Is Reproductive Advantage the Only Game in Town?

Richard Aberdeen
3 min readOct 5, 2022
Is Reproductive Advantage the Only Game in Town?
Is Reproductive Advantage the Only Game in Town? — Paula — Pexels

It seems to have never dawned on many modern scientists, that just perhaps similar as we human beings, God can create works of creation art with both practical, reproductive and aesthetic design purposes woven in combination. Human beings typically include non-functional aesthetic design in virtually everything we create, from paper clips and automobiles to tall buildings, large areas of and even entire cities.

The U.S. Supreme Court building displays ornate columns that both hold up the roof and are also aesthetically designed to be pleasing to the eye of the beholder, even though there is no practical reason for their existence, other than for holding up the roof. Obviously, houses and larger structures would be much less expensive, easier and quicker to build if they were just constructed for practical functional purposes only, with no thought of physical attractiveness or artistic design.

And yet, human beings have built magnificent glass-walled modern skyscrapers with expensive ornately-designed interiors, the Parthenon, the Taj Mahal, designed large city park and public gathering areas containing elegant fountains and historic statues. And, painted giant figures and faces on the sides of city buildings and on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Just perhaps, our Creator is at least as capable of creative multiplicity in function and design as we humans are. Just perhaps, birds sometimes fly and glide, fish dart and swim and squirrels sometimes run and jump around just for the fun of it or, just because they feel like it, as we humans are prone to do, rather than for some rigidly attributable survival and/or reproductive purpose.

And just perhaps, the beautiful feathers of a peacock are created for BOTH reproductive survival and aesthetic purposes woven in combination within the same grand design, who can say for sure?

Consider the incredible complexity of what science arbitrarily calls the “natural” world (as if changing terminology somehow disproves “creation”), where trillions of microbes, plants, insects, mammals and other living things react individually and differently within the same general environmental “scene”, depending on what kind of eyes, ears or other perception tools they may possess.

Just perhaps, Someone great enough to design and create the grand design universal reality would also be capable of creating for both practical functionality and aesthetic purposes at the same time, given that such lowly creatures as ourselves do so on a consistent and ongoing basis.

Even some spiders create a differently designed, yet practically functional web every single day of their lives. Why wouldn’t our Creator be at least as capable of combined artistic and functional design as a human being or a spider is?

We humans are often quick to draw conclusions that we in fact, neither know for certain or have any way of knowing. Like the proverbial not being able to see the forest for the trees or, the overwhelming evidence of creation because of invented terminology like “natural world”, atheistic scientists clearly remain victims of their own narrow-minded egotistical foolishness.

Is everything that microbes, animals, plants, trees and human beings do solely based on reproductive survival advantage? Or is there more to creation than meets the narrow-minded egotistical eye? Who can say they know for sure and, what evidence do they have that can possibly contradict the grand cosmic design wonder of it all?

Contact author: