Well, Guest Not-Exactly-Yet-Ex-Insanitorium, I can hardly consider what you say because you never say anything that is comprehensible in the accepted meaning of the term. One day, maybe, when you actually say something that isn't under the influence of something else...

Should I have said, to meet your full approval, "It explains the development of life on earth in all its beauty and diversity and complexity?" I am happy to acknowledge the "beauty and diversity and complexity" of life; but haven't you yourself omitted the "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" nature of life? Beauty, after all, like brutishness, is in the eye of the beholder.

No, it explains all life on earth in all its beauty and complexity. "Development" sits very uneasily with evolution theory in that evolution does not have a goal, so, development towards...well, what? You tell me. Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short...well, that's your interpretation, one used quite improperly as an argument against God, of course (there are far better, and far more interesting, ones). A far better interpretation is to say that every living creature on earth is a victor in the struggle for existence. As for beauty, well, hows about saying that it's the perfect synergy of form and function? That'll do me, though of course there are lots of other ways of putting it if science isn't your numero uno priority. I'm struggling to define the beauty of the Lento of Beethoven's Quartet in F, but then struggle is part of the whole aesthetic when it comes to art, n'est-ce pas? It's a wonderful world.