A Question I Was Asked:



Can Animals Be Intelligent?








Does it not infuriate you how scientists and pseudo-scientists alike talk of the relative "intelligence" of animals? Surely it cannot be "intelligence" - why do they refuse to accept this? As I recall you pointing out in the past, God has only granted intelligence to men and women made in His image; this seems so obvious. Animals are granted instinct relative to how the creator intended them to function, yes, this includes a certain capacity for showing care and affection, also how to find food and also the instinct for self-preservation, some are especially 'teachable,' such as birds, dogs, cats , horses and so on. Yet it is not intelligence; they can't plan for the future, a squirrel indeed buries nuts, but as part of their granted instinct, they are not able to draw up plans for a future "luxury tree appartment"!



UK Apologetics Reply:

...If we could 'fast forward' another fifty years, we would find not only that macro-evolution was dead but actually laughed at, people will be saying "how on earth could they have accepted that?"

My, how I agree with you! Evolutionists like to say it is all about brain size, I have already demolished this silly idea through more than one article which I have written; several creatures have larger brains than us, including whales and elephants, if it is indeed 'all about brain size,' then it is some of these creatures who should have been writing symphonies and designing cathedrals. I may say that in actual private conversation scientists will often admit that the brain size argument does not hold water, often saying things like, "at present we don't understand some of these things but eventually we probably will."

Of course, modern science insists that Mankind itself is just another animal kingdom, they refuse to accept the 'mankind is created in the image of God' argument. Eventually they will learn but the acceptance of evolution and scientific 'naturalism' (the physical realm of things is all there is, or ever can be), has halted real scientific progress and understanding for over a hundred years. How sad, we could have learned so much more. The public have not only been duped, but duped on a massive scale.


Science Itself is Starting to Challenge...

The only encouraging thing is that increasing numbers from the scientific community itself are beginning to challenge some of these things, especially people from the area of psychology; some are saying, 'hey, if our brains can dream amazing dreams, if our great poets have written some of their works, if Shakespeare could accomplish those great works, are not some of those things outside and beyond ourselves? - does this really match up with the 'physicalist only' approach? Should we not acknowledge the world of spirit? Surely this lies beyond the physical! Recently the belief has come along that our brains may be more like 'receivers' than the full store and library of our knowledge, that there is a mental/spiritual/psychological world out there which can be accessed or tapped into. In discussing consciousness, Cardiologist Pim van Lommel has written,

..Consciousness cannot be seen as the product of brain function. In fact, sometimes the opposite seems to apply: the mind influences brain function, both in the short and long term as a result of the empirically proven principle of neuroplasticity. ('Consciousness Beyond Life,' p205, 2010 paperback, Harper-Collins).

Other writers from a scientific background who are challenging the 'establishment' "scientific" view include Mario Beauregard, Denyse O'Learey, Rupert Sheldrake and several others too; of course, this does not make these people 'Christians' or even necessarily open to Christianity but it is helpful that such people are continually chipping away at the erroneous assumptions of evolutionary science, but perhaps the exciting new world of quantum physics is the most encouraging of all...


Quantum Physics Challenges Scientific Physicalism

Research from this area is already undermining evolution's 'physical only' approach. Stephen M. Barr, Professor of Physics at the University of Delaware, has stated,

It (quantum physics) provides an argument against the philosophy called materialism (or "physicalism"), which is the main intellectual opponent of belief in God in today's world. Materialism is an atheistic philosophy that says that all of reality is reducible to matter and its interactions. It has gained ground because many people think that it's supported by science. They think that physics has shown the material world to be a closed system of cause and effect, sealed off from the influence of any non-physical realities - if any there be. Since our minds and thoughts obviously do affect the physical world, it would follow that they are themselves merely physical phenomena. No room for a spiritual soul or free will: for materialists we are just "machines made of meat." Quantum mechanics, however, throws a monkey wrench into this simple mechanical view of things. No less a figure than Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism - at least with regard to the human mind - is not "logically consistent with present quantum mechanics." And on the basis of quantum mechanics, Sir Rudolf Peierls, another great 20th-century physicist, said, "the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including [his] knowledge, and [his] consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing." (source: https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/2012/07/10/does-quantum-physics-make-easier-believe-god/).

So there is cause for hope and optimism. I think that if we could 'fast forward' another fifty years we would find not only that macro-evolution was dead but actually laughed at, people will be saying, "how on earth could they have accepted that?"

Robin A. Brace. December 13th, 2017.

UK APOLOGETICS HOME