History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Darwinists can’t evaluate ‘intelligence’ /// is mechanistic science making scientists stupid?

November 13th, 2012 · 1 Comment


Be wary of Darwinists discussing human intelligence, especially their claims as to how intelligence arose. We don’t have the answer, and it is very doubtful if the struggle for survival or competition produced higher intelligence.
What is intelligence? The definition has fallen into the hands of (unintelligent) scientists.Mathematical intelligence is very real, and good in science, but it can narrow intelligence in other areas. The only explanation for the domination of Darwinism is relatively low intelligence in those mistrained by science.

We have made a similar claim here several times, and here is a search string for some of them:

I have often been suspicious (as with the evidence of the Boskop) that the highest intelligence appears in the first men (after the period of rapid evolution that produced the so-called Great Explosion, conjectural histories of human evolution, to be sure), with still more intelligent men in the so-called ‘Boskop’ who died out.
We must be wary of Darwinists: the whole theory of Darwinism is an oversimplification that appeals to the less intelligent in the science field. All sense of the complexity of evolution is lost on these people, and their attempt to evaluate intelligence is going to be faulty.
Note: we must ask if science isn’t decreasing intelligence: the study of oversimplified subjects that are learned almost rote as science makes scientists completely narrow in their thinking.

In general we have to wonder if intelligence didn’t peak very early in man, and then decrease thereafter. But the idea that early Greeks were very intelligent, more so than modern man remains of interest. But be careful of a Darwinian interpretation. Social Darwinism probably decreases intelligence, so be critical about the basic assumptions in this article.

Note how the smartest physicists are brilliant in their field, but simply fall into Darwinian confusions once out of their field. Thus, note the way that higher mathematics yields a lot of ‘easy’ answers, which turns focus in that direction. The task becomes to guess the answers with mathematics, an ironic factor inhibioting thought. Fine, within limits. But once outside of that helper thought stumbles at once, because real intelligence is required…

Anyway don’t let anyway talk you into thinking the survival game is the source of intelligence. That is unproven, and very suspect. Note the fact that the less intelligent are too often the survivors inducing a net decrease in intelligence. Many of the most intelligent have difficulty surviving. The trend toward lower intelligence in this way is surely all too frequent.

Tags: General

1 response so far ↓

Leave a Comment