Blue Skies
As many of you know, some much to their disgust, I happen to believe in Creation, or "intelligent design" if you prefer. I have written extensively about this in a prior post ("In the Beginning ...") and so will not revisit that argument. But it has struck me for some time that our world is filled with beauty, mainly in the form of color. Grass and foliage are luscious green, flowers are every color and shape under the rainbow and then, of course, there is the rainbow. Birds vary in plumage from relatively dull to the brilliant hues of Cardinals, Goldfinches and Bluebirds. Goldfinches even change from a boring dull green in winter to their brilliant black and gold heraldry of spring.
The riot of color bestowed on us by flowers defies description. Literally every color under the sun (except maybe black which technically is no color at all) is represented, from majestic roses to the lowly dandelion. Many birds sport plumage of brilliant color. Even the lowliest of creatures often are beautiful in their own way.
Have you ever thought what a dull, drab world it would be without the gift of color? Even the sky is blue, a miraculous gift covering the blackness of space. Also, have you wondered why? After all, beauty really serves no practical purpose. Plumage is often explained as serving to attract the opposite gender, but then how about the rather mundane such as the starling, brown sparrow or even the little gray mouse? Are they doomed to frustration and extinction? No, that can't be the whole story. Flowers are virtually a limitless panoply of brilliant hues and shapes. It can't all be just to attract bees. In fact, most animals are color blind and see only in black and white. So how does this all come to be and why? Aye, there is the miracle.

Take the sky, a brilliant blue when weather permits. Some of you may have been taught that it has to do with dust particles in the air filtering the light. Sorry, science teacher, that's wrong. In fact it's implausible because dust particles vary in size and so would not result in a consistent blue. Actually, molecules of nitrogen, a fortuitously major component (81%) of the atmosphere, form the filter.
Nitrogen and oxygen molecules, which make up 98% of our atmosphere, are of a diameter that is less than the wavelengths of visible light colors. These molecules are much smaller in diameter--less than 1/1000th--than the wavelength of blue light, so they scatter that wavelength via a mechanism called Rayleigh scattering. The scattering effectiveness varies with the fourth power of the wavelength, so blue light is scattered 10 times more effectively than red. This scattering effect renders the sky blue to our eyes while still letting all the color wavelengths*, including blue, through. (Actually, violet is scattered even more effectively, but our eyes are much less sensitive to violet so we just see the blue.)
*NOTE: Light is technically not a wave phenomenon, but rather a quantum radiation involving energy packets. That's so mathematically complex that scientists still use the wavelength concept for light because it works in most cases and is much easier to employ. We'll stick to wavelengths.
Sunsets are often red because the longer and lower light path from the sun near the horizon increases the effect of dust particles and water droplets, which are larger and scatter more red light.

The net result of all this scientific stuff is a beautiful blue (or red or orange) sky instead of the depressing blackness of space. What a lucky happenstance--or not.
Bird and flower colors are created differently. The pigments that create their colors contain tiny particles that selectively reflect and absorb certain colors. What we see are the reflected color wavelengths. (This same process is used in print and paint pigments.)
Even the night sky is decorated with stars and the brilliant shape-changing moon. The net result is an interesting and beautiful night sky decorated with countless tiny sharp lights and one large one rather than just featureless blackness. Occasionally we even get meteor showers and the northern lights added in to further delight us.
The bottom line is we are surrounded by beauty, little of which has a practical purpose except to entertain and delight us poor humans. We virtually alone (maybe alone--I haven't researched this) have eyes with the retinal detection range to see it all. If only we take some time and open those wonderful eyes to the gift of nature's palette all around us. Please do, and enjoy a truly beautiful world.
God's a pretty nice guy after all, isn't he?
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.






