Seriously, without our divine intervention, how could we be certain that children would learn?

Once again, my blog mate has resorted to an absurdity. He dared to compare our narrative about literacy to walking and talking. There's a key difference here. We intervene with literacy. We do not intervene with walking and talking.

If it weren't for our divine intervention, literacy would be impossible. We know this because we intervene. That should be all the proof you need.

When it comes to walking and talking, the entirety of why learning isn't entirely thanks to us is because we are not involved. If we were, that would be an entirely different situation.

Let's imagine for a moment that our divine intervention was a part of learning to walk and talk. In such a case, it would conclusively prove that walking and talking would be impossible without our divine intervention.

My blog mate's entire premise is dependent on the idea that if we became active in teaching your children to walk and talk, it would be possible to walk and talk without us. This is clearly not the case. If we involve ourselves in their learning, much like we see with literacy, that alone conclusively proves that we are necessary for learning. In such a scenario as the one provided, children would not be able to learn how to walk and talk without our divine intervention.