This creationist shit is so frustrating because the real answer is actually so beautiful and fascinating, but they have to try and frame the beauty of nature through the lens of human creativity.
Marianne Williamson
 @marwilliamson
9 Mar 2021
Who how what decided what feathers will be red and what feathers will be blue and what feathers will be green?
1
2
What is the “real” answer? I wasn’t being rhetorical, by the way.
1
3
The short answer is "evolution", but my main point is that even asking "who?", as though all of the wonders of the universe must come from something similar to our own consciousness and creativity is such a narrow view.
1
An artist designing a pattern like this is the only way we can intuitively wrap our minds around its creation, but that doesn't mean that the slow pressures of nature and genetics isn't a beautiful process when you take the time to understand it.
1
Replying to @IanKropo
You’re projecting onto me far more anthropomorphizing than was there, probably because I used the word “who.” But I don’t see the difference between the mystery of spirit and the mystery of nature. At a certain point they’re interchangeable to me.

Mar 9, 2021 · 4:22 AM UTC

2
6
Replying to @marwilliamson
The beauty of a bird's pattern is amazing, but there's also an earthly, completely material explanation for how it emerged, that's not part of the spiritual world anymore than the intricacies of how microchips make pictures appear on our computer screens is.
Replying to @marwilliamson
And I do realize you're probably not implying anything that deeply connected to actual creationist ideology, but you were certainly mirroring some of their narratives here. It's very refreshing to see you engage in a civil discussion about it.
1