The biggest problem for creationists is to define "purpose" and the mistake is to assume "evolution" needs to have a direction. No doubt "pomposity" can be applied to those who might make such an assumption.

As far as "elegance" is concerned, it is the antithesis of increasing the number of elements in a current "scientific" paradigm. The point is summarized by the principle of "Occam's Razor". In biology, for example, this involves throwing out concepts of "vitalism" as "an essential element" in biological systems. Capra describes this well in his "Web of Life", in which he also points out that it is our cognitive "chauvinism" towards existence which involves us in trying to "get a handle" on it. "God-ism", of any convoluted variety,is merely a decorative part of such a handle.


In anticipation of a counter argument that "we" appear to be transcendent of all paradigms,and hence "God-like", I would argue that such a "transcendent we" is an ontological illusion, in so far that "selves" are social constructions, and "we" is merely an extrapolation of that. It may be that "we" are no more "God-like" than the components of an evolutionarily successful insect colony, and that the "language" which evokes "self-concepts" has no more significance than an organizational chemical messaging system for ant colonies. We might also note here that "success" is purely relative, and ants historically seem to have edge, as species go !

Edited by eccles (10/10/09 07:32 AM)