|
Author
|
Topic: Why Are Humans So Intelligent
|
Gambit
Member
Member # 558
|
posted 11. November 2002 02:43
quote:
What would cause our stupidification? Probably global disaster.
I disagree. Global disaster would not have an effect on our genetic roots. I beleive the average rate of evolution is very slow and works in conjunction with natural selection. However, if ignorance is the word, disaster would have a tremendous effect on it.
quote:
As you suggested, if you could move someone from 10,000 years ago into the present(at a young enough age), they would probably fit right in. Similarly, if you moved Einstein or Mozart, at a young age, back 10,000 or even 100 years in time, you would dramatically reduce the ‘manifestations of their creative genius’.
I really don't think the manifestation is the problem here. If einstein was sent back 10,000 years, he could just aswell used his creative genius on something requiring them. There could very well have been someone smarter than einstein living more than 10,000 years ago. The real problem is passing the information from one generation to the next. So I think humans having an accelerating intelligence is misconception. The real acceleration is environmental. Using the accelerating concept of intelligence places too much emphasis on particular eras.
Goal oriented intelligence makes the most sense. This is because it is the most flexible, thus most likely to evolve during different eras, type of intelligence because the era wouldn't have an effect on its purpose. This also makes comparing human intelligence to that of animals much easier.
quote:
Why humans are so intelligent?".
I think I know the answer. If goals are key to intelligence and survival are what our primitive goals are based on, then we are acheiving those goals with less and less effort as our civilization advances. Ironically, it is our primitive self telling us we are very intelligent forgeting it is the environment and not ourselves by which we acheive the goals, while our so-called "intelligent selves" can make comparasons to similar intelligence realizing it might not be as unrelated as first though.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 11. November 2002 15:05
The question here should have been, "Why is there so little interest in explaining why humans are so intelligent?" The huge in difference in creative intelligence between man and ape is easily measured and documented. It would not be difficult to find an objective measure that shows that creative intelligence in humans is 1 million or more times the creative intelligence in apes (consider, for example, variety of tools created or language complexity).
Evolutionary biology offers a so called explanation of the phenomena by saying ‘The difference between man and ape is explained by a 5% difference in genes. Amazingly, such essentially meaningless, unsupported and unsupportable expressions are excepted as scientific explanations in evolutionary biology. It appears that a large portion of the individuals who claim expertise in evolutionary biology are unwilling to even admit that the inability to explain reflects the inadequacy of the theories proposed as explanations. The majority of the scientific community appears willing to support inaccurate assertions of the type ‘the theory of evolution explains ….’, when in fact no such explanations exist.
IMO, science is not real science when it permits such flagrant disregard for the facts. The failure to recognize and admit the failings of existing evolutionary theories in explaining the differences between human and animal intelligence is one of a number of reasons I am convinced a new science of design must be based on a more rigorous standards. Engineering standards science appears to a more rigorous set of standards to counter the obvious lack of rigor in peer review standards.
IP: Logged
|
|
richfaussette
unregistered
|
posted 23. November 2002 11:09
Warren wrote:
Evolutionary biology offers a so called explanation of the phenomena by saying ‘The difference between man and ape is explained by a 5% difference in genes. Amazingly, such essentially meaningless, unsupported and unsupportable expressions are excepted as scientific explanations in evolutionary biology. It appears that a large portion of the individuals who claim expertise in evolutionary biology are unwilling to even admit that the inability to explain reflects the inadequacy of the theories proposed as explanations. The majority of the scientific community appears willing to support inaccurate assertions of the type ‘the theory of evolution explains ….’, when in fact no such explanations exist.
====
rich replies:
The real difference between humans and animals can be more readily seen in the capabilities of the phenotype rather than the innate genetic differences of the genotype, that 5% mentioned. The major development that led to man's creative genius was the loosening of instinct in favor of self reflective consciousness that could assess behavioral choices rather than reflexively intuit behavior. This difference is clearly documented in the Biblical story of Adam and Eve.
Before the fall, Adam and Eve have no shame, (no reflective consciousness) and stand in the presence of God without fear. After the fall they are shameful and filled with fear (ontological anxiety arising from greater self consciousness). Genetic differences need not be alluded to for an explanation of the differences between animals and humans. The Biblical authors were able to see the differences between animal behavior and human behavior and hence the story of the fall to explain the unique role of human intelligence. Today, we understand evolutionary processes and allude to whether or not they can be proven or not but cannot as did those ancient Biblical pastoralists see the obvious differences between humans and animals.
You can see God ordain pain in childbirth for Eve but cannot see that neoteny and pain in childbirth are facets of the same birthing phenomena and neoteny failitated the emergence of self consciousness which is the essential transition inherent in the story of the fall in Genesis. If you really want to know why humans increasingly are becoming more intelligent even though there seem to be no selctive stresses generating the increased intelligence, the clue is in Genesis chapters 28 and 29, mentioned by Darwin in Origin of Species.
rich
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 23. November 2002 16:11
Rich wrote:
quote:
If you really want to know why humans increasingly are becoming more intelligent even though there seem to be no selctive stresses generating the increased intelligence, the clue is in Genesis chapters 28 and 29, mentioned by Darwin in Origin of Species.
I do not believe that it is correct to claim that humans are becoming more intelligent. Intelligence and knowledge are two very different concepts. Our present society provides us with additional access to knowledge as compared to earlier years AND our collective knowledge has increase significantly over time.
Similarly intelligence is not limited to humans either,
The following sites seem to be quite interesting in this context
An Animal Intelligence Study (Parakeets)
Are animals intelligent
Chimpanzee intelligence in the laboratory and in the wild
Chimpanzees: Our sister species
Dolphins
Btw where does Darwin mention Genesis 28/29? I have some trouble locating your reference.
[ 23. November 2002, 16:24: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 25. November 2002 18:03
Quote Rich: The real difference between humans and animals can be more readily seen in the capabilities of the phenotype rather than the innate genetic differences of the genotype, that 5% mentioned. The major development that led to man's creative genius was the loosening of instinct in favor of self reflective consciousness that could assess behavioral choices rather than reflexively intuit behavior.
Quote Frances: I do not believe that it is correct to claim that humans are becoming more intelligent. Intelligence and knowledge are two very different concepts.
The issues raised here were 1)the unexplained discontinuity between human and non-human ability to generate creative ‘intelligent’ solutions, and 2)the unexplained difference in the same phenomena between modern humans and humans of 100, 1000, and 10,000 years ago. The above two quotes provide examples of what, for lack of a better term, I will label ‘metaphysical explanations’.
To begin, I am not aware of anyone who would seriously question the FACT that there is a huge difference in ‘manifestations of creative intelligence’ among apes, earlier humans and modern humans. Second, I am not aware of any serious, rigorous, verifiable scientific explanation of the phenomena. The ‘scientific’ answers to the questions asked are ‘we don’t know’.
The speculative hypothesis offered by Rich would explain increasing human intelligence to be the result of ‘self reflective consciousness’. As formulated this would appear to by a metaphysical or non-scientific hypothesis because it does not provide precise definitions of either self reflective consciousness or the relationship between consciousness and measures of human creative intelligence. There is a role for speculative, non-scientific and/or metaphysical hypothesis, but they do not qualify as scientific.
Frances introduces an undefined term, knowledge, and suggests that based on this undefined term the observed increases in ‘manifestations of creative intelligence’ are no longer ‘manifestations of creative intelligence’. Based on the introduction of an undefined term, he suggests that the temporal inconsistency between 1)the genetic changes that ‘explain’ human creative intelligence and 2)changes in manifestations of human creative intelligence are no longer relevant. Frances explanation would appear to be as speculative, non-scientific and/or metaphysical as the one offered by Rich.
IP: Logged
|
|
richfaussette
unregistered
|
posted 25. November 2002 18:17
Frances wrote:
I do not believe that it is correct to claim that humans are becoming more intelligent. Intelligence and knowledge are two very different concepts. Our present society provides us with additional access to knowledge as compared to earlier years AND our collective knowledge has increase significantly over time.
=====
The Bell Curve - Hernstein and Murray - there is an entire page devoted to Ashkenazi Jewry of Eastern Europe whose communities boast the highest mean IQs in the world.
Btw where does Darwin mention Genesis 28/29? I have some trouble locating your reference.
