Most of the quotes, paraphrased quotes, and content inspired from this article
The Argument from Beauty: Can Evolution Explain Our Aesthetic Sense?
Nature’s beauty. Art. Stories. Music.
What do you find beautiful?
This post was inspired by a gorgeous sunrise and sunset during the same day. The way the sky and clouds were reflecting in the sunset that night, there appeared to be lakes floating in the sky. As if there was a separate landscape floating high up above me.
Why do we all enjoy these things?
Why do we create beautiful things ourselves, such as paintings and figurative art? We adorn ourselves with body ornaments. We write and perform music. We sing songs. We dance. We create fiction and tell stories. We become absorbed in them.
If we believe in evolution, then these things would offer no evolutionary advantage to our survival. From evolution’s point of view, we would actually be wasting time, energy, and resources, compared to someone who would not do these things. Why do we take time to look, to peer, to contemplate, to appreciate beauty and the arts instead of just hunting, gathering, and reproducing? Actually, as humans, we spend quite a lot of our lives engaged in enjoying the creations and art of others, these often being imagined and fictional.
Why are we attracted, not just to things that have an abundance, such as water, trees, rivers, and fields, but also to things that are hostile, dangerous, and barren? Yes, we love seeing beautiful landscapes of forests and streams. But we also stop to appreciate the incredible scenery of snow covered mountains without vegetation, crashing, powerful waves of the ocean, or molten red and orange lava from a volcano. Why do we take the time to enjoy these inhospitable places that would give us no advantage as a species to live there? Why do we enjoy and still find beauty in animals that we know are dangerous to get close to, but have amazing colors or shapes or textures, such as tigers, brightly colored snakes, and poisonous fish?
Why do we spend time, not just getting acquainted or dabbling in art, but spending months, years, and decades in developing our skills, perhaps as a musician, an artist, or an author? From evolution’s standpoint, as we would spend more and more time and energy in building this skill, even bringing ourselves some “pain” or “sacrifice” in the process, we would be moving in a more “maladaptive” direction, not a beneficial one.
From an online forum:
“If the theory of evolution tells us that the most beneficial traits for survival are carried on to the next generation and the weaker ones are phased out over billions of years, then why do we look at the sea on a rainy day and awe at it’s beauty? Why do we look up at the sky and just watch the sunset? Why do we get butterflies in our stomachs when we see that gorgeous girl/guy? Why can we spend an afternoon just playing with a puppy or a kitten? Why do we fall in love? Why do we spend our day playing a meaningless game just because it is fun? Why do we appreciate our favorite musician and just zone out when we listen to them? Why do we like to curl up in a blanket on a cold day with some hot chocolate and just read a book? Why do we occasionally just smile at the stranger on the train who looks sad just to make them feel better? What purpose does all this serve in the larger scope of evolution?
If we are here merely to pass our genes forward to the next generation and there is no higher intelligent being with an appreciation for art, beauty and love, then why do we do all these things. Why don’t we just forage for food all day and reproduce? What purpose does Art, Beauty and Love serve in the evolutionary process?”
Of course, science and evolutionists have their theories and ideas trying to explain the answer to these questions. Do their explanations sound “compelling” to you? Are they satisfying? So we have opposing views here.
Evolution:
Evolutionary scenarios for the origin of human aesthetics adopt one of three approaches, viewing it as either
(1) an adaptation,
(2) an evolutionary by-product, or
(3) the result of genetic noise.
VS.
Creation:
God-“As philosopher Richard Swinburne argues, “If God creates a universe, as a good workman he will create a beautiful universe. On the other hand, if the universe came into existence without being created by God, there is no reason to suppose that it would be a beautiful universe.”
Humans-If human beings are made in God’s image, as Scripture teaches, we should be able to discern and appreciate the universe’s beauty, made by our Creator to reveal his glory and majesty.”
In the world we live in today, you could take practically any subject and have two or three or four different opposing viewpoints, with each group ready to fight to the death on their view.
In the article, he mentions the phrase of “Not the best, but still pretty good.” So when we start examining questions of creation vs. evolution, God vs no God, which explanations sound “pretty good” to you? When we stack the evidence up, what starts to tip the scales the most? Can we keep an open mind about it until we have viewed both sides in some detail?
Disclaimer: Just because I reference a site or a book, does not necessarily mean I endorse all of it or am in agreement with all of the details that site or book contains. Use your own beliefs, brain, and knowledge as you compare it to what you already know you are sure about.
