I recently went shopping with my wife and four of our grandchildren. The grandchildren were...well being grandchildren. They were having a shared, rebellious episode in the store. The episode was nothing particularly alarming; it was simply that of small children who were being self-willed rather than being on a productive page.
A thought occurred to me while we were shopping. Given this normal tendency of children, humanity would have been killed off long we could become masters of the world. Rebellious children prove that humanity could not be the product of evolution.
The reason for this impossibility lies in the reasons that underlie why children rebel in the first place. God has gifted human beings with two properties: free will and capacity for abstract intelligence
For the purpose of this argument I will presume that evolution is a plausible explanation of the development. It is not because I do not believe that there are other difficulties, but to focus on one peculiar problem that would invariably occurred as primate would have begun evolving into human if man were indeed the product of evolution: successful transition from instinctual predominant behavior to rational-volitional modes of behavior.
Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism constructs an argument related to the one I will develop here in this piece: Plantinga argues that evolution selects for belief that promote survival rather than for true beliefs. According to Plantinga, Naturalism via evolution would imply that our rational faculties would not be reliable enough to justify faith in, and arguments for, Naturalism. In this work I will take a different approach. I will begin by stating that lower animals do not have beliefs and do not act on beliefs. Animals act in terms of pre-programmed responses to stimuli that we call instincts. While there may be some uncertainty in animal behavior, there is no free will and no rational, abstract thought process that governs decision-making.
What happens when that first intelligent ape-like creature is born. Intelligence and freedom come at a cost. This young ape-oid does not follow the instinctual pre-programming like his parents. The parents are not equipped to deal with an intelligent child, and the intelligent child behaves in ways that deviate from tested and robust instincts. Is this behavior advantageous?
Intelligence depends heavily on education and acquisition of a knowledge base. Most of the paths in trial by error result in error. Intelligence requires a heavy investment before it becomes an advantage. Intelligent ape-oids would represent both a quantum evolutionary leap and an evolutionary disadvantage in competing with their instinctual-driven cousins who evolve through incremental modification of instincts. Modern civilization protect our fragile children, and ancient humanity imposed a regime of discipline that would universally be considered child abuse today. The instinct-dominated ancestors, however, would not be equipped to deal with their reasoning children. Once the spark of conscious abstract reason - self-awareness - was lit, it would invariably and fatally disadvantage its recipient long before he or she could gain the benefit technologically from the value of a logically developed knowledge-base. Humanoids would have been killed off long before any intelligence could evolve to be an advantage.
A thought occurred to me while we were shopping. Given this normal tendency of children, humanity would have been killed off long we could become masters of the world. Rebellious children prove that humanity could not be the product of evolution.
The reason for this impossibility lies in the reasons that underlie why children rebel in the first place. God has gifted human beings with two properties: free will and capacity for abstract intelligence
For the purpose of this argument I will presume that evolution is a plausible explanation of the development. It is not because I do not believe that there are other difficulties, but to focus on one peculiar problem that would invariably occurred as primate would have begun evolving into human if man were indeed the product of evolution: successful transition from instinctual predominant behavior to rational-volitional modes of behavior.
Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism constructs an argument related to the one I will develop here in this piece: Plantinga argues that evolution selects for belief that promote survival rather than for true beliefs. According to Plantinga, Naturalism via evolution would imply that our rational faculties would not be reliable enough to justify faith in, and arguments for, Naturalism. In this work I will take a different approach. I will begin by stating that lower animals do not have beliefs and do not act on beliefs. Animals act in terms of pre-programmed responses to stimuli that we call instincts. While there may be some uncertainty in animal behavior, there is no free will and no rational, abstract thought process that governs decision-making.
What happens when that first intelligent ape-like creature is born. Intelligence and freedom come at a cost. This young ape-oid does not follow the instinctual pre-programming like his parents. The parents are not equipped to deal with an intelligent child, and the intelligent child behaves in ways that deviate from tested and robust instincts. Is this behavior advantageous?
Intelligence depends heavily on education and acquisition of a knowledge base. Most of the paths in trial by error result in error. Intelligence requires a heavy investment before it becomes an advantage. Intelligent ape-oids would represent both a quantum evolutionary leap and an evolutionary disadvantage in competing with their instinctual-driven cousins who evolve through incremental modification of instincts. Modern civilization protect our fragile children, and ancient humanity imposed a regime of discipline that would universally be considered child abuse today. The instinct-dominated ancestors, however, would not be equipped to deal with their reasoning children. Once the spark of conscious abstract reason - self-awareness - was lit, it would invariably and fatally disadvantage its recipient long before he or she could gain the benefit technologically from the value of a logically developed knowledge-base. Humanoids would have been killed off long before any intelligence could evolve to be an advantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment