The argument is stupid. The average problems need only average intelligence.
Some more difficult problems, require some specialized intelligence.
But some problems are out of reach of our present intelligence, in a
similar way that 500 years ago, the most learned people was unable to
solve some problems, that are trivial today. So, both the average
intelligence, and the superior intelligence of some learned people, had
increased.
The average adult today have a lot more intelligence than the average
adult of the 19th century. The test of intelligence, derived from
Lewis Terman model, had to be altered by a factor minor than 1 each
five years or so, to maintain in 100 the value of the average result
of IQ. In this way, in many countries, even in the US the average
intelligence had increase some 15 to 20 points per decade. This is a
lot of increase. In this sense, the average person of 1920 would had
obtained such a result that would look a little retarded.
You can consult in the wikipedia "The Flynn Effect" where this matter
is explained in more detail.
This argument you presented does not make any sense, for it contains
an implicit idea that all problems can be solved with enough intelligence.
intelligence simply means to know. Not only to know how to solve problems
but simple to know many useful things. The main problem with knowing is
the lack of certitude. You cannot be sure, if something you know is true
or not, or it applies to the matter you think that applies.
On the other hand, as the number of things you know increases, our brain
becomes inefficient to manage so much information. On the other hand,
to solve some problems, you must reduce the field of inquire to cope
with so many data. In general, for some field of inquire, you can be
using dubious or false theories inherited from the past; this can become
an obstacle to solve the problem are working on.
You should read some history about the steam machines and the theory of
thermodynamics. How slow was the process to understand the whole question.
I was watching a video on the life of Isaac Newton. He was working on
alchemy for a time, and also he was studying Hebrew to translate some
part of the old testament, in which the temple of Salomon was explained.
He had some magical thinking on the idea, that the temple of Salomon
had to have some magical properties; then if we build a palace or a castle
according to the magic layout of Salomon temple, it would be sort of
invulnerable and resist all attacks. I am not sure in which period of
his life Newton was doing these studies. Perhaps, when he was working
on Alchemy he was intoxicated with the fumes of mercury (quick silver)
that were often used in these studies of Alchemy.
Once can easily lost his marbles with a mercury intoxication. The hatters
that worked in past times with mercury, had a fame of being mad. Then
the saying "as mad as a hatter".
The problem of knowledge is basically a problem of dimensions. While
Nature, or the universe is almost infinite, compared to human brains, we
must have necessarily a problem. On the other hand... knowledge can be
compared to a ladder. You cannot rise to some higher rungs of a ladder
unless you rise up by some lower steps. To acquire a knowledge takes a
lot of time, not only to memorize the elements of this knowledge, but
to understand how the different elements of a knowledge were acquired,
and that they are still valid at present. Then, a human brain has some
mass, about 3 kilos, then it is limited. But the time required to
store in your brain some amount of information is also limited. You
can mention a computer as a storage system. But this do not solve
the problem, the computer has not more intelligence than you. It is only
an storage of information. You must understand if any item retrieved
from the computer is valid, or worthy, or it deserves some trust.
I can put you an example. If when you read this article, you had stopped
to think critically, what is this guy saying? Is this a serious article
or a pile of horse manure? Either you can be is a position to criticize
the article, or not. If you have enough intelligence to analyze the
article, you will find it is silly. But if you are lazy, and not like
to challenge the author you can believe "he is a good Christian".
It is just a metaphor.
What problems do you have with science? Do you think science should be
omniscient? Science is not any god whatever. Only god can be omniscient,
but "damn! We are not sure if it exists a god." Even if it would exist,
we have not a line of communication to ask him questions. So, we are
where we are. Here, and the last train has departed already. We must
wait till tomorrow.
Eri