Evolution does not Explain Natural Beauty

beauty ˈbjuːti/ noun. plural noun: beauties

1.

a combination of qualities, such as shape, colour, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight.

~

Evolutionists tend to focus a lot on explanations as to why they think the theory explains the progress of functionality in living organisms over enormous timescales. Evolution needs to assign enormous timescales to every change, as that usually succeeds in lulling the hearer into accepting that enough time can explain almost anything, even though in every other way, the change appears implausible. It's a neat little trick. Like a magician who relies almost entirely on creating illusions to deceive the observant eye, evolutionists can get us to habitually bypass the objections of our normal logic flows by simply adding another billion years onto the time to be given for the proposed change to have "worked out". There are basically no upper limits that evolutionists impose on themselves in terms of timescales. Few seem to be willing to contradict, so no matter how elastic things get, general acceptance is just round the corner.

I don't believe that functionality is explained by evolutionary processes, but something that evolution completely fails to explain is natural beauty. Even if nature in all it's aspects did somehow evolve to it's present state, why did so much of it turn out to be beautiful and not weirdly ugly? Surely the "survival of the fittest" does not require the fittest to also be aesthetically pleasing? What evolutionary mechanism requires many evolutionary changes to not only be functional improvements, but also to be visually so? In fact, there is no need to confine the argument to the visually pleasing. You could just as easily ask why does music sound beautiful, why does food taste delicious, why does receiving a hug feel pleasurable, why does getting a promotion in work boost our confidence? It amazes me why any artist would ever be an evolutionist, when so much of what they observe and strain so diligently to capture on canvas yells out "Look at me, I'm gorgeous!"

Not only do we see evidence literally everywhere of Design in functionality, but we also see a super-abundance of evidence of Care taken in appearance and form. Not the kind of fussy care that people often fall into today that has more to do with vanity than beauty, but the kind of care that shows how much the Designer was at pains to express something of His own feelings towards every thing and every creature He made.

"The heavens declare the glory of God, 

and the skies proclaim the work of His hands"

Psalm 19:1

And it doesn't stop at what is above our heads. All around us we find things about life that could not possibly have evolved by accident and fill us with wonder.

And bringing it even closer to home, there is no reason at all for us humans ourselves, to be blunt, not to be pig ugly. Evolution involves chance, right? And all that the supposed evolutionary processes were concerned with was that the fittest species should survive, yes? We should by rights, have our liver hanging in a hand-bag sized, thick-skinned, wrinkled pouch six inches below one armpit. We should have noses that are three times the average human size with a tuft of thick black hair protruding from the centre. We might easily have extraordinarily bad breath that modern toothpastes and minty gargles could do nothing at all to alleviate. Or perhaps the anus might be positioned just above the breastbone. Ridiculous? Not really. Why did everything work out so very, very well, so perfectly co-ordinated, if only chance mutations were at operation? And although I wouldn't want to cast aspersions on alleged ape-like ancestors, how come the visual improvements continued still further beyond that leathery point?

The Bible provides far more plausible answers. It says that each creature was made "after it's kind" (Gen 1:24), so monkeys never had to become human. It goes further and states, only of mankind, that we were created by God "in His image" (Gen 1:27). So God took special care over man because He had a unique purpose in placing us here on earth, which was that He made us for relationship with Himself (Gen 3:8), something he never speaks of in connection with the animals. It is this relationship, fractured by sin, but restored by response to the cross, that is at the centre of why evolutionists continually put two and two together and come up with five and an eighth. Trying to understand earth, nature and the universe outside of the context of God the Creator, as He has revealed Himself, is doomed to the endless speculations and incorrect conclusions that evolutionary theory has been dogged with from the first moment of unfortunate Darwinian misconception.

At every turn, evolution fails to find either a causative reason or working mechanism for the existence of natural beauty of any kind. That some very occasional aspects of nature might have happened to work out visually well if evolution were true is perhaps plausible. But that with continuous repetition, again and again and again, nature would turn out, not just to be ok, but to be phenomenally beautiful, by chance, is plainly beyond credibility for all but the most religiously fervent evolutionist and certainly provides a logistical problem that is easily on a par with any difficulty that for example, Noah, may have had in getting the animals into the ark, which is used as a significant enough reason for dismissing the Biblical account. Once again, we come back to the fact that all Models of Origins have scientific difficulties. The question is, which Model has the least difficulties and why is only one scientific model (the evolutionary one) taught in schools, when all models rely for their historicity to a great extent on the trusting faith of their adherents?