Beauty as Evidence for Intelligent Design

[Anguspure]

Most people would agree that the world can be a beautiful place, that people can be incredibly kind and generous, and that there can be moments of joy, peace, or simple happiness. Those same people would probably agree that the world can be incredibly ugly, people can be vicious, and life can be full of pain, sorrow, and anguish.

The existence of ugliness, pain, sorrow, and in particular human evil, are often used as evidence that there is no designer, or more specifically no God, because if he were good he would not permit suffering. The world would need to be a perfect place in order to support the idea of a good designer.

But is this true? No, it’s not.....

....Having seen beauty in human artifacts, we also recognize beauty in the natural world. Landscapes are natural features that can be quite beautiful. Note that natural selection cannot modify the landscape, just our perceptions of the landscape. They are the way they are because of natural processes. The argument has been made that we evolved to like what are presumed to be safe environments, like the savannahs of Africa from which we came. This I doubt. Mountaintops with blue glaciers, wind-sculpted sand dunes, and steep cliffs overlooking a restless sea are not particularly safe places to live. Yet something in them captures our eye. Their proportion and balance and richness move us. It’s design. And it’s what holds the biosphere together.

Beauty is a reasonable expectation if we are the product of design by a designer who appreciates beauty and the things that bring joy.

Anne Gauger

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/beauty-as-evidence-for-intelligent-design/

 

[timewerx]

Most people would agree that the world can be a beautiful place

You are probably looking at your own perspective as a Kiwi, as a citizen of a beautiful country with a good welfare system, where life is easy.

To most people in the world, this existence is horrible, cruel, and ugly because of collective greed and selfishness of humanity.

Beauty is a reasonable expectation if we are the product of design by a designer who appreciates beauty and the things that bring joy.

Our standard of beauty as "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked" individuals (reference to Revelation 3:17)

May not be the same as God who is good, just, and pure.


.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Beauty* is vain; charm deceitful" rather fear the Creator.
*whatever mankind holds up as good, in high esteem or regard, Yahweh calls abhorrent. This includes art and entertainment, politics and finance, statues and paintings, education and all the ways of mankind.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Most people would agree that the world can be a beautiful place, that people can be incredibly kind and generous, and that there can be moments of joy, peace, or simple happiness. Those same people would probably agree that the world can be incredibly ugly, people can be vicious, and life can be full of pain, sorrow, and anguish.

The existence of ugliness, pain, sorrow, and in particular human evil, are often used as evidence that there is no designer, or more specifically no God, because if he were good he would not permit suffering. The world would need to be a perfect place in order to support the idea of a good designer.

But is this true? No, it’s not.....

....Having seen beauty in human artifacts, we also recognize beauty in the natural world. Landscapes are natural features that can be quite beautiful. Note that natural selection cannot modify the landscape, just our perceptions of the landscape. They are the way they are because of natural processes. The argument has been made that we evolved to like what are presumed to be safe environments, like the savannahs of Africa from which we came. This I doubt. Mountaintops with blue glaciers, wind-sculpted sand dunes, and steep cliffs overlooking a restless sea are not particularly safe places to live. Yet something in them captures our eye. Their proportion and balance and richness move us. It’s design. And it’s what holds the biosphere together.

Beauty is a reasonable expectation if we are the product of design by a designer who appreciates beauty and the things that bring joy.

So far I believe your op has been misunderstood by two posters, but I understand what you're saying and agree whole heartily.

 

[JAM2b]

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

 

[Skreeper]

Most people would agree that the world can be a beautiful place, that people can be incredibly kind and generous, and that there can be moments of joy, peace, or simple happiness. Those same people would probably agree that the world can be incredibly ugly, people can be vicious, and life can be full of pain, sorrow, and anguish.

The existence of ugliness, pain, sorrow, and in particular human evil, are often used as evidence that there is no designer, or more specifically no God, because if he were good he would not permit suffering. The world would need to be a perfect place in order to support the idea of a good designer.

But is this true? No, it’s not.....

....Having seen beauty in human artifacts, we also recognize beauty in the natural world. Landscapes are natural features that can be quite beautiful. Note that natural selection cannot modify the landscape, just our perceptions of the landscape. They are the way they are because of natural processes. The argument has been made that we evolved to like what are presumed to be safe environments, like the savannahs of Africa from which we came. This I doubt. Mountaintops with blue glaciers, wind-sculpted sand dunes, and steep cliffs overlooking a restless sea are not particularly safe places to live. Yet something in them captures our eye. Their proportion and balance and richness move us. It’s design. And it’s what holds the biosphere together.

Beauty is a reasonable expectation if we are the product of design by a designer who appreciates beauty and the things that bring joy.