If you go to Darwin's Origin of Species chapter 1, Variation under domestication and look under the subheading 'Principles of selection anciently followed and their effects' you find this remark:
"from passages in genesis it is clear that the colour of domestic animals was at that early period attended to." If you then go back to genesis you find the passages to which darwin refers in chapters 28-29. If you understand those passages you know why humanity is developing greater raw intelligence.
rich
IP: Logged
|
|
richfaussette
unregistered
|
posted 25. November 2002 18:35
The speculative hypothesis offered by Rich would explain increasing human intelligence to be the result of ‘self reflective consciousness’. As formulated this would appear to by a metaphysical or non-scientific hypothesis because it does not provide precise definitions of either self reflective consciousness or the relationship between consciousness and measures of human creative intelligence. There is a role for speculative, non-scientific and/or metaphysical hypothesis, but they do not qualify as scientific.
======
You need a precise definition of self reflective consciousness? Can you imagine fear - do you ever feel shame? You are self-conscious. When you decide what you are going to do with your life, are you governed by instinct or can you make your own decision out of your own free will? If you are pondering the possibilities, that is reflective consciousness.
=======
I think the problem you are having with what I have said is not that it is metaphysical, but maybe its so simple you assume it must be metaphysical. saying one's definition is not precise does not make one's pronouncement metaphysical. If you find metaphysics in my remarks, please be precise and point the meta content out to me.
======
increasing human intelligence to be the result of ‘self reflective consciousness’
=====
the brain exploded in the last 4 million years. reflective self-consciousness emerged during that period. freeing of the hand with opposable thumbs, speech - The stone ages came and went agriculture appeared, pastoralism appeared in exactly the same period the brain was exploding and our behavioral repertoire was expanding.
correlates well I think
rich
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 25. November 2002 22:44
Warren states that quote:
Frances explanation would appear to be as speculative, non-scientific and/or metaphysical as the one offered.
I am glad that you got the point I was trying to make. Indeed, when making claims of intelligence one has to first define the terms. Rich suggested that humans are becoming more intelligent. Does this mean that humans are becoming more knowledgable? Or as his latest response seems to suggest it has to do with IQ?
I find the references to the Ashkenazi jews interesting but I maybe a bit slow to understand how they help us understand if humans are becoming more intelligent?
Thank you for your reference to Genesis 28-29 in Darwin's work, I however may need some help understanding what you believe these passages contribute to our understanding of development of 'raw intelligence', whatever that term may be refering to.
What do you mean Rich when you state that humans are getting more intelligent? How is this intelligence supposed to be measured? I would agree that as a society we have acquired much new knowledge and understanding but are we significantly more intelligent than our forefathers?
Definitions of intelligence which I have found interesting:
“Intelligence is the ability to face problems in an unprogrammed (creative) manner.”
— Stephen Jay Gould
"Intelligence exists as a very general mental capability involving ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. The brain processes involved are little understood"
[/url=http://www.riskinfo.com/warren/intellig.html]Source[/url]
"IQ is more strongly related than any other measurable human trait to educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Whatever it is that IQ tests measure, it is very important. Genetics plays a bigger role than environment in intelligence, but environment has a strong effect."
Ibid
"Their simulations suggest that intelligence often hinges on how much one can make use of the data in its physical environment. "
Source
What is intelligence
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 26. November 2002 08:21
Quote Frances: I am glad that you got the point I was trying to make. Indeed, when making claims of intelligence one has to first define the terms.
But ‘manifestations of creative intelligence’ is as clearly a defined concept as ‘flying’. The suggestion that 1)the ability of eagles to fly is the result of genetic change, would be recognized as an unsound explanation if 2)the ability to fly continued to improve dramatically 100,000 years after the genetic changes stopped occurring.
Although the logic is ‘obviously faulty’, evolutionary biologists continue to make the argument that ‘human creative intelligence is the product of evolutionary processes’ even though ‘human genetic evolutionary changes’ and ‘evolution of human creative intelligence’ have entirely different time frames.
The point of my observation was that Rich and Frances both offered metaphysical, unsound, unscientific explanations of a phenomena. One metaphysical explanation was based, at least in part on a biblical reference, the other, at least in part, was based on peer review science. My point was that modern day ‘peer review’ science is a significant source of metaphysical, non-rigorous, non-scientific explanations.
The major problem, IMO, with peer review science is not that it rejects ideas like ID, but that it accepts so many non-rigorous explanations. Since peer review science is precedent or literature based system, the acceptance of non-rigorous ‘knowledge’ can be expected to result in a progressive and accelerating deterioration in the scientific knowledge base. The ‘engineering standards science’ which I have proposed is designed to eliminate non-rigorous explanations from the scientific knowledge base.
IP: Logged
|
|
richfaussette
unregistered
|
posted 26. November 2002 08:31
I am glad that you got the point I was trying to make. Indeed, when making claims of intelligence one has to first define the terms. Rich suggested that humans are becoming more intelligent. Does this mean that humans are becoming more knowledgable? Or as his latest response seems to suggest it has to do with IQ?
=====
it has to do with IQ
=====
I find the references to the Ashkenazi jews interesting but I maybe a bit slow to understand how they help us understand if humans are becoming more intelligent?
====
"For 1,500 years Jewish society has been designed to produce intellectuals. Jewish society was geared to support them. rich merchants married sages' daughters. quite suddenly, around the year 1800, this ancient and highly efficient social machine for the production of intellectuals began to shift its output. Instead of pouring all its products into the closed circuit of rabbinical studies - it unleashed a significant and ever growing proportion of them into secular life. This was an event of shattering importance in world history." A History of the Jews Paul Johnson 1988 340-341
======
Thank you for your reference to Genesis 28-29 in Darwin's work, I however may need some help understanding what you believe these passages contribute to our understanding of development of 'raw intelligence', whatever that term may be refering to.
========
You read Paul Johnson's remark above describing an ancient and highly efficient social machine for the production of intellectuals. Now you can read Genesis 28 and 29. It is about Jacob. I'm not going to paraphrase it for you except to remark that it is the directed selection of which darwin speaks that produces the engine for intelligence of which Paul Johnson speaks.
=======
What do you mean Rich when you state that humans are getting more intelligent? How is this intelligence supposed to be measured? I would agree that as a society we have acquired much new knowledge and understanding but are we significantly more intelligent than our forefathers?
======
No, not significantly and not everybody. Only those who are bred for intelligence. They are also practicing eugenics in china. High IQ families are being paid to have more children while average or low IQ families are not being allowed to have more children.
rich
IP: Logged
|
|
richfaussette
unregistered
|
posted 26. November 2002 08:56
But ‘manifestations of creative intelligence’ is as clearly a defined concept as ‘flying’. The suggestion that 1)the ability of eagles to fly is the result of genetic change, would be recognized as an unsound explanation if 2)the ability to fly continued to improve dramatically 100,000 years after the genetic changes stopped occurring.
==========
I didn't use your 'phrase 'manifestations of intelligence' so don't have to define it or defend it as a concept. You do. I wasn't talking about flying. I didn't quote SJ Gould either.
Here is an excerpt from a review of gould's Mismeasure of Man
The biologist Bernard Davis (1983; see also Gould, 1984; Davis, 1984) called attention to the fact that reviews in the popular and literary press, such as The New York Times Book Review, The New Yorker, and The New York Review of Books, were almost universally effusive in their approbation, whereas most reviews in scientific journals, such as Science (Samelson, 1982), Nature, and Science '82, tended to be critical on a number of counts. Davis cited Jensen's (1982) review in Contemporary Education Review as "the most extensive scientific analysis," but mentioned, as an exception, a generally laudatory review by Morrison that appeared in Scientific American because that journal's editorial staff had "long seen the study of the genetics of intelligence as a threat to social justice" (Davis, 1983, p. 45).
Could it be that gould is criticized because he denies that human intelligence could come from evolutionary processes because he is an ideologue?
===========
Although the logic is ‘obviously faulty’, evolutionary biologists continue to make the argument that ‘human creative intelligence is the product of evolutionary processes’ even though ‘human genetic evolutionary changes’ and ‘evolution of human creative intelligence’ have entirely different time frames.
=========
They don't have different time frames. the 5% difference between chimps and humans is sufficient to explain the differences. Neoteny arose to handle the changes in brain size the last 4 million years. Brain size is correlated with intelligence.
=======
The point of my observation was that Rich and Frances both offered metaphysical, unsound, unscientific explanations of a phenomena. One metaphysical explanation was based, at least in part on a biblical reference, the other, at least in part, was based on peer review science.
=======
You misread. I offered a quote from the bell curve which specifically discussed IQ. I presented the case of Jacob's flocks in genesis 28-29 because it was mentioned by darwin in origin of species and is the 'machine' of which Paul Johnson speaks. I didn't base my remarks on a biblical reference.
========
My point was that modern day ‘peer review’ science is a significant source of metaphysical, non-rigorous, non-scientific explanations.
The major problem, IMO, with peer review science is not that it rejects ideas like ID, but that it accepts so many non-rigorous explanations. Since peer review science is precedent or literature based system, the acceptance of non-rigorous ‘knowledge’ can be expected to result in a progressive and accelerating deterioration in the scientific knowledge base. The ‘engineering standards science’ which I have proposed is designed to eliminate non-rigorous explanations from the scientific knowledge base.
======
Now I understand. You have a standing proposal that requires you ignore certain data in order for the hypothesis to stand so you have to denigrate any output that even remotely suggests your proposal is unsound. What is it specifically about what I've said that threatens your hypotheses? If you are precise in the elucidation of your position I will prove my assertions for you and invalidate your hypotheses.
rich
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 26. November 2002 16:55
This is a warning for Rich.
First, a minor problem: DO NOT DO QUOTE FOR QUOTE REPLIES.
Second, your presence here at Brainstorms has thus far not been productive. I encourage you to start cooperating in dialogue and thus make your points clearer. Playing the "you go figure it out for yourself" game is not part of the Brainstorms system.
Please adjust your conversational practice or else find a different forum to participate in. If you'd like to discuss this with me, please send an email to: moderator@iscid.org
DO NOT REPLY TO ME ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD.
[ 26. November 2002, 16:57: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 27. November 2002 13:26
Why are humans so intelligent? The answer seems obvious, to me. The human brain is the best designed, most powerful computer that we know of.
Here's an an interesting attempt at quantifying the human brain:
* * * * *
Computer Intelligence
Foreword:
I would like to do some calculations to show that the human brain is indeed a miracle of complexity, how it compares to present computer technology, and provide a possible forecast as to when mankind might expect to see an emergent mind of human stature arise out of silicon technology instead of carbon technology.
My apologies to the experts in this area, this is just my simplistic approach to the subject.
Assumptions:
Ten percent (10%) of the brain's neurons fire at any given moment.
The brain has 10^11 neurons on the average.
There are 10^5 connections on the average.
(children range from 10^2 to 10^5, adults 10^3 to 10^6)
One bit is coded per neuron-connection
The "cycle time" of thought initiations is 440 initiations/sec (maximum might be 1000)
(220 FPS for thoughts / 0.5 ft maximum distance) (maximum might be 390 FPS)
Each initiation is the equivalent of one floating point operation (FLOP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage calculation:
The average human storage (long term) is estimated as:
1011 neurons * 10^5 connections * 1 bit/connection = 10^16 bits
If we assume that short term storage (all forms) is 5% of the total, this gives:
Long term storage 1137 Tbytes
Short term storage 57Tbytes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed Calculation:
By standardizing on FLOPs, we calculate:
10^11 neurons * 10% usage * 440 initiations/sec = 4.4 TFLOPs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison Table:
System
Short Term Storage
Long Term Storage
Speed
Power Use
PC (portable)
32 Mbytes
2 Gbytes
2 MFLOP
35 watts
Cray CU16 (16 processors)
4 Gbytes
256 Gbytes
16 GFLOP
Are you kidding?
Cray T3D 256 processors (Parallel)
16 Gbytes
400 Gbytes
38 GFLOP
Ditto
Thinking Machines CM5-MPP 512 processor
16 Gbytes
130 Gbytes (scaleable)
64 GFLOP
Ditto
Human Brain (Average)
57 Tbytes
1137 Tbytes
4.4 TFLOP
12 watts
As you can see present day silicon technology has yet to catch up to the ancient organic technology. All factors are roughly 1000x higher for the human brain than computer technology. When you consider the power consumption of the brain, this is truly amazing. Agreed, some classes of problems computer technology is far superior to a brain but the converse is mostly true. To move an arm with visual feedback requires very sophisticated hardware and software, yet we do it without thinking about it. Rapid movement like catching a ball seems autonomic yet to do it with robotic technology presently would be state of the art, if at all possible.
