Solving the Origins of the Universe

There continues to be debate regarding:…

… materialistic Darwinian origins of the universe …

… as opposed to …

… the possibility of the involvement of a supernatural and superintending entity.

Both sides of this argument are supported by brilliant proponents with all kinds of capitalized letters following their names.

Oddly enough, an argumentative tactic employed by proponents of one view frequently involves denigration of the intellect and academic qualifications of the other …

… Guess which one is which.

Those of the former position also insist that the opinions of the latter position must not be heard …

… Attitudes of this sort represent the antithesis of scientific investigation and academic inquiry …

… Insisting on the silencing of questions and counter points is much more indicative of an ideological or philosophical indoctrination than the use of the scientific method.

As long as the current status of the world exists, we may be persuaded that there will never be demonstrable scientific proof of either view …

… You know … observable … repeatable … irrefutable.

Obviously, events prior to recorded history have no available witnesses, and tenets such as inanimate matter becoming intelligent animal life cannot currently be demonstrated.

The major concerns of true scientific investigation should first focus upon the way things are in the universe. Persuasions concerning the way things were, and how they came to be should occupy the category of theories subject to various interpretations …

… and should not be sold as proven fact …

… with no alternatives allowed.

Exhibits A, B, C, D, etc. of why mankind should not (at least right now) pronounce the final conclusion of the whole matter include such documentable cases as:

The Piltdown man was once sold as archaeological fact, but was later found to be a hoax.

The literal expressions concerning the origins of all things as told in the Christian Bible, the Hindu Vedas and the ancient pagan religions cannot all be true.

The Catholic Church put Galileo Galilei on trial for suggesting that the entire universe did not revolve around our planet … turns out that was a somewhat hasty indictment.

The original Big Bang Theory reached a point of certainty in the consensus of the intelligentsia, but later revelations found that the speed of the objects in the universe are accelerating, and our known laws of physics can’t quite reconcile that.

More recently, in order to reconcile modern difficulties arising from the supposed behavior of some sub atomic particles, a number of the smartest men on the planet are considering the existence of alternate universes where different laws of physics may prevail … That used to be considered the domain of Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury and Sturgeon.

In summation …

The “law” involving gravitational acceleration on planet Earth was not settled by a show of hands.

Closing this brief rant:

In a most precise manner, a fellow of widely acclaimed intellect once expressed a thought to which this writer subscribes …

…. “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”  (Werner von Braun, considered the father of space science)


About billover70

Old. Name: Bill
This entry was posted in opinion and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s