[asa] Re: {asa}Music and Evolution

One non-helpful comment might be to consider the state of music in the
typical (American) evangelical church today. Retroevolution? If only
they had a clue about Bach's work.
On the other hand maybe the attraction of females model is right. My
wife claims that as a child she thought of marrying one who played the
piano and the trumpet. Bingo.
Forgive me.
Jack Haas

Jon Tandy wrote:
> 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 12:19:16 2006