Origins: where we really stand in 2014:

Science generally needs to start with an improvable presumption. The study of origins is not as important as the honest portrayal of the current level of known science on the subject. The oft quoted “Most likely theory” is far too subjective for such a ‘culturally charged’ subject. What is the most logical improvable assumption to be suggested in beginning and intermediate science classes? And, how do we keep it subjective and inspiring of new and original theories and science in the young generations? Is there a logical/natural default and starting point? Does a certain “improvable assumption” stop short of “loading the question” which would potentially stifle the brilliance of fresh thought?

Can you start with thin air and improve on it? A basic logical assumption is behind the adventure of this life. It is with untested belief that we walk and talk and partake of food. Logical belief is not religious faith, it is grassroots reason, and science is built on it.

The observation of apparent design begs to be either acted on as all other things in life or tested for other causal windows of possibility. Apparent Design is where we are in 2014, just as we were in 1860. It stifles nothing, while stating the obvious. It draws no conclusions and encourages discovery. Are we really still at “square one”? Well actually, no, we have a world full of beliefs and theories the collection of which has taken us back to “foundational thought” on the subject. At one point we assumed a creator, more recently a statistical anomaly. After 150 years of the statistical anomaly assumption, without discounting the theories, the rational concession brings us back to foundational thought “Apparent design”, how do we account for it; answers are yet unknown.

Mid-point appendixTwo reasons assumptions beyond “apparent design” bend the laws or proper application of science 

First: 
Apart from a basic characteristic of life, things are presumed to go from a state of order to a state of disorder unless there is an observation of the opposite, in which case the base assumption is design with a need to find the causal agent of such design characteristic. Observations of the “upgrading of order” in such things as crystal formation, snowflakes and a myriad of other things can usually be solidly and scientifically explained with certainty. Biology cannot as yet be explained with certainty unless there is a leap of faith. Therefore the default foundation is the extent of our “knowledge” to date. Biology has a yet unexplained characteristic of design. There are a myriad of theories from a designer to a statistical anomaly which each one advocates through some sort of leap of faith not unlike religious belief. The fact is, we are still at the yet to be explained observation of the “characteristic of design” we find in biology and the unique characteristics of the planet and sun relationship and everything it has seemed to allow, create, or give rise to. 

Second: 
Statistical impossibility cannot be conveniently overcome by adding endless amounts of time with a lack of sufficient independent substantiation for such additions. This is unscientific. 4.5 billion years is impressive, believable, but immeasurable except by statistical theory. Additionally, no one really knows if a statistically long enough period of time can give rise to increasing order from disorder through a uniquely theorized window of possibility. This is especially true considering that the particular novel window theorized to enable the possibility has not even been proven to exist. The experiment could theoretically be done on Mars, but how would we know where we are in the statistically theorized window of possibility. And obviously we are not going to do it and just wait hoping it comes sooner than later if ever. That is just gambling with essentially zero odds. We know there is a likelihood of a flood in the 100 year flood zone in a 100 year window, though we do not know when it will occur. We do not have any reason to logically believe in the likelihood of these “origin theories” actually taking place in any period of time, and the only reason we presume such is because of a default presumption that “nothing else appears logical”.

Conclusion:

“Nothing else seems logical” is a predisposition of the Atheist perspective not shared by the majority of people on the planet. Conversely the presumption of “inherent design character” is basic, well founded, and scientifically and statistically substantiated. It is the logical default starting point and can facilitate the brilliant discovery and substantiation of any actual “causal agent”; one yet unimagined, one previously assumed, or one of more “spiritual” character. ‘Inherent design character’ leaves the door open for the highest quality of science in any direction imaginable. The statistical unlikelihood of assumed theories demands a return to foundations as an educational starting point that pleads for discovery and the relevant awe of our still mysteriously unexplained natural world. The ‘fleshing out’ of this basic logical assumption is assessable to all requiring only rudimentary grassroots observation and life experience. Let’s evolve our 2014 and onward science to logical assumptions and open the door of next generation brilliance!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s