
Overdesign As A Model
For A Language, Part II
Dennis Farrell


Thus far, most of the points proposed as evidence of design and complexity have been inferred. Even the obvious distinction between man and animals may be regarded as a missing link and, consequently, as an argument from lack of evidence. While inference may in itself be satisfactory, it seems necessary to bolster it with something more concrete. This support does exist in the form of biological structure. In addition to such design evidence as animal differences, universal similarities (UG), language acquisition, and naming complexity, biological structure would provide even stronger evidence for the design (and complexity) model. Besides, each of the previous categories and their inferences contains a biological parallel.

Before presenting the evidence, it is only equitable to state that Lenneberg considers biological counterparts to language as speculative. He says that our lack of a language model and of knowledge of the common integrative area of the brain make speculation about biological mechanisms shoddy.38 He claims that a physiological or even psychological parallel to rules of grammar is only theoretical and probably more "psychological" as in the transformation from deep to surface structure.39 Lenneberg apparently agrees with Chomsky's inference of deep and surface structure, although referring to it as "psychological". Chomsky, however, is prone to a biological explanation and is not the only one.

Several experts, including Lenneberg, assert that the brain contains neural structures fundamental to language. While admitting that the neural structure is a mystery, Chomsky believes that it definitely controls the use of language.40 He says these structures develop naturally without influence and are based on a predetermined "biologically given organization of the mind".41 The key design word here is "organization". Ungar calls "neural" structure representing the ability to speak an "integrated", "innate framework" for language.42 Rose claims that the universal structural similarity of languages presupposes a "wired-in" series of "connections" that are actually "programmed" to insure human language. Sign language is also a manifestation of this programming, since it obeys grammatical principles.43 Two basic methods of brain study, lesion and stimulation, support the structure proposal. Lenneberg himself cites discrepancies between specific lesions and similar loci stimulation as indicative of a "circuitry (that) appears to have much more widely distributed networks, with rather richly redundant connectivity", rather than switchboards and specific "loci".44 Words like "network", "connections", "framework", "wired-in", "circuitry", and "programmed" indicate a type of biological design and complexity that parallels language. It is as if these structures were built in for a purpose; notice the words "programmed" and "wired-in". These experts, who are evolutionists, present excellent design evidence.

There is more corroboration from the study of brain lesions, specifically in the speech area. In general, clinical studies of lesions support the physical functioning of language ~ For example, left hemispheric damage does not hinder language development. Normally, the left hemisphere maturationally acquires language, and the right, nonverbal "specializations".46 The compensation of the right hemisphere show its own built-in verbal language design. The human being also has the ability to make "compensations" and "readjustments" after suffering a disease like aphasia. This compensation makes it difficult to correlate neural areas, physical functioning, and speech in one language sequence.47 Despite correlational difficulty, compensation could indicate biological language design.

While the design evidence based on clinical studies is impressive, especially from the standpoint of the experts' language, there are specific biological parallels for UG, naming, and an acquisition device. Although Chomsky omits the details, he states that the UG is common to all human languages as a biological, not logical, "necessity".45 By using the word "necessity" Chomsky is not merely speculating about a UG biological mechanism. There is support for a naming structure from Penfield. Through surgical work on and observation of speech defects, he has isolated "cortical regions" referred to by Rose as a lateralized "naming centre".49 The existence of these "cortical regions" conform to the design model, but still await evolutionary explanation.

The complexity and remarkability of language acquisition correctly imply a "special design" of "biologically determined cognitive capacity". This capacity rapidly forms complex cognitive structures50 out of spatial reality. The words "special design" may represent the LAD which is also supported by Lenneberg.51 Everyone knows of a two or three year old girl who speaks so well that she seems intellectually superior to other children. Actually, girls are superior in language development, which suggests innate genetic qualities.52 This universal phenomenon of earlier language acquisition by girls biologically supports the design model. Surely a variety of world cultures and environments would integrate the acquisition rates of both boys and girls if learning was the key factor. The biological examples of design have been localized to the brain up to now. There is, however, "design" in what 0. Koehler calls biological "prerequisites" of human language. Those "prerequisites" apparently need certain capabilities which only human beings possess. The most relevant to this paper are listed as follows: hearing (its importance readily apparent when observing deaf mutes); rhythm; vocalization (as articulation); species-specific sound production (as in a baby's babbling); ability to compose (requiring symbolic thought); imitation (of words); acoustic control of voice (inflection); informational value of innate behaviors (innate meanings and releasing mechanisms, etc.): learned meanings (highly cognitive); symbolization (organization. labeling (naming), semantics); thinking without words (counting).53 The biological aspect is evident in their relationships to anatomical parts. Design is evident in their complex interrelationships for the purpose of communication through language, and in their relationships to complex cognitive abilities like symbolization, etc.