29 Comments
yert49 - Sep 01, 2010 8:50 PM
MGarber - Sep 02, 2010 8:41 AM
"I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s some times taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, "look how beautiful it is," and I’ll agree, I think. And he says, "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think he’s kind of nutty.
First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.
At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure…also the processes.
The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting – it means that insects can see the color.
It adds a question – does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that are…why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.
It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts."
MGarber - Sep 02, 2010 10:28 AM
Assume a race of people on another planet identical to ours with the exception that they can only see in the ultraviolet region of light (sorta like bees). Then assume that one day one of their scientists is looking at the sky with an instrument that measures emissions in what we call the visible spectrum, and discovers the occasional existance of discrete seimicircular bands of discrete wavelengths. In other words, they discover what we call rainbows. Feynman asks if those people should consider the phenomenon as any less "beautiful" than we do; he contends absolutely not.
"Have you ever thought what a dull, drab world it would be without the gift of color?" No, it wouldnt be drab at all, it would just be a little harder to find.
aneuhauser - Sep 02, 2010 4:28 PM
I am not addressing "all of nature," only beauty and color. Bees see wavelengths from 300 to 600 nanometers, ultraviolet through green. They do not see yellow or red, very common flower colors. They probably recognize particular flower species by the shape of the petals. Uh, then why color?
MGarber - Sep 02, 2010 6:39 PM
Everything is colored something. The fact that we perceive one thing "prettier" than another is in our mind, not intrinsic in the thing we're looking at.
But what about Feynman's point about the wavelengths we can't visually see; are they somehow less "pretty"?
jman99 - Sep 02, 2010 10:43 PM
The flower does not care who or what moves the pollen, just as long as the pollen is moved.
aneuhauser - Sep 03, 2010 12:32 AM
Regarding his point about wavelengths we can't see but an alien race can, my answer is that physical beauty must be seen to be appreciated. If we humans can't see it, of course we can't appreciate it but those lucky otherworlders can. The point IS to appreciate it.
On another Feynman point, I fully agree that knowing the mechanism of color and other scientific aspects of beauty do not detract from its appreciation. In fact, the mechanisms of color to me simply add to the wonder. The mechanism of the miraculous rainbow is a joy to know and behold.
aneuhauser - Sep 03, 2010 12:41 AM
Carthamus - Sep 03, 2010 5:31 AM
The pigment may have multiple maxima (e.g. in both the UV and vis). The bees see the UV but don't care about the vis. For us it's the other way around.
Maybe the color is a physical characteristic of the "pigment" in the flower that is irrelevant to its actual function (feeding deterrent, phytoalexin, antioxidant, etc.).
aneuhauser - Sep 04, 2010 12:27 AM
All I did was agree with Richard Feynman's critique. Everyone makes mistakes, some of which end in tragedy. The use of a 100% oxygen atmosphere in the capsule and the omission of an inside hatch release was a mistake born of the perceived need to rush to meet JFK's imperative to land a man on the moon by 1970. This was a terrible mistake which taught a lesson, albeit at a high price.
About the dust theory. It was developed by John Tyndall and Lord Rayleigh, who discovered the scattering effect which became known as Rayleigh scattering, although Tyndall discovered it first. They postulated that dust particles were responsible for the sky's blue light scattering. It took Einstein to define the scattering effect of molecules. It took years for Einstein's theory to become accepted and more years for it to trickle into school science texts. Yes, I was taught that it was dust particles, as were many thousands of other students back in the dark ages. You lucky young whippersnappers benefited from Einstein's brilliance.
aneuhauser - Sep 04, 2010 12:39 AM
aneuhauser - Sep 04, 2010 12:40 AM
Carthamus - Sep 04, 2010 2:09 AM
Maybe sometimes (orchids and wasps come to mind), but not always.
Please see Gronquist et al., Attractive and defensive functions of the ultraviolet pigments of a flower. PNAS 98: 13745-13750. http://www.pnas.org/content/98/24/13745.full
Carl Hicks - Sep 04, 2010 2:37 PM
It is my personal opinion that to analyze beauty only detracts from it .
Carthamus - Sep 04, 2010 3:01 PM
But sometimes when I go into more detail, it gets even more beautiful and exciting.
aneuhauser - Sep 04, 2010 4:42 PM
Every time I dare to combine science with Scripture, a bunch of folks go ballistic. Must be a touchy subject. Aren't scientists supposed to believe in God?
Carthamus - Sep 05, 2010 2:42 AM
On the contrary. You stated in your blog that the "bottom line is we are surrounded by beauty, little of which has a practical purpose except to entertain and delight us poor humans."
I tend to disagree. I feel that most color in the world (I don't care if it was created in 6 days or billions of years) is more likely a side effect of its natural function (even the "mundane [plumage] such as the starling, brown sparrow or even the little gray mouse). The hows and whys are for me even more wonderful. Isn't that the case for you too, otherwise you wouldn't have written about it?
Also concerning color vision in animals, it does merit further research. Here is one abstract that popped up in Pubmed.
"In 1912 Carl von Hess, Professor of Ophthalmology in Munich, published the first comprehensive monograph on color vision in animals. He concluded that fish and all invertebrates are color-blind. At the same time, Karl von Frisch demonstrated that fish and honeybees can see and distinguish colors. The theory of trichromacy (Young-Helmholtz) is valid only for primates and some (e.g., bees) but not all insects. Almost all animals can see colors, and the eyes of some invertebrates contain up to 11 types of spectrally different receptor cells. Most animals - with the exception of mammals and cephalopods - can see ultraviolet and/or far red light. Therefore, many animals perceive more colors than human beings."
Autrum H. . [Color vision of animals. Views from Carl von Hess to today] Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1990 Aug;197(2):191-4 [Article in German]
aneuhauser "Aren't scientists supposed to believe in God?"
Do you mean that believing in God is a prerequisite for being a scientist, or not believing in God is a prerequisite (or something completely different)? Either way, it's adding more wood to the fire.
aneuhauser - Sep 06, 2010 12:14 AM
I generally agree. I did go into the blue sky thing just to illustrate the wondrous mechanism creating it. Subsequent commenters have wandered off into Wiki-based analyses of bees and flower configurations. This misses my point completely. I'm fascinated by the colorful natural beauty in the world around us.
Only first-commenter "yert49" seemed to understand what I was saying. Other folks apparently felt compelled to atttack my premise that beauty is a gift from God. Every time I interface science and religion, some folks seem to go ballistic. What, a scientist can't believe in God? Ah well, now I'm wandering off into the woods. Thanks for your comment, Carl. As I said, I agree with you and if I was guilty of excessive analysis in the post, I assure you that was not my intent and I apologize.