What reason would that be?Anthony Edgar wrote: Many creatures are outwardly symmetrical and many aren't. Regarding the creatures that are, I find it interesting that most of their inner parts aren't symmetrical; it's as if their outward appearance is important for some reason.
Don't conflate the lack of an explanation with the inability to explain. Biology does not have to provide all the answers for the answers to exist in its domain. It is perhaps more an effect of our perception, and therefore psychology, that we find symmetry beautiful and asymmetry not beautiful. It's also a matter of what we observe, since symmetry is not necessarily a prerequisite for beauty in all cases;Anthony Edgar wrote: If a creature that is symmetrical loses a limb, they lose their symmetry and we find the sight of them distasteful. The loss of symmetry somehow offends our sense of beauty. Why should that be? Other than its role in sexual attraction, evolution can't explain why humans appreciate beauty, or why symmetry should be a prerequisite for beauty.
Perception boils down to psychology, psychology to neurology, and neurology down to biology and biochemistry.
Furthermore, consider a possibility like such: Human bodies evolved symmetrically because their upright stance is best supported by symmetrical skeletal structures. Natural selection helps breed populations with bodies fit enough to survive and reproduce in their niche. Hence, symmetry became naturally selected for and, consequently, the perception of it as aesthetically pleasing developed.
That may or may not be the case, and I do not have reason to think the above possibility is definitely accurate; I do know, however, that plausible-sounding explanations like the above exist in droves among evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary biologists. Evolution is not excluded from the picture by default, as you claim.
Even if you are correct, you couldn't automatically fill in the blank with "God" simply due to evolutionary psychology lacking a complete, holistic picture of our sense of beauty. Philosophy doesn't work that way. A blank spot in our explanations isn't a "Fill in anything here" space, if you catch my drift.
Okay - IF this God exists, IF God is responsible for the Biblical teachings and instructions found in modern, Latin-translated Bibles, IF God is the sole propieter of human evolution, and therefore psychology and perception, and IF it really does intend for us to find symmetry beautiful... then you could very likely say that God is responsible for our sense of aesthetic appreciation... Do you see all these IFs?Anthony Edgar wrote: I would argue that it's no coincidence that most, if nor all, creatures we find beautiful are symmetrical in shape. I would also argue that human beings are programmed to appreciate beauty, since we are made in God's image (Genesis 1:26) and God is the Author of beauty.
\Anthony Edgar wrote: It's remarkable that symmetry is evident across such a wide spectrum of creatures - mammals, reptiles, fish, birds, insects, crustaceans. Symmetry is synonymous with beauty, and beauty for the sake of beauty points to, not evolution, but design. The Designer is obviously a big fan of symmetry.
We find many things beautiful, and symmetry is not synonymous with it, for it is not the sole factor that causes us to see beauty in a thing. Furthermore, beauty is usually referred to as an abstract concept - a cognitive result of analyzing and interpreting our experiences and perceptions - and it is therefore not the case that beauty is necessarily attributed to design. Beauty is designed by humans. This, we know. But that does not mean that a human's sense of beauty necessarily implies that the human was designed. Do you see what I'm getting at here? You're jumping the gun on many of your conclusions. You're skipping a lot of argumentative steps and leaving a lot of blanks.