Finally, animals lack human neurological language structures. In fact, the "physiological differences are very significant".54 For example, Keehler says that although animals show some learning and emotions, they do not have the biological "prerequisites" for language presented above. There is a definite absence of "phyletic continuity".55 The list of prerequisites shows that there is no comparison between man and animals biologically. "No brain centers comparable in independence to those postulated for language in man have ever been demonstrated in other mammalian cortex (s)."56 Lenneberg has made conspicuous a missing link. The lack of language capability in animals, both from a biological and learning (apes) standpoint, supports the design model since the missing link hinders an evolutionary explanation.

Both the evidence and expert opinions point to a design model for language and may cause problems for the evolution model. Morris recognizes a missing link between animal "chatterings" and human speech.57 Lenneberg states that "phylogenetic proximity to humans is missing", even in primates, a fact ignored by evolutionists.58 There is a gap because language communication is specific to man.

If language was a product of evolution, simpler languages must exist or have existed. Chomsky is quite specific in maintaining that there was no simpler language in the evolutionary past because grammar is not built up from "simpler elements" but is "rich structure of predetermined form".59 A deficiency of "simpler elements" is certainly a gap and, of course, "rich structure of predetermined form" fits the design model. Morris quotes Simpson, an evolutionist, who states that the oldest language is.... modern sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view".60 Not only grammar, but the oldest language is complex and "complete". It is strange that no form of primitive language existed anywhere in man's past. Actually this fact is consistent with the biological arguments concerning gaps between man and animal.

Theoretically, the evolution of parallel biological language structures also poses problems. Lenneberg attempts an evolutionary ontogenesis of language structures but admits there is a "problem" of explaining such intricate functions as biological "patterns" and "specificity" of language in evolutionary terms.61 Chomsky presents a more impressive argument by refuting natural selection in the following quote:

It would be a serious error to suppose that all properties, or the interesting properties of the structures (language) that have evolved, can be explained in terms of natural selection. Surely there is no warrant for such an assumption in the case of physical structures.62

Indeed, it is only "assumption" and there is no "warrant" because it is difficult to imagine the selection of physical language structures via mutation. The design model requires the inclusion of these physical structures to make language possible. Evidently, a study of the evolutionary past of both physical structures and primitive languages leaves a void referred to as a missing link.

How can we explain the universal language phenomena that favors the design rather than the evolutionary model? The Bible not only speaks of language as designed, but also gives the reason for and examples of its complexity. If both man and woman were created, it seems reasonable that they would already possess the "gift", as Haugen calls it, of a designed language faculty. Why would these created beings have to develop (evolve) the ability to speak since they already enjoyed every other human capability? Morris acknowledges language design and states that this "entity" could only be a "miracle of creation".63 for the purpose of communication by God to man and man to man.64 God created man in His own image with speech as a notable part thereof.

The Bible cites the complexity of communication ability. Language includes not only speaking but also writing and reading. These conventional abilities were pan of God's design because of His plan to communicate to man through the written (spoken) word, which must be read, of course. Genesis 5:1 is an example of this implication because books must be written to be read. 2 Tim. 3:16 reveals how God inspired man to write "for doctrine, reproof. correction, instruction in righteousness." Rev. 1:3 blesses those who read and heed the written word. John is told to "write" what he has seen (Rev. 1:19). Language, then, is a multi-dimensional entity.

Adam is that Biblical example that illustrates naming. God brought the animals to him "to see what he would call (name) them". God apparently accepted and respected Adam's ability because whatever the name Adam gave each kind of animal, "... that was the name thereof' (Gen. 2:19). Morris accentuates language complexity and intelligence by reasoning that Adam could have named ten kinds of animals per minute yielding three thousand names in five hours. Because Adam named so quickly and once for all without changes, "he was a man of high intelligence and quick discernment".65 Design and complexity are both biblically knitted together.

The universality of language design is biblically well documented. The Bible also furnishes the reason for diversity rather than speculation about scattering and learning.

Genesis 11 proves that mankind once spoke one common language, just as the experts have historically detected. "One language and one speech" could be translated "of one lip and one set of words", which could also be rendered as "one phonology and one vocabulary".66 Since man spoke "with the same sounds and formulated thoughts in the same way"67 at Babel, there is a basis for the universal language similarities and, of course, a common "ancestry".

The confusion at Babel in Genesis 11 explains the global language diversity and simultaneously resolves the universal similarities within this diversity. The confusion, which caused dispersion, did not prevent the fact that ..... their thoughts are still the same)."68 This would explain why rules of language are universal, but sounds differ. The rules of grammar, as they reflect Chomsky's UG, could express the "thoughts" that a person is trying to convey. However, while the different languages or "phonology", obey these rules they vary with nationality (dispersion). Chomsky's deep structure would represent these "thoughts", while surface structure represents the particular rules in each language with its respective sounds. So then, diversity not only is biblically supported, but also does not contradict universal similarities in languages and therefore design.


FOOTNOTES

38 Eric Lenneberg, "The Neurology of Language, " Daedalus, 127-129.
39 Ibid, pp.118-119.
40 Chomsky, p.41.
41 Ibid, p. 72.
42 Georges Ungar, "Biochemistry of Intelligence," Research Communications in Psychology, Psychiatry and Behavior, 1(1976), 599.
43 Steven Rose, The Conscious Brain (New York: Vintage Books, 1976) p.175.
44 Lenneberg, p.125.
45 Ibid, p.115.
46 Ibid, p.125.
47 Ibid, p.121.
48 Chomsky, p. 29.
49 Rose, p.176.
50 Chomsky, p.27.
51 Wilson, "Compiled Notes," p.4.
52 Biehler, p.433.
53 Wilson, "Some Aspects of Human Communication Compared and Contrasted with Animal Communication," p.9. citing Eric Lenneberg, The Biological Foundations of Language (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967), (no page number given).
54 Wilson, "Some Aspects of Human Communication Compared and Contrasted with Animal Communication," p.7.
55 Wilson, "Some Aspects of Human Communication Compared and Contrasted with Animal Communication," p. 10. citing H. Frederich, (ed.), Man and Animal Studies in Behavior (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1972), p.90.
56 Lenneberg,p. 116.
57 Henry Morris, The Genesis Record A Scientific & Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1976), p. 267.
58 Wilson, "Some Aspects of Human Communication Compared and Contrasted with Animal Communication," p.10, citing Eric Lenneherg, in A.Sebeck, Animal Communication (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973), p.596.
59 Chomsky, pp. 43~44.
60 Morris, Scientific Creationism, p. 185, citing George Gaylord Simpson, "The Biological Nature of Man," Science, 152 (April 22,1966), 476.
61 Lenneberg,p. 128.
62 Chomsky, p.59.
63 Morris, The Genesis Record, p.277.
64 Ibid. p.74.
65 Ibid, p. 98.
66 Ibid,p.267.
67 Ibid, p.274.
68 Ibid.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Paul D. "Considerations Regarding a Model for Experimental Psychology," Acts and Facts, Impact Series no.50, 6, no.8 (Aug.77), i-iv.
Bloomfield, Morton. "The Study of Language," Daedalus, 102 (Summer 1973), 5-13.
Biehler, Robert. Child Development An Introduction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1976.
Chomsky, Noam. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books, 1975.
Haugen, Finar. "The Curse of Babel," Daedalus, 102 (Summer 1973), 47-58.
Lenneberg, Eric. "The Neurology of Language," Daedalus, 102 (Summer 1973), 115-133.
Morris, Henry. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary On the Book of Beginnings. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976.
Scientific Creationism. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974.
Mussen, Paul, John J. Conger, and Jerome Kagan. Child Development and Personality 3rd Ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1969.
Rose, Steven. The Conscious Brain. New York: Vintage Books, 1976.
Ungar, Georges. "Biochemistry of Intelligence," Research Communications in Psychology, Psychiatry and Behavior, 1, nos. 5 & 6 (1976), 597-606.
Watkins, Calvert. "Language and Its History," Daedalus; 102 (Summer 1973), 99-111.
Wilson, Clifford. "Attempts to Teach Language to Apes," Unpublished Personal Notes pp. 1-8.
Compiled Notes," Unpublished Personal Notes, 1975, pp.1-24.
Language: Is It Acquired or Learned? A Study Based on the Wilson Language Abilities Guide," Unpublished Personal Notes, pp.1-25.
The Silent Ape," Extracts from forth coming publication, pp.1-8.
Some Aspects of Human Communication Compared and Contrasted with Animal Communication," Unpublished Notes, pp.1-10.


"Overdesign As A Model For A Language, Part II"
<http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v01n3p21.htm>
CSSHS • Creation Social Science & Humanities Society • Quarterly Journal

Main Page:  CSSHS Archives
www.creationism.org