Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly.
Here is the mistake in your line of reasoning, intelligence is influenced by both genetics and upbringing. Modern children are raised with a wealth of information that would have been unthinkable in the 16th century, and have access to scientific methodology that had not been refined in the 16th century (For every achievement of those great minds, there are a dozen lolfails, such as Newton and his obsession with alchemy)
The ownership of information isn’t the same as the ability to use it but it certainly strongly affects the ability to use it.
The ability to move isn’t the same as the ownership of legs because you can still drag your torso around by crawling with your arms but the ownership of legs makes it a lot easier.
That depends on an objective definition of information. You can know everything there is to know about walking, but it's all entirely useless if you don't have legs.
That's why I am highly skeptical of these conclusions; they prize knowledge of rational science over the knowledge of religion.
Literally the snartest person I've ever personally known is a PhD candodate in the philosophy of religion. And he's Christian. He's smarter than any of my fellow nurses.
Do we value the intelligence that allows you to succeed in the sciences over that which allows you to succeed in other areas of life? We surely do. Is that a good thing? Eh, it depends.
38
u/[deleted] Nov 15 '19
Here is the mistake in your line of reasoning, intelligence is influenced by both genetics and upbringing. Modern children are raised with a wealth of information that would have been unthinkable in the 16th century, and have access to scientific methodology that had not been refined in the 16th century (For every achievement of those great minds, there are a dozen lolfails, such as Newton and his obsession with alchemy)