Do scientists research questions which have no answers, because the theory of evolution requires that there be a question?
I have recently been reading Oliver Sacks' new book, Musicophilia. In the preface, he notes that there has been a debate for two centuries over whether speech or music evolved first. Darwin thought music came first; Spencer thought speech came first; Rousseau believed that they arose together.
Steven Pinker, a rock-solid evolutionist, has said (I am still taking from Oliver Sacks's book), "What benefit could there be to diverting time and energy to making plinking noises?... As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless..."
Why does not Pinker's observation drive Sacks to consider that evolution is an invalid explanation for speech and music? It would seem a fairly obvious next question: if evolution dictates the survival of traits that are "useful" and the demise of traits that are "useless", how is it that the human instinct for music has survived?
Instead, Sacks throws up his hands. "There is, nonetheless, much evidence that humans have a music instinct no less than a language instinct, however this evolved." He doesn't know how it evolved, he doesn't know why it evolved, he doesn't know when it evolved. But he remains convinced that it did, indeed, evolve.
The entire question is mooted when one accepts Genesis as true. God gave man language and music. Perhaps so we could make a joyful noise unto Him?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
According to Genesis 2, Adam was created complete with language. Jubal came along in Genesis 4, and is called "the father of all such as handle the harp and organ." So music, apparently, was conceived somewhere between chapters 2 and 4 of Genesis.
Friar Tuck,
Thanks for that! I had not known that Genesis 4 had the first mention of music. Is it interesting that it is in the genealogy of Cain's descendants?
I was playing with some of the numbers... Jubal is the 8th generation (treating Adam as the 1st generation.) Genesis 4 gives no indication of how much time passed from one generation to the next. Genesis 5, however, does (for the genealogy from Adam to Noah.)
The member of the 8th generation mentioned in Genesis 5 is Methuselah, and he was born 874 years after Adam was created.
There is no good reason to assume that the time between generations is the same for the 2 lines descending from Adam. On the other hand, I see no other kind of guide. So: did music arrive some time in the first millennium?
Or do we conclude, from Jubal being the "father" of those who play the harp and flute, that he introduced music?
I don't think we can assume that Jubal actually originated music, only that he was the father of those who played instruments. It's possible that Eve sang the kids to sleep ...
:-)
It is interesting that Jubal was a descendant of Cain, who had "departed from the precepts of God," and as such, Jubal -- the progenitor of instrumental music -- was also "godless."
But God apparently turned that around, in a picture of Grace, so that by the time we get to David, any taint attached to the harp and organ, etc, were effectively removed, and Davie was called "Israel's Sweet Singer," and "the apple of God's eye."
That last may be a stretch, but I don't think so.
I meant "David" in that previous post, of course.
Friar Tuck, Interesting points. I'm just note sure what it means to be the "father" of a group of people, other than being the first in the line.
On the other hand, perhaps the skill for music was generally around, and found a special concentration in Jubal, which skill was then passed on to his children.
Like I said -- it's possible that Eve sang the kids to sleep. It's possible that until Jubal came along, there were no musical instruments except for the human voice. It may be a stretch, but since we were created to glorify God, is it not possible that part of that would be in singing?
So it's conceivable that Jubal discovered that some of the notes and sounds he heard from people could be recreated by plucked strings, or hollowed-out bones.
Sounds like a natural progression to me, anyway.
Most, if not all, primitive cultures have developed such instruments to mimic the sounds of nature around them. The Aborigines in Australia still make didgerie-doos, and play them to imitate wind sounds and animal calls, and more. Where did that skill originate? Or the desire to make music, that is such a common and basic need in all peoples?
I think Jubal was simply using one of the skills that God built in to His creation -- flawed by the presence of sin to be sure, but still a gift from God.
Look at the talent all around us that is undeniably a gift, but is totally wasted.
Charles, I was just re-reading your earlier post and one statement suddenly made a connection for me. You said
"... Genesis 4 had the first mention of music. Is it interesting that it is in the genealogy of Cain's descendants?"
Interesting, yes, but it just occurred to me that there is possibly a parallel in the O.T., in Job and Isaiah.
First in Job, God asks, in Job 38:6-7: Whereupon are the foundations [of the earth] fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Then in Isaiah 14:13-14 we find the account of Lucifer’s sin: “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”
Lucifer had determined that he would be like God, and I think it no great stretch of the imagination to think that, having no angelic chorus, he would settle for second (or third) best – music artificially generated by the people he had corrupted, to sing his praises.
So, since Jubal, descended from Cain, who had already turned from God in saying that he would make the sacrifice his own way, could have been motivated – even unknowingly – to make the music that Lucifer needed in order to be like God.
Of course that raises the question “Is instrumental music, then, inherently evil, since it was created by a godless individual?”
Not necessarily, if you consider yet another familiar story in Genesis: Joseph had been sold into slavery by his brothers, had survived, and at the end had been reconciled with them. They feared what he would do to them in retaliation for their sin against him, but he said, in Genesis 50:20 “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good …”
Is it not possible that God allowed this creation of instrumental music, and intended it for good? J. S. Bach said that the chief purpose of music is to glorify God.
I agree.
Friar Tuck,
This has certainly been an interesting and enlightening conversation for me! Thank you for sharing your insights so generously.
We are, of course, speculating on any significance of Jubal being from the line of Cain. Still, the speculation is intriguing. Clearly, God can redeem all of His fallen creation. I like the opening pages of Tolkien's The Silmarillion, where the Lucifer-like creature tries to disrupt the music of the universe with harsh sounds; and the God-like figure incorporates the sounds into new harmonies.
You make a good point that there is a difference between music and instrumental music. (Perhaps Jubal was the first Guitar Hero!) It certainly makes intuitive sense that music would first be expressed with the voice, and that some time would have to pass before tools were developed for enhancing and extending what the voice alone can do. It also occurs to me that a certain amount of leisure time is needed; people struggling for each day's meal are unlikely to spend much time blowing in hollow tubes to see what happens.
Now: would we have had this discussion had we accepted evolution as a starting assumption?
Post a Comment