@vonny,
How do you grade natural phenomena then vonny unless intelligent design has produced it? Stuff is stuff after all. Isn't the "beautiful" a concept of mankind's intelligence and isn't it therefore merely justice that only the productions of intelligence can properly be considered as beautiful? Or as ugly?
Maybe your idea of the beautiful has been created by intelligence.
Is gushingly declaring the night sky to be beautiful not an attempt to co-opt it for the purpose of presenting oneself as a person of delicate and refined sensibility in possession of an admirable artistic temperament?
But isn't that just a little too easy? Can one, or may one might be better, get away with presenting oneself as a person of delicate and refined sensibility in possession of an admirable artistic temperament quite so felicitously? Doesn't one risk being laughed at by attempting the feat?
Isn't it "beautiful" that the untold generations of women have constructed and refined the male of the species for the sole purpose of rendering it perfectly adapted for their use. Not that the task is yet complete but given the raw material they started with they have certainly made considerable progress and are dedicated to continuing, accelerating even, towards the sought after goal.
It was obvious from ff's use of the phrase "almost as much" that were there to be no one to polish the silver and glassware to provide an appropriate setting in which her personal excellence might be paraded, her table settings would likely be similar to what one sees in a truck-drivers stop-over eatery. Her sense of beauty is a function of her having a polisher and the silver and glassware are simply objects for him to polish. (It is the Age of Aquarius after all.) They are required to gleam and glitter because ff gleams and glitters. It's quite artistic really. Better than the night sky I should think.