Thanks evolutionnews bot for sharing another garbage article - https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/beauty-as-evidence-for-intelligent-design/

 

[Kaon]

So far I believe your op has been misunderstood by two posters, but I understand what you're saying and agree whole heartily.

Both cases are relevant, I would say.

Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and for those who believe in the Most High God, our definition of beauty isn't a criteria for creation. Goodness, but not necessarily beauty. I would say beauty is a consequence of goodness. So, in that sense using beauty as a metric for intelligent design may be problematic.

On the other hand, the mere ability to understand, interpret and acknowledge the thought of beauty is an interesting angle to exploring intelligent design. Beauty is the biological equivalent of a diamond: amazingly valuable in certain hands, but overall [biologically] useless.

 

[Inkfingers]

Enduring elegant order is certainly evidence of intelligent design. Chaos and randomness is by definition and nature opposed to such things.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

ving seen beauty in human artifacts, we also recognize beauty in the natural world. Landscapes are natural features that can be quite beautiful. Note that natural selection cannot modify the landscape, just our perceptions of the landscape. They are the way they are because of natural processes. The argument has been made that we evolved to like what are presumed to be safe environments, like the savannahs of Africa from which we came. This I doubt. Mountaintops with blue glaciers, wind-sculpted sand dunes, and steep cliffs overlooking a restless sea are not particularly safe places to live. Yet something in them captures our eye. Their proportion and balance and richness move us. It’s design. And it’s what holds the biosphere together.

Here is the bit you misunderstand.

You are assuming that natural selection will make us absolutely exactly adapted to the environment.There is no reason that this will actually happen.

Even if an aesthetic sense is a biologically developed survival characteristic, there is no reason why we would be adapted for all parts of the world, particularly those environments very different from where we evolved. If the out of Africa hypothesis is true (and there is good evidence that it is) then our exposure to massive amounts of ice in those days would be very limited. Therefore, there would be no expectation that we would be evolved to react to ice in a simple survival based way. Natural selection can only work on traits that have a survival advantage. Unless organisms are living in an environment where they will be exposed to something, they can't adapt to that sometime.

Also, you assume that a sense of natural beauty is something that is innate, rather than something that is a product of cultural development. There is no reason to just assume this. E.g. our interpretation of what chords sound 'beautiful' and what sounds 'dissonant' has changed over centuries, and this is unlikely to be due to natural selection, because there is no obvious survival advantage to that. It's something that we've learned during our lives by exposure to music. Is there any reason to believe that what landscapes we find beautiful is not also a learned, social, construct rather than innate. Not everything we are is a direct product of natural selection.

 

[timewerx]

So far I believe your op has been misunderstood by two posters, but I understand what you're saying and agree whole heartily.

Honestly, I did find pristine nature and distinct geological features around the world beautiful.

But truthfully, speaking, only few people in the world are able to travel around and appreciate these things.

Most people in the world could not afford to travel and most people in the world living in poor / developing countries are heavily discriminated by immigration policies of many countries.

Behind this "beautiful facade" of diverse cultural experiences is a world of hurt and injustice. What is unseen is often the truth.

 

[timewerx]

This is what St. John said about our world:

1 John 2:15-17
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father[a] is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

 

[Inkfingers]

This is what St. John said about our world:

1 John 2:15-17
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father[a] is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

And yet God loves the world...

We need to be aware that kosmos is used in different ways at different times.

 

[Ophiolite]

Also, you assume that a sense of natural beauty is something that is innate, rather than something that is a product of cultural development. There is no reason to just assume this. E.g. our interpretation of what chords sound 'beautiful' and what sounds 'dissonant' has changed over centuries, and this is unlikely to be due to natural selection, because there is no obvious survival advantage to that. It's something that we've learned during our lives by exposure to music. Is there any reason to believe that what landscapes we find beautiful is not also a learned, social, construct rather than innate. Not everything we are is a direct product of natural selection.

This is well stated. In my own case I did not acquire an appreciation of the beauty of mountainous landscapes until in my late teens and that acquisition was directly tied to cultural "guidance".

 

[timewerx]

And yet God loves the world...

We need to be aware that kosmos is used in different ways at different times.

I agree in application at different times (chronology). "Kosmos" is sometimes also "order" (system of doing things)

St. John is basically saying "don't love the world YET". Because the world is presently under the dominion of evil (1 John 5:19). It is full of evil, hurt, violence, and death. It's order is evil and we should not esteem it.

While God says He loves the world that's why he's going to heal it someday (but until that time, we shouldn't love the *corrupt* things / order of this world). God will even heal nature so that Lions and bears will eat grass and a little child can play with them without getting harmed.

So even nature is sick. Because in contrast to God's Kingdom, even the lions eat vegetation and don't harm anyone.