* * * * *
(I added bolding in two spots.)
http://www.tmeg.com/ai/brain.htm
Also, I recently listened to a radio show where Steven Quartz of Cal Tech agreed that the human brain was 1000s of times faster than our best computers, and possibly millions of times faster. He studies the brain. His site (still under construction) is here:
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~steve/quartz.html
Without such a powerful brain with such an amazing design humans would not be so intelligent. Technology is not the answer. You can give chimps all the technology in the world but that will not make them more intelligent. They are unable to take advantage of most of it because their brain design cannot cope. They might be able to use simple technology, like riding a bicycle. Their brain can handle a new skill of balancing while riding around on the bike, but their intelligence is not increased by this and they never would learn to reproduce, or even assemble, a bike.
Great topic though.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 27. November 2002 14:21
Nobody,
Quote: Why are humans so intelligent? The answer seems obvious, to me. The human brain is the best designed, most powerful computer that we know of.
I would certainly agree with the observation that nervous systems are far more powerful logic machines than any existing computer. I notice you take no account of the processing capacity needed to reproduce the brains ‘self programming capability’. Nervous systems not only have the ability to process vast quantities of input and produce complex output, but they also have the ability to find and refine processing algorithms compatible with survival. Unlike any existing computer, a nervous system has the ability to find purposeful or teleological programs.
The fascinating computing capacity of the nervous system, however, does not explain the differences between human and animal intelligence. More specifically, brain function does not explain 1) why humans have a far greater ability to generate ‘manifestations of creative intelligence’ than apes, and 2)why the human ability to generate manifestations of creative intelligence has continued to develop or evolve (and evolve very rapidly) when there is no corresponding genetic evolution.
As far as is known, human neurons function pretty much like non-human neurons, the human brain has the same basic structural organization as non-human brains. Animal intelligence, I understand, is roughly proportional to brain size. Brain size might explain why humans are twice as intelligent as apes, but the actual magnitude of the difference , as measured in terms of manifestations of creative intelligence is far, far greater. Also, the ability to generate manifestations of creative intelligence has continued to evolve long after human brain size stabilized.
Human creative intelligence is an example of a dramatic new biological trait/capability that evolved recently and appears to be continuing to evolve at a very rapid rate. None of the existing Darwinian or neo-Darwinian models can even begin to explain the evolution of human creative intelligence. A very interesting subject that is clearly in the ‘we can’t explain it’ and ‘it is not consistent with current theories’ column.
IP: Logged
|
|
richfaussette
unregistered
|
posted 27. November 2002 18:41
warren wrote:
Human creative intelligence is an example of a dramatic new biological trait/capability that evolved recently and appears to be continuing to evolve at a very rapid rate. None of the existing Darwinian or neo-Darwinian models can even begin to explain the evolution of human creative intelligence. A very interesting subject that is clearly in the ‘we can’t explain it’ and ‘it is not consistent with current theories’ column.
====
Please be precise and offer the variable you are measuring that accurately reflects the subjective phrase 'human creative intelligence' and explain how you quantify creativity.
In my previous post I suggested that IQ (resulting from standardized tests) was the appropriate measure of intelligence. Further, the existence of IQ differentials in breeding communities (races, religiously segregated communities such as Ashkenazi Jewry) suggest that IQ differentials are products of differential selection stresses and that these differences in selection stresses are what cause the IQ differences. I offered genesis 28-29 because I have already entered upon the Darwinian interpretation of Biblical symbols and thought that if an example of directed selection could be identified in genesis perhaps the suggestion that 'we can't explain it' might be discarded, especially if an example could be found in an ancient text.
There are one of two things going on here. Either you really are not aware of the Darwinian substrate in the Bible or ID is an ideological tool to delay and/or prevent the discovery and dissemination of information regarding the Bible's Darwinian substrate so that the truth, the real truth of Darwinian religion remains unknown. It's either you don't know, or you do know and you're pulling the wool over Christianity's eyes until the Old Covenant assault is over. Breeding for intelligence is suggested in Biblical literature and the breeding communities with the highest mean IQs in the world are Ashkenazi Jews who fashion their lives around the Torah.
In other words, not only are we getting more intelligent but there are communities who are actively breeding for intelligence. They've taken the selection stresses that nature previously provided and raised those selection stresses religiously. That's what's in genesis 28-29, an allegory describing the knowledge of breeding for selective traits in a population. If you are Christian and want to protect Christianity, you want to get past the anti-Darwinian bias, because in Darwin is the truth of all religion and surprisingly it is not Christianity that comes out the loser once you analyze all religion from a Darwinian perspective.
rich
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic