The recent dating of some hominid remains (Homo floresiensis) in eastern Indonesia to 18,000 years ago has brought out some strange reactions, particularly that of Desmond Morris. He begins:

The discovery of a new species of human poses exciting questions about who we are.

But it is not clear why this should be. Exactly the same questions that Morris raises in his article would come up from consideration of Neandertal man (who existed to perhaps around 30,000 years ago). What little is known of the newly dated Homo floresiensis adds no new information to help address any of the questions that Morris raises. H. floresiensis hunted and made stone tools. But similarly the Neandertals. And even some modern apes make tools and hunt.

This is shattering news

Why? What has been shattered? (As far as I can tell, nothing.)

Suppose for a moment that a living tribe of these beings is discovered, how should they be treated?

Are they merely advanced apes, or are they miniature humans?

The article turns in an instant from a concrete scientific event to something purely speculative — and not even newly speculative. How can such a question be answered? It's certainly an intriguing question, but until we have an actual such hominid species in front of us, who can say? The newly dated H. Floresiensis adds no significant information to the question.

His very existence among us would make us question all over again what it is to be human.

We are not used to this because our ancestors successfully killed off all our close relatives.

There's very little concrete evidence that we actually killed off all our "close relatives", if "killed" refers to direct attacks. It's definitely a possibility. It's also possible that they died off from unsuccessful competition for resources (e.g. by unadaptable hunting techniques), or from a disease that wiped out their limited numbers, or for other reasons. However, Morris is spinning a specific extra-scientific story, one chosen by him from very many possible such stories.

This has created a chasm between us and the other animals

Morris is claiming that the chasm between us and other animals only exists because we killed off our "close relatives" and thus that we would see no chasm if we could only examine one of these "close relatives". It's a claim with extremely limited scientific support. Merely tools and hunting do not comprise what it is to be human. Human culture is very much wider than that.

a chasm so big that religion went as far as to say that we are not even related to them. Humans have souls and they do not.

Possession of a difference does not deny similarities. A lack of relation in one way does not mean that there are not relations in other ways. (It's hard to say more in response since "related" is a word capable of wide meaning, and Morris does not give much clue as to exactly what he has in mind.) That man is a rational animal is an old idea, continued and developed (for example) by Aquinas. So, the similarities and differences between humans and other have always been apparent.

Darwin put a stop to this nonsense with his theory of evolution

Actually, the denial of relatedness to animals, in the sense that Morris probably intends, only began at the point when Darwin wrote. Prior to that point in time, the kind of relatedness that Darwin discovered was essentially not even thought about, and consequently not deniable. And while there has certainly been resistance post-Darwin to that kind of physical relatedness, it has not been uniform throughout religion (despite what Morris implies).

but amazingly the blindingly obvious truth he discovered is still resisted by large sections of the human population.

I suspect that continued dispassionate explanation of evolution, sticking closely to what is known, and avoiding any kind of exaggeration, would go a very long way to overcoming resistance. A dash of science and a large helping of extra-scientific story-telling is exactly not the way to go about producing an appetizing meal; else what should be resisted is mixed up with what should not.

They stubbornly continue to insist that we are some kind of special creation.

If "special creation" is taken in the sense of "possesses an immortal spirit", then yes, many will continue to claim just that. How does Morris propose to disprove it scientifically?

The arrival of "Mini-Man" is going to give them nightmares.

Yet again, Morris does not indicate why.

How can he be "semi-special"? That won't make sense. He can't very well have a semi-soul.

Word games.

If on the other hand we discover that they have some kind of spoken language and we can learn that language, or alternatively they can learn ours, then we are into a whole new ball-game.

Since we already know that apes can use signs to communicate, merely understanding that language may tell us nothing particularly interesting — it depends on what kind of information gets exchanged in that language.

When it comes down to it, being able to talk is really what defines humanity.

Certainly the possession of language is very important. But is it a definition? If we met this speculative "Mini-Man", and its adult conversation was one long stream of "Look at tree. Look at banana. Get banana. Arm hurts." I think we would soon be persuaded that language was not quite so definitive.

In theory, the existence of Mini-Man should destroy religion

How ever?