I heard that Christian rock music kills plants. Doesn't that mean it is evil?

The other side says	My response
"Extensive research has also been conducted on the effects of music upon non-human life, both animals and plants. Paradoxical as it may seem, plant experiments concerning the effects of music upon life are even more convincing than human experiments: that music does affect life, including human life. This is because in plant experiments the effect of the mind's subjective preconditioning and subjective reaction to the music, or one's feeling for the music, or one's personal tastes in music have obviously all been removed; i.e., if music [score] can be shown to affect plants, then such effects have to be due to the objective influence of the musical tones and rhythms directly upon the cells and processes of the life-form itself. (It is also easier to set-up a valid, scientifically controlled experiment with plant life than with human life.) The plant research findings are solidly in the traditionalist camp: not only did rock music stunt the growth of a wide variety of plants, but if played long enough, the plants actually died. And even more startling were the findings of Dr. T.C. Singh, head of the Botany Department at Annamalia University, India. His experiments demonstrated that not only did certain forms of music and certain musical insturments (specifically, classical music and the violin) cause plants to grow at twice their normal speed, but that later generations of the seeds of musically stimulated plants carried on the improved traits of greater size, more leaves, etc.! Presumably, the same effect can result in the negative sense, from bad music. The possible significance of Dr. Singh's findings to human life is evident, and should be at least a little disconcerting to rock music fans (pp. 141-145)."	I have to chuckle whenever I see this one. PLANTS???!!! Get real, guys - this is ridiculous! I also have to ask - what possible scriptural relevance is there to the comparison of plants and animals? Are you buying Carl Sagan's evolutionary arguments that plants and man are distantly related? That is what it sounds like when you make these "comparisons". It is opera music, with the purity of tones in a voice, that is capable of shattering wine glasses, etc. The analogy may not be as much of a stretch as you think: A plant lacks a central nervous system and a brain. It is therefore incapable of making any objective evaluation of sounds it experiences in its environment at all. It simply reacts to stimuli it receives. Therefore, I have to assume that the researchers played rock music at a volume sufficient to cause cellular damage to the plant, and it reacted accordingly. I suspect the plant would have reacted even more vigorously to loud opera tones, as they are actually capable of damaging inanimate objects.

The other side says

My response

"Extensive research has also been conducted on the effects of music upon non-human life, both animals and plants. Paradoxical as it may seem, plant experiments concerning the effects of music upon life are even more convincing than human experiments: that music does affect life, including human life. This is because in plant experiments the effect of the mind's subjective preconditioning and subjective reaction to the music, or one's feeling for the music, or one's personal tastes in music have obviously all been removed; i.e., if music [score] can be shown to affect plants, then such effects have to be due to the objective influence of the musical tones and rhythms directly upon the cells and processes of the life-form itself. (It is also easier to set-up a valid, scientifically controlled experiment with plant life than with human life.)

The plant research findings are solidly in the traditionalist camp: not only did rock music stunt the growth of a wide variety of plants, but if played long enough, the plants actually died. And even more startling were the findings of Dr. T.C. Singh, head of the Botany Department at Annamalia University, India. His experiments demonstrated that not only did certain forms of music and certain musical insturments (specifically, classical music and the violin) cause plants to grow at twice their normal speed, but that later generations of the seeds of musically stimulated plants carried on the improved traits of greater size, more leaves, etc.! Presumably, the same effect can result in the negative sense, from bad music. The possible significance of Dr. Singh's findings to human life is evident, and should be at least a little disconcerting to rock music fans (pp. 141-145)."

I have to chuckle whenever I see this one. PLANTS???!!! Get real, guys - this is ridiculous!
I also have to ask - what possible scriptural relevance is there to the comparison of plants and animals?
Are you buying Carl Sagan's evolutionary arguments that plants and man are distantly related? That is what it sounds like when you make these "comparisons".
It is opera music, with the purity of tones in a voice, that is capable of shattering wine glasses, etc. The analogy may not be as much of a stretch as you think: A plant lacks a central nervous system and a brain. It is therefore incapable of making any objective evaluation of sounds it experiences in its environment at all. It simply reacts to stimuli it receives. Therefore, I have to assume that the researchers played rock music at a volume sufficient to cause cellular damage to the plant, and it reacted accordingly. I suspect the plant would have reacted even more vigorously to loud opera tones, as they are actually capable of damaging inanimate objects.

Apologetics Index | Email Me