Therefore, our present nature is ugly (in the absolute sense). To many animals in it, nature is hell, full of violence, and dying in horrible ways.

It only looks pretty to us because we can see it within the relative safety of a vehicle, house, tv screen, behind fences, behind electric fences, behind big walls, or even with the protection of modern weaponry.

But try to look at nature from the perspective of a creature only few inches long having to forage or hunt food in the wild, having to risk coming across snakes and even spiders much bigger than it....It's nothing but a world full of terror.

 

[Inkfingers]

in contrast to God's Kingdom, even the lions eat vegetation and don't harm anyone.

Nonsense like that is a stumbling block to people.

Lions are not cows with claws.

The world has a beauty to it that can be enjoyed (I don't recall Jesus saying "consider the lillies, how they are degenerate, damn them all"). The "world" that John is speaking of is the corrupt fallen human society.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Both cases are relevant, I would say.

Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and for those who believe in the Most High God, our definition of beauty isn't a criteria for creation. Goodness, but not necessarily beauty. I would say beauty is a consequence of goodness. So, in that sense using beauty as a metric for intelligent design may be problematic.

On the other hand, the mere ability to understand, interpret and acknowledge the thought of beauty is an interesting angle to exploring intelligent design. Beauty is the biological equivalent of a diamond: amazingly valuable in certain hands, but overall [biologically] useless.

How is beauty a consequence of goodness?
I don't understand that.

Perfection and beauty are a sign that God is the creator.
Ugliness and choas is a sign that the evil one is involved in everything created. (we don't know why).

A diamond is beautiful in any hands. Just because the holder doesn't appreciate it does not take away its beauty.

Just because someone can't swim does not take away the beauty of clean, green water.

Just because someone doesn't like to hike, doesn't take away the beauty of mountains.

etc.

Beauty is not useless.
It feeds the soul.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Lions can be and will be vegetarians, they don't have to become cows. It is God's Word.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Honestly, I did find pristine nature and distinct geological features around the world beautiful.

But truthfully, speaking, only few people in the world are able to travel around and appreciate these things.

Most people in the world could not afford to travel and most people in the world living in poor / developing countries are heavily discriminated by immigration policies of many countries.

Behind this "beautiful facade" of diverse cultural experiences is a world of hurt and injustice. What is unseen is often the truth.

I understand you. But even the poor can see beauty in pictures, etc. All men long for perfection and beauty. Whether we get it or not is a different story....

What you are describing is the world order, how societies function and how the sin nature of man affects everything.

Here, instead, we're talking about the beauty God created for us. A newborn is beautiful, a flower is beautiful. Most get to see these two things (and more).

But, like I said, satan did get his grips into everything --- but that does not take away the beauty God created. Look at the stars shining at night, the moon....beauty is all around us if we can only see it.

 

[Kaon]

How is beauty a consequence of goodness?
I don't understand that.

Because true beauty can only be interpreted by something that is good, and you need to be good in order to correctly interpret good. If you think humans interpret good, you may be mistaken; we interpret what is good to us, and those we care about.

Beauty exists in spite of the beholder.

Perfection and beauty are a sign that God is the creator.
Ugliness and choas is a sign that the evil one is involved in everything created. (we don't know why).

We know why. The archons and principalities were kicked out of heaven into the chaos realms. All they know how to do is interpret an event and develop chaos from it (literal, mathematical chaos.)

Perfection and beauty must be interpreted by the Most High God - the only One who is good. Anyone else that tries to interpret beauty that is not good is committing an act of philosophical futility. That, or you may be a romanticized [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. No human can determine the objectivity of beauty unless that human is good - and only one human like that exists.

A diamond is beautiful in any hands. Just because the holder doesn't appreciate it does not take away its beauty.

I see a diamond differently - as a mass of carbon with no physically exploitable attributes. I also see it as a symbol of the worldwide blind eyes turned to such gruesome extraction processes for such a physically worthless piece of material. Diamonds, for example, do not conduct very well at all unless they are doped (and, then one of the diamond C's - color - is messed up.) The De Beers company tricked the world into believing they are beautiful, and worth money.

Just because someone can't swim does not take away the beauty of clean, green water.

Just because someone doesn't like to hike, doesn't take away the beauty of mountains.

etc.

Beauty is not useless.
It feeds the soul.

Beauty is a terribly romanticized abstraction that cannot be interpreted by anyone without subjectivity. You think beauty feeds the soul, but I would say what is your definition of beauty? I don't think beauty is a metric for intelligent design, because it is intangible and subjective.

However, the idea (no matter how psychotic) of beauty may be suggestive of intelligent design in and of itself. In other words, that humans can develop multidimensional views of a unique object may be a sign of design.

 

[Skreeper]

Lions can be and will be vegetarians, they don't have to become cows. It is God's Word.