In his work the Everlasting Man, G. K. Chesterton argues that man is not simply a specialized animal, but rather a unique and special element of God's creation. Although his prose are beautiful, but his logic is fatally flawed.

The basis of Chesterton's claims lies in his interpretation of man's inherent desire to create art. He claims that Man is the only entity known to create Art; thus, he is far more than an animal, an uneducated brute. Man's Artistic Intent forms the foundation for the arguments Chesterton present during the rest of his work, culminating in the conclusion that Jesus Christ could have been nothing other than the true-born Son of God. But alas, Chesterton's arguments crumble like a Grecian temple amidst the passing of time.

My counter-argument is quite simple: Elephants. It is a solid fact that Elephants can and do paint. Painting produced by these Elephants are often sold in order to raise funds for various conservation groups. So, immediately we come upon an example of yet another creature that can, at the very least, paint. Scientific fact proves wrong Chesterton's basic assumption, and any logical construct founded on wrong assumptions is also wrong.

But now we must really dig into the meat of the issue. Chesterton did NOT claim that Man alone can paint, but that Man alone can create Art; and, herein lies the rub. What constitutes Art?

Can we really classify an Elephant's trained chicken-scratches as art? How can we know that the Elephant possesses no creativity?

Now that it has been shown that Animals can also create, Chesterton's arguments rely on making and proving distinctions between those respective creations of Men and Animals.