Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I, as a creationist, do not support the “game of chance”, but I support the idea that human design is locally optimal and ideally suited for life on planet Earth, and even has a large set of” modifications ” for various climatic and more specific conditions.
From the point of view of creationism, the Creator acted exactly as the creators of the Mars rovers act, choosing the best design and technical solutions for a longer and more fruitful mission. Probably, the aesthetic component was also important for Him, which is why we are so (for the most part) cute.
There are, of course, completely unscientific, esoteric-conspiracy theories about the mysterious symbolism hidden in the proportions of a person, but this is probably what some great-eaters will be better able to answer.
We humans are a game of chance. If someone from outside classifies the Earth, they will call it the dinosaur planet. Their evolution dates back tens of millions of years and is still ongoing in the form of birds, while ours is a mere few hundred thousand. If someone from outside wants to revive life on Earth after a nuclear war, then most likely they will take a chicken, slightly change its DNA, and get the most adapted to Earth conditions living being.
And why should evolution please you with intelligent design?
Our design is locally optimal. �Locally optimal. �Is optimal, but only locally. �I.e.-regarding relatively small changes to this very design – and the surrounding conditions that gave rise to it. �And if you change that abruptly , you will need to start looking for a different local optimum.