Simple answer: Because we can :P

Each evolutionary development, albeit motivated by specific ecological pressures, opens new possibilities; epiphenomena, if you will. There is no need to oppose understanding "high concepts" with the strive for survival. It might well be that our successes in the scientific endeavor are "secondary effects" of the course of our evolution, wherein we developed learning skills and problem-solving capabilities. Even if understanding scientific concepts was not the drive that first lead to such developments. To try to explain the latter from an evolutionary standpoint might be, if this is the case, a non-sequitur.

there is something most valuable in comparison of surviving and it's the joy of surviving. from Epicurus tile now many philosophies is in the same idea that enjoying is the only matter of human being. science can provides us more enjoying of life in many ways. as a scientific way , discovering unknown borders of universe is a great enjoyment.

Dear Mehdi, thanks for your answer but how evolution (or how does evolution explain) resulted in the point that the goal is '' enjoying of life in many ways''. Considering you answer to be true. I have some doubts on what you mentioned as the most valuable thing,thought. that of course is out of my question topic.

I think we understand some mysteries and other No.The death is still a mystery to be humano.O single biggest mystery that presents itself to the people.The Darwin's theory of evolution explains how man can survive goals and real problems.mystery still exists between heaven and earth that intelligence does not understand.

Of course there was no Darwinian explanation for understand complex physics, therefore, our brains probably were a result of the "need" of understand of proximal problems like tool using, hunting, living in groups, reproduce, change and construct our niches, etc.. Think that all biological traits and especially all behavior are adaptative is misguiding. We evolve capacity to learn, to solve some "simple" problems that allowed us learn things much more complicated than those that were our selective pressures. Those behaviors were "spandrels" in Gould's terminology.

Find more reading here: http://www.life.illinois.edu/ib/443/Gould%20&%20Lewontin.pdf

"Also why do we sacrifice ourselves for others if Darwin was right?"

To that question you should see a kin/multi-level selection model, reciprocity, and cultural evolution to see which factor could have played a role on the evolutionary origin and maintenance altruism.

Simple answer: Because we can :P

Each evolutionary development, albeit motivated by specific ecological pressures, opens new possibilities; epiphenomena, if you will. There is no need to oppose understanding "high concepts" with the strive for survival. It might well be that our successes in the scientific endeavor are "secondary effects" of the course of our evolution, wherein we developed learning skills and problem-solving capabilities. Even if understanding scientific concepts was not the drive that first lead to such developments. To try to explain the latter from an evolutionary standpoint might be, if this is the case, a non-sequitur.

Because we are curious, inquisitive enough and have an inquiring mind. Because we are highly imaginative, creative and intelligent. The fact that we humans have been able to understand so much about how the natural world works, in our incredibly limited region of space over a remarkably short period of time, is a triumph of the human spirit, one in which we can all be justifiably proud.

Two aspects:

(1) I'm not sure if we really "understand" the universe. In terms of (natural) science, we might be able to "explain" the universe, whereas the claim that we thus "understand" it is based on a strongly positivistic argument that claims that everything is described in terms of natural science.

(2) The human ability to develop technology helped us survive during the past approx. 2 million years. Due to the usage and manufacturing of tools (hand axe, spear, wheel,...) it became simpler for humans to obtain food, care for their offspring, it increased the likelihood for survival. The cognitive abilities improved and were subsequently liberated from their primary purpose as soon as the immediate challenge to help the family survive was gone. In my opinion this took place when people started specializing in certain areas.

Consequently, people started investing their brain powers into things like arts or fundamental science (which often leads to helpful and important applications, but this is not required or intended). Hence basic science research first and foremost is part of culture to broaden our horizon. Maybe indirectly this procedure leads to people being more inspired/effective in inventing aspects to improve the situation of our lives.

The question of this thread and the discussion about what is knowable and what is not knowable about our universe reminds me of one of the greatest humanists who ever lived, Carl Sagan.

Sagan pointed out numerous times that "the order of the Universe is not an assumption; it is an observed fact."(1). And that the simplest definition of science is the search for rules -- which is, in turn, the only possible way to understand our vast and complex Universe. Sagan admitted that "human beings are, understandably, highly motivated to find regularities, natural laws.... The Universe forces those who live in it to understand it. Those creatures who find everyday experience a muddled jumble of events with no predictability, no regularity, are in grave peril. The Universe belongs to those who, at least to some degree, have figured it out."(2). As for it being "unknowable", he commented as follows: "For myself, I like a Universe that includes much that is unknown and, at the same time, much that is knowable. A universe in which everything is known would be static and dull, as boring as the heaven of some weak-minded theologians. A Universe that is unknowable is no fit place for thinking beings. The ideal Universe for us is very much like the one we inhabit. And I guess that is really not much of a coincidence"(3).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-Sagan, Carl. 1996. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. (New York: Random House) p273.

2-Sagan, Carl. 1974. Broca=s Brian: Reflections on the Romance of Science. (New York: Random House) p.16.

3-Ibid. p.18.

Thanks every one for your answers, I learnt from most of them. I wait for other ppl's ideas.

I agree with Alex Hemme that we do not understand the universe. Cosmology and astrophysics can list lots of contradictory observations which require an explanation. The shallower your knowledge the more you think we know.

This is the question that gave birth to both the weak and strong anthropic principles. Whatever you think of them, Barrows and Tippler, as well as Brandon Carter have concluded that, in some sense, we could not ask this question in any universe but this one, in which we have arisen.

“Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, p. 16)

Here is Carter: “Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in it’s history.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p. 21)

Although these claims were based on observations of the universe by scientists, they have a metaphysical ring to them which has disquieted many scientists and philosophers. Paul Davies, perhaps the best internationally-known physicist and author overall, has coined the term "The Jackpot Universe" to speak of the unique fine-tuning of constants which gave rise to our particular universe. When we speculate on this question it does tend to lead us either in a metaphysical direction or toward some absolute insistence on a materialistic explanation for everything. Many believe that Martin Rees postulated the Multiverse theory merely to escape the implications of the Cosmological Anthropic Principle.