

When trying to persuade people that the world was created through intelligent design, proponents will frequently try to find an object in nature that seems to function so optimally, with so much beauty, that it must seem impossible that it would have been created by anything other than a mind.

Naturalists, atheist or religious, coming from a different perspective, tend think similarly when awestruck, when they speak of the millions of years that were required to eventually arrive at the same organs, that are so effective and so well adapted, that we we may be so confused to think that a mind must have designed or intended such creations in advance.

Either we are awed by nature or we are awed by the creator, whichever perspective we adopt. But we forget that there are other viable perspectives, and these modes of thinking are not so different from each other as we might expect, and I think the latter, to a degree, exists, because of being an outgrowth of the former perspective, and there may be a strong desire to cling to the awe produced by these reflections on nature.

But why do we continue to assume that nature should produce any awe at all?

An even if it did produce an awe that is justifiable, what is the relationship between awe and the quality of nature or any designer. Because what are the alternatives?

Before thinking that this article is going to be about destroying our sense of beauty concerning the natural world, remember that I'm not talking about our sense of beauty in general, but that sense of awe that we sometimes pretend to experience when watching specials, or visiting museums, about natural history and the creation of the universe. 

While I do not want to stop people from experiencing their awe of nature (some people feed off of this and have built careers and hobbies on this experience alone), I do think there are two errors that lead us toward these ways of thinking. These there issues relate to:

1. Our lifespans.
2. Our perception that our lives unfold slowly.
3. That the world is a painstaking development activity.
4. That progress exists.
5. That there are not better alternatives.

It is not uncommon to use a philosophical thought experiment to determine where weaknesses lie in our ways of thinking., and that the state of science at that time will be four thousand years behind where it needs to be in order to have the technology requisite to avert the danger. Suppose also, that the reason for this prediction involves the slowness of our development, relating to the speed of our thinking and the slowness of our everyday activities. It is determined that we are living too slowly, perhaps in some ways rather than others, and that in order to reach the technology required we would have to be willing to alter key aspects of our lives that would result in the development necessary to be prepared to avoid danger 200 years in the future, versus 4000.

In a sense, evolution has already undertaken this process. Because currently, we are able to think faster, and produce technology faster, than we could at any other time, and also, we are capably of doing things that are impossible for other animals that are currently undergoing natural development of their own. Now that might seem like a strange comparison. But what I'm saying is that we have to develop ourselves in order to be more productive, in an analogous way to a process that is already unfolding in nature. 

But let's not go too far into this example, and return to the main topic. If these events were to occur, what would that do to our perceptions about the value of sublime organs of nature, that now seem to be something that could be produced quickly, rather than over a very long period of time. Eyes do not seem to be organs that evolved over millions of slow years, but instead, in some much smaller equivalent period of time.

Nature didn't happy slowly, thereby increasing its significance. 

It happened quickly. Does this

Consider also that we already enjoy 

One must conclude, after making such considerations, that we are enriched by having more perspectives an not less. That the original position was really narrow, really poorly considered, and quite impoverished by comparison. The sense of wonder, it is true, is part of the child's experience of learning, and once something has been learned well, the sense of awe is diminished in the normal experience. It is true, that some people obtain continual enjoyment, and wonder, from certain things well understood. I feel this way about philosophy. But if I look closely about specific things I have learned that stared from curiosity or surprise, the curiosity and surprise has been diminished after learning, and that this is necessary, because the curiosity or surprise itself is a push towards *learning new things* and not learning the same things again and again (i.e. not learning). The extreme here is obsession about something, which is not to be confused with natural surprise and curiosity, that is the result of stumbling upon something new, and not something, not only old, but extremely well understood and well experienced.

There are some experiences that are contrary to this. I do not think men or women get sick of experiencing the beauty of the opposite sex. But that is an abstraction of sorts that leads us to that apparent counterfactual. There is something in us that creates an ongoing interest and potential aesthetic appreciation, but built into this is also novelty, for we lose our initial aesthetic interest in our spouses, and only periodically return to feelings of beauty, in between some required elapsed time to reproduce novelty. Also built into this are the errors above, because if we were to live a thousand years, it may be, that we would have hundreds of spouses, and not only one.

Again, some would think that such considerations would lead us to a perhaps unpalatable overall perspective, but one has to admit, that we have introduced new knowledge, new considerations, new perspectives, and a more general mode of thinking, that is more inclusive, and therefore greater than what we stared out with. If one wants to focus on a portion of what is included, in one perspective, and in one alternative, then one is free to do this, at the cost, that one has given up the ability to perspective switch, and potentially, choose a false way of thinking, instead of the all inclusive one, which is actually reality and truth.

Furthermore, with such thoughts, one also has to admit, that there is no equality among chunks of knowledge. A more vast an inclusive knowledge is to be preferred, under most sets of criteria people would opt for, to chunks of knowledge that are less conclusive. If one accepts the conclusion that people and cultures are equal, the one must agree that this way of thinking, developed above, is at least equal, and therefore, it should be acceptable to you. But, knowing that chunks of knowledge are not equal, and that larger more inclusive and more truth inclusive (meaning has more learning), then you must agree that this perspective is actually unequal to others, and is actually to be preferred. Later, I will discard this perspective, in favor of a more inclusive and larger viewpoint that includes even more knowledge and more useful perspectives.
