INQUIRY STEP ONE

The topic of this inquiry project centers around the scientific enterprise, its evolution and asks whether or not its current paradigm is too restrictive. I look to Big-bang cosmology, biogenesis/abiogenesis, and evolution vs intelligent design. I was a strict evidentialist/empiricist during my middle school and high school years, but have since abandoned those positions. Since the sciences have always fascinated me, I was always wondering what philosophical implications some of the theories presented had. Also, I was always very interested in what people thought and believed and why they kept those beliefs, and science is no exception. The idea of the genesis of existence, in particular human and the universe’s existence, along with a deep appreciation for chemistry, biology, and physics serve as the backbone of this inquiry. With that background, I have considered on and off whether there is good reason to keep science in a purely mechanistic paradigm.

What I already know about this topic consists mostly of the converse of my inquiry- the teleological/causal-based view of the pre-copernican scientific perspective. With respects to the Big-bang cosmology, I am aware of the logical implications of a model that maintains that the universe had a beginning (as opposed to being eternal). If this model is correct, science has to yield to a supernatural cause to account for the existence of the universe. With respects to biogenesis/abiogenesis, I am well familiarized with the different points of view and the criticisms of those perspectives on the idea that non-living chemical structures can eventually become a living organism. With the evolution and intelligent design dilemma, I am aware of the strong and weak points to natural selection as the mechanism behind evolution, and I am also familiarized with the strong and weak points in intelligent design and its strong hinge on probability theory. For this topic I might focus more on the philosophical challenges to gradualism such as the problem posed by information theory and the non-experimental aspect of intelligent design.

I need to learn more about some of the strongest arguments that have come about from discussion on both sides. I also need to brush up on my science history. I will most likely find this information on scholarly articles and books found both online and at the library.

The question could be posed as - “why has science absolved itself from its causal-perspective roots?”