A lot of people push the idea promulgated by evolution, that things evolve to become better on their own. They have applied this thinking to the development of artificial intelligence. But do things really wind up getting better on their own? For example, does a particular model car such as the Chevrolet Corvette, spontaneously become better every year on its own, or does it improve through the agency of intelligent beings – that is, via the car’s engineers? Just about everything that shows improvement, within the sphere of operations of man and animal, have done so through the agency of intelligent man / animal. Now if we see the principle that things improve through the agency of intelligent beings, in the broad sphere of operations on earth, is it not much more likely than not, that the principle extends everywhere to all things? The above fact points to the intellectual dishonesty behind the promulgation of the theory of evolution, which suggests that our world, and life, came into being, not through the likely agency of intelligent beings – consistent with the patterns we see all around us – but that they came about and evolved spontaneously, even though there is no irrefutable proof or pattern to support this claim.

So we see there is no natural force behind the evolution of artificial intelligence: there is only the agency of developers, and artificial intelligence systems can only become as good as the developers building them. Also, such systems will always be appreciably inferior (intelligence-wise) than the developers developing them – a principle which is also borne out by empirical evidence. People therefore should not be alarmed that artificial intelligence will eventually take over mankind. There simply are no grounds for that fear. Nature restricts just how smart computers can become, and assures us they will never approach the intelligence of the smartest man.