Skip to main content

Evolution, Music, and Creation

There is just no correcting some people who refuse outright to accept evolution. Today's "Creation Moment" extols the ability of some to make music, and they assert that, were evolution true, there would be no reason to have musical ability. "Even evolutionists appear to be puzzled by this [musical ability development." Well, this is one evolutionist who doesn't stand stunned before the fact of humanity's musical ability.

Obviously the anonymous author of this post (found here: http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/musical-memory) has not the least bit of knowledge about evolution in that he ascribes to evolution a kind of forward thinking and planning that it does not have ("they would have no reason to do so"). Evolution is not God, it is not some self-aware entity outside the natural world that chooses and plans. The author later reverts back and seems to be unable to understand why "mindless evolution" would even be able to develop, much less retain, musical ability.

But for those of us who make a habit of feeding the birds, this is no question at all. Why do birds have musical ability? Why do frogs and crickets make their own form of music with their calls? To attract a mate, of course. The same must surely be true of human beings; in regards to sexual selection, musical ability may have been something preferred in the distant past, and those with it had a better chance of passing on their genes. This seems a likely explanation for musical ability, that it too, just like speech and lactose tolerance, could have evolved with no need to invoke the rather small God of the creationists.

One can only conclude that, as usual, their ignorance is willful rather than being a reflection upon the poor state of evolutionary knowledge.

Comments

  1. I'm a musician and I believe you're dead wrong. Music is too complex for just courtship purposes. In fact developing and playing complex music is above the ability of majority of humans.

    A woman would probably discourage a musician from developing further skills and deep music, since it does occupy a lot of his passion. Most women will consider a musician as a non-wealthy alarm signal and stay away.

    Music is a personal thing. A world to enjoy or escape to. An EXTRA capacity and gift from God.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...