Evidence for God from Science

In my letter to Elfhild, making use of the article on the main board about ape-language studies, I wrote that animals learn through trial and error, while humans are the only species who self-reflect. I think reflection is a part of reason and is therefore limited to humans. However, I was challenged in this assumption by Glenn Miller's long article on Evidence for the Soul (which I love to link when debating naturalists). One of the article's many points in defence of dualism is that a 'common sense' view (ingrained, if you will) is often correct. In this context, it is noted that some apes have a sense of self (which would seem to include self-reflection -- but that's an assumption I make):

Glenn Miller wrote:The concept of an inner self is found in children before the age of three [JCS:1.2.3]. Folk psychology is probably present from birth (see data given above). Young kids distinguish between 'mental' and 'physical' at a VERY early age [JCS:3.1.61]. "Infants' emerging concepts of others, the self, and social relations my reflect a beginning awareness of the mind, which blossoms into a theory of mind during the preschool years" [CS:CD:188]. Certain simian groups (chimps, orangutan, some gorillas; but not gibbons, baboons, monkeys) have a definite sense of self [CS:CD.205]. Bonobo apes have been known to develop a 'theory of the mind' similar to that of children [JCS:3.3.280]

This is rather strong evidence that concepts of mind are NOT acquired but are part-and-parcel of our very nature, and therefore makes a contribution to our survival, development, and/or actualization.

The 'CS:CD' reference is to Cognitive Development (3rd ed.), by J.H. Flavell, P.H. Miller, and S.A. Miller, Prentice Hall: 1993.

I'd like to hear some scientifico-philosophical thoughts on this.

Hmm looks interressting but not so easy to understand for me... S what you are saying is that humans are self-aware but that animals are not? And that being aware does not mean one does not have to have a soul? Or simply that humans are already distinct from animals? Yes I agree, but i dont know what to say when biologists - most often, claim that the reason why humans are thinking etc is due to evolution and not God or some supernatural power. Where they believe it all happened throigh evolution as such and why humans are curious, for example, is because of survival. OK how do they explain free will and so on? How does this bind to the theory of evolution? Why would nature want beings with free will? Then on God, many say that "people have to invent somethung to be happy eg religions" and thats how they were ll created. This may not quite relate to this but i jus wantd to poit out if this was something your article related to... the differences between humans and animals, wasnt it?? And that some animals have a sense of self, how was that tested? You cant enter into consciousness of an animal, so how was that tested? And does free will, thinking, and all that require a supernatural power? If we assume that ability to feel and respond to stimuli, but including the ability to "feel" and able to suffer and/or experience pleasure do NOT require supernatural power, i.e. that physics and bioogy were able to make this alone (whoch i believe it wouldnt), then would thinking and self-consciencce require a such a power?