Brain Size Does Not Indicate Intelligence

“I have no doubt that I am very stupid, but I must confess that I am unable to follow you. For example, how did you deduce that this man was intellectual?”

For answer Holmes clapped the hat upon his head. It came right over the forehead and settled upon the bridge of his nose. “It is a question of cubic capacity,” said he; “a man with so large a brain must have something in it.”
—A. Conan Doyle, "The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle"

Pixabay / Gerd Altmann

It has been a staple of evolutionary dogma that having a bigger brain means someone is more smarter than us reg'lar folk. The Sherlock Holmes bit quoted above shows that view. Ever see the animated show "Pinky and the Brain"? They were altered lab mice, and the genius had the larger cranium. Problem is, the concept isn't true, and was even used as an excuse for Social Darwinism. Just another story to tell around the campfire when riding along the Evolution Trail.

Another problem is that Darwinists insist on perpetuating the mythology.

Evolutionists continue to push the idea that bigger brains offer better fitness, despite repeated empirical problems.

. . .

In some sense, the larger brain in humans is a function of our mental abilities compared with those of apes, whose brains (on average) are 1/3 the size. But if it were a linear relationship, the biggest humans would be the smartest. We know that isn’t necessarily true. A small Asian female mathematician can out-think many a pro wrestler or NBA player. And there are cases of disabled humans with severely diminished brains—with even half of the brain missing—who, for most intents and purposes, were normal. Since large brains are costly to maintain metabolically, an evolutionist could make a case that miniaturization would provide a fitness advantage.

To utilize your intelligently-designed brain to read the rest, click on "Brain Size Myth Won’t Die".