[asa] Music and Evolution

Below is today's commentary from Chuck Colson, on the origins of music
through presumed evolutionary explanations. Just curious what comments
might be elicited on the subject.
One good question might be whether music is truly a distinctly human
characteristic or not (what about dogs which sometimes howl together when
one starts -- are they making music in a sense? What about songbirds, etc. -
can we say that they are not making music in a way that we humans define as
music?)
 
Jon Tandy
 
====================
 
So Easy a Caveman Can Do It
Music and the Human Soul

October 9, 2006

Most people simply listen to music. If they think about the origins of
Bach's B-Minor Mass or St. Matthew Passion, it's probably to wonder how a
man with twenty children had the time and energy to write such music.

Arguably, the most wondrous thing about music is that it exists at all.
After all, it isn't necessary for the survival of our species; in fact,
throughout history, there have always been dour souls who regarded music as
frivolous and a waste of time that would be better put to other uses.

Yet, despite this apparent lack of utility, music is a universal human
experience. Why this should be so is a subject of debate among scientists.
According to a recent article in the Boston Globe, "neuroscientists and
psychologists" have concluded that we are "hard-wired to be musical." They
cite changes in brain activity while listening to "stirring passages of
music" as evidence of this "hard-wiring."

This still leaves the questions of "how?" and "why?" Most of the answers
proceed from the assumption that this "hard-wiring" has to be the product of
evolution. One proposed answer is that aptitude in music "originated as a
way for males to impress and attract females." Proponents-I'm not making
this up-point to the phenomenon of "groupies," women who sleep with rock
stars, as evidence for their hypothesis.

While that might "explain" why men want to be good at music, it says little
or nothing about why they might like music themselves or why women like
music.

Another hypothesis says that "music arose as a way for groups of early
humans to create a sense of community." Singing together not only forged "a
common identity," it also served as a "rehearsal" for "more high-stakes"
activities like hunting and defense. Again, I'm not making this up.

Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker calls these explanations "completely
bogus." Pinker is right: They are bogus. But Pinker's assertion that our
love of music might simply be "a useless byproduct of language" is equally
foolish.

Then again, a non-bogus answer, such as "beats me," won't cut it, either.
That's because the biggest challenge to the materialist orthodoxy of the
kind on display in the Boston Globe article is its inability to
satisfactorily account for those things-like music, ethics, and
altruism-that are most distinctly human.

A worldview that insists that we are merely animals must be able to explain
those traits that most set us apart from animals in terms that are
consistent with that materialistic worldview. That leaves us with Stone Age
groupies and "kumbaya" as preparation for hunting mammoths. What nonsense!

Truth is, these "explanations" are the best you can do if you will not
entertain the possibility that the imago Dei, the image of God implanted in
humans, is what makes us distinct from animals and makes us capable of
appreciating truth, beauty, and goodness. It's what gave Bach his creative
genius for us to appreciate.

If you ignore this reality, the result is what philosopher David Stove once
called a "ridiculous slander" of human beings-the kind of slander that
becomes obvious if you would simply listen.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 9 11:45:45 2006