A WindowView thesis is a proposition stated for consideration and is intended to be discussed and maintained against objections by a sound defense.
Not by chance, not by undirected cause, WE are by design. This conclusion is so masked by phenomena and other data we have interpreted in simply material terms. Assumptions have been adopted, historically speaking, to the exclusion of clearly seeing ... seeing that if the assumptions are just simply DROPPED from view ... we get another kind of picture. Objectivity stands to reveal the other side of the coin. This DEFINES reality in a way that opens the window ... ALL the way open. The new conclusioon today is reached from several different perspectives and from a number of different scientific diciplines, including: astronomy, biochemistry, information science, and genetics.
But do you discern what is and is not truthful? How do you know? How many of us took in a class on logic? How many of us apply sound logic to our thinking? How many remember the principles to philosophy? There are 'thought tools' available to us that we might discern the truth!
So, we needed to make the main point about the science area, but
The window is not a fabrication ... this is a reflection of information ... many of the claims presented in the science area have existed for millennia. Life offers us a vital opportunity to see and understand what is true.
The evidence clarifies our understanding of life ... THIS IS the other side of the coin to revealing life's origin and where possible adding perspective on life's design and purpose ... the information is here if look ... look and you will be changed by what you see!
Considers this question: Can science and faith together support a single reality—the one we live in and experience each day? Do the standard explanations for life adequately explain our existence?
To state a thesis for the science are is necessary because too often such questions, about existence, science and faith, are excused as ridiculous. And to be clear we mean scientific and theistic evidence or information in particular supporting this reality.
We live in an era when a true open dialog is scripted out of the classroom. Learning ultimately should be about life and what life is! But materialistic influences have reduced the educational system's perspectives. So, when dialog comes it's joined by contentious opposition ... why?
Science as a Belief System: The reality is, to many a scientist, science is a belief system—not all, but many do think this way. Listen to what they say, many explanations for life come with statements that hinge on "assuming that" or "if," as opposed to a clear objective view without such contingencies. In an objective mode, we are forced to keep open explanations or possibilities that assumptions remove from consideration.
What is exciting, if considered objectively, the evidence that science holds leads to other possible explanations. Only dogma, belief, or presumption hold us to some standard story. Following the data themselves to where they lead opens doors of new exploration and explanation.
Many in science believe that science replaces or surpasses any theistic reality. These individuals fail to understand science history and the working environment of earlier scientists such as Newton, Bacon, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, Gray, Mendel, Maxwell, and many others. Science historically is framed within an academic sphere that considers theism along with the material realm.
Scientific Method Compromised: Today, many avoid the null hypothesis when an experiment does not comport with expectations and the dogma commonly accepted. Yet, from the scientists who considered theism and a material world as coincident realities, comes the scientific method we supposedly use with objectivity! The influence we allow by mind or material belief is the hypocrisy that has held us back as new data hold evidence for a larger picture on life.
Evidence for Design: Critical thinking and an examination of evidence we already have reveals that some of the evidence exhibits the characteristics of design. This is part of a natural revelation that does not point a finger to the exact intelligent cause for life, but it does point to intelligence as an agent causing life to exist.
Keep in mind, those who argue against design are saying they don't want to consider who the designer might be. Yet, in an effort to say every effect must have a material cause ... we eventually run into a universe that comes out of a creative event where there is no apparent cause we can explain in material terms. And that the universe is so eloquent in its composition and characteristics, this too opens the door to seeing design on a wondrous, grand, large scale—from the cosmos at large to the individual unique protein that works as a cellular machine.
Design portends some explanations while science finds many other incredible examples where data explain certain cause and effect relationships. The two sets of data are not exclusive of one another—they exist together. Design is not the exclusive explanation, yet this is a common denominator for origins—this explains complexity, specificity, and characteristics we see in a way materialism is unable to identify.
Take the biological information in DNA and looking at its complexity and the way the processing of that information goes well beyond today's computer technology ... and then ask yourself ... is it enough to say this information and all the cellular mechanism that preserve it came about by chance. The is a cause for a dilemma for the strictly material scientists. The theory of Darwinian evolution now runs into impossible situations.
"Before you can ask 'Is Darwinian theory correct or not?', You have to ask the preliminary question 'Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?'. That's a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is 'Man, that thing is just a mess. It's like looking into a room full of smoke.' Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology."
-- David Berlinski, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Today we live in a world where the evidence from science alone tells us we are not by chance.
Evolution cannot explain the explosion of life at the Cambrian, it cannot even begin to demonstrate the possible material origin of complex biological information, science lacks transitional intermediate fossils to illustrate Darwin's form of evolution, we avoid the complexity of the eye, brain, feather, or other complex organ because we'd rather assume evolution caused such structures. Even Darwin commented on how complex features in life might compromise his theory. He was right about that.
Public television programs tell us humans evolved and then tell stories with assumptions, gaps, and extrapolations. The narration is smooth, the graphics amazing, the evidence is marvelous, but this is how unquestioning viewers are mesmerized. The viewer is told we evolved. Yet there are no firm links in the story to reveal clear transitions from primitive to advanced form. Yes, we see the progression and hear their explanation. But more clearly, the evidence objectively demonstrates biological stages jump from one level to the next, without evidence for how one gets from stage to stage. And with each advancement comes incredible new complexity and advancement that we are to assume just happened as a matter of evolution—we are caught in circular reasoning.
The thesis of the science area within the window is simple. Humans need to cast off preconceived notions and assumptions and then look plainly at what the data offer. This approach in fact brought us the argument from design. The public dialog should focus on where the evidence takes us. This needs to be objective and open. Mean while, classroom text books include many assumptions and there is no time in the curriculum for open discussion. We say, if use of the term evolution works in certain ways and still other evidence reveals a best explanation is for design, then let that tell us something real about who we are and how we got here!
The window's science thesis includes change, theism and other perspectives on our lives as part of an overall paradigm—a model demonstrating all components together—that make our life experience what it really is. All together, these multiple perspectives point to the future. If you look through the window, you will see the future.
"Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, alwßays gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. Fort if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is a synonym for the absence of [naturalistic] explanation." -- Richard Dawkins
"No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner—no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion. But we are here. All these things got here somehow; if not in a Darwinian fashion, then how?" -- Michael Behe
"One of the reasons that people embrace Darwinian orthodoxy with such an unholy zealousness, is just that it gives them access to power. It’s as simple as that: power over education, power over political decisions, power over funding, and power over the media."
-- David Berlinski, The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski