biblestudying.net

Printer Friendly Version

Demonstrating that philosophical preference plays a dominant role at the foundation of formulating evolutionary theory is not really a difficult point to prove. It is a fact that is widely and often admitted to.

Earlier we looked at a quote, which began its subsection on “Modern Cosmology” with the opening statement that “modern cosmologists base theories on” a mixture of observations, “concepts,” “imagination,” and “philosophy.”

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY – Modern cosmologists base their theories on astronomical observations, physical concepts such as quantum mechanics, and an element of imagination and philosophy.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Similarly, we have also already seen the quote below, which specifically states that the Einstein-de Sitter universe, which remains the longstanding base model for evolutionary cosmology, is preferred due to a “philosophical bent.”

“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein's model, The Einstein–de Sitter universe – Because the geometry of space and the gross evolutionary properties are uniquely defined in the Einstein–de Sitter model, many people with a philosophical bent have long considered it the most fitting candidate to describe the actual universe.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

The next quote, which we looked at briefly near the beginning of this section, begins by describing how evolutionary theory for the origin of the universe is essential as the basis for biological evolution. Then immediately after stating that effectively, you can’t have biological evolution without an evolutionary view of the origin of the universe, the quote goes on to assert that public interest in the origin of the universe is based upon the philosophical appeal of the joint biological and astrophysical evolutionary theory. In other words, from start to finish the theory of evolution is publicly accepted because the public finds it philosophically appealing.

“Cosmos – Events hypothesized to have occurred in the first few minutes of the creation of the universe turn out to have had profound influence on the birth, life, and death of galaxies, stars, and planets. Indeed, there is a direct, though tortuous, lineage from the forging of the matter of the universe in a primal furnace of incredible heat and light to the gathering on Earth of atoms versatile enough to serve as a chemical basis of life. The intrinsic harmony of the resultant worldview has great philosophical and aesthetic appeal and perhaps explains the resurgence of public interest in this subject.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Earlier, we also saw the following quote. In particular, this quote asserts that the gravitational mechanism, which is favored and central in evolutionary cosmology, is accepted, despite the fact that it doesn’t work, simply because it has “intuitive appeal.”

“Cosmos, Unorthodox theories of clustering and galaxy formation – Given the somewhat unsatisfactory state of affairs with gravitational theories for the origin of large-scale structure in the universe, some cosmologists have abandoned the orthodox approach altogether and have sought alternative mechanisms…In summary, it can be seen that mechanisms alternative to the growth of small initial fluctuations by self-gravitation all have their own difficulties. Most astronomers hope some dramatic new observation or new idea may yet save the gravitational instability approach, whose strongest appeal has always been the intuitive notion that the force that dominates the astronomical universe, gravity, will automatically promote the growth of irregularities. But, until a complete demonstration is provided, the lack of a simple convincing picture of how galaxies form and cluster will remain one of the prime failings of the otherwise spectacularly successful hot big bang theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

The next quote explicitly states that the idea that the cosmos had a beginning is so philosophically distasteful due to the inherently implied (and inherently theological) “creation event,” that even the Big Bang model was finally accepted only once the alternative steady-state theory became impossible on the evidence.

“Cosmos – The observed expansion of the universe immediately raises the spectre that the universe is evolving, that it had a beginning and will have an end. The steady state alternative, postulated by a British school of cosmologists in 1948, is no longer considered viable by most astronomers. Yet, the notion that the Cosmos had a beginning, while common in many theologies, raises deep and puzzling questions for science, for it implies a creation event—a creation not only of all the mass-energy that now exists in the universe but also perhaps of space-time itself. The issue of how the universe will end seems, at first sight, more amenable to conventional analysis.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

In contrast, the philosophical appeal of the steady-state theory was that it asserted that the universe was eternal, and therefore avoided the philosophically undesirable “creation event” with all of its inherent theological implications.

“Steady-state theory – A steady-state universe has no beginning or end in time; and from any point within it the view on the grand scale—i.e., the average density and arrangement of galaxies—is the same.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

And as the next 2 quotes below explicitly state, there was never an observational basis that made the steady-state theory more valid than the Big Bang and its inherent beginning, but instead, the only reason for the steady-state theory was that “the idea of a sudden beginning of the universe” was “philosophically unacceptable” to cosmologists.

“Steady-State Theory, II THE STEADY-STATE THEORY – The steady-state theory's main advantage is that it avoids the problem of having to describe how the universe began. The theory's appeal is largely philosophical-there have never been particular observations that implied it was better or more valid than the big-bang theory.” – "Steady-State Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY – When the big bang theory was developed in the mid-20th century, some cosmologists found the idea of a sudden beginning of the universe philosophically unacceptable. They proposed the steady-state theory, which said that the universe has always looked more-or-less the same as it does now and that it does not change over time. The steady-state theory could not explain the background radiation, though, and essentially all cosmologists have abandoned it.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

This philosophical appeal of a universe with no beginning, and therefore no “creation event,” was so strong that the steady-state theory continued for a long time despite mounting evidence of the expansion of the universe, which was understood to be proof of the Big Bang theory. At first, the desire to avoid a beginning and a “creation event” was so strong that in order to reconcile the preferable “eternal universe” with the observation of expansion, some cosmologists preferred the steady-state concept that matter was “continually created out of nothing.”

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, B Steady-State Theory – In the 1940s British scientists Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle were philosophically opposed to the requirements that the big bang theory put forth for the extreme conditions in the early universe. The big bang theory was framed in terms of what they called the cosmological principle-that the universe is homogeneous (the same in all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions) on a large scale. Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle suggested an additional postulate, which they called the perfect cosmological principle. This principle stated that the universe is not only homogeneous and isotropic but also looks the same at all times. Since the universe is expanding, though, one might think that the density of the universe would decrease. Such a decrease would be a change that would not fit with the perfect cosmological principle. Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle thus suggested that matter could be continuously created out of nothing to maintain the density over time. The rate at which matter would have to be created was much too low to be observationally testable, however. They called this theory the steady-state theory.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

However, as the quote below plainly states, the very reason for the final demise of the steady-state theory was either a “conscious or unconscious preference” to avoid numerous “creation events,” which would have been necessary in order for the steady-state theory to survive growing proof for expansion. It would seem that if one creation event posed theological implications, that the non-stop creation of more matter out of nothing multiplied that distasteful concept literally to an infinite degree.

“Cosmos, Cosmological models, Steady state theory and other alternative cosmologies – By that year, of course, the universe was known to be expanding; therefore, the only way to explain a constant (steady state) matter density was to postulate the continuous creation of matter to offset the attenuation caused by the cosmic expansion. This aspect was physically very unappealing to many people, who consciously or unconsciously preferred to have all creation completed in virtually one instant in the big bang.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

And, as indicated in the quote below, even Einstein’s model of the universe was fundamentally based upon assumptions that were not necessitated by his mathematics. Furthermore, the quote goes on to assert that the first two of Einstein’s assumptions of were based upon an “attractive” and “appealing” “philosophical notion.” In fact, these assumptions were so philosophically appealing that other scientists took them even further in the effort to assert the steady-state theory.

“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein’s model – To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations. The first was to suppose that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in the large (i.e., the same everywhere on average at any instant in time), an assumption that the English astrophysicist Edward A. Milne later elevated to an entire philosophical outlook by naming it the cosmological principle. Given the success of the Copernican revolution, this outlook is a natural one…The second assumption was to suppose that this homogeneous and isotropic universe had a closed spatial geometry. As described in the previous section, the total volume of a three-dimensional space with uniform positive curvature would be finite but possess no edges or boundaries (to be consistent with the first assumption). The third assumption made by Einstein was that the universe as a whole is static—i.e., its large-scale properties do not vary with time. This assumption, made before Hubble's observational discovery of the expansion of the universe, was also natural; it was the simplest approach, as Aristotle had discovered, if one wishes to avoid a discussion of a creation event. Indeed, the philosophical attraction of the notion that the universe on average is not only homogeneous and isotropic in space but also constant in time was so appealing that a school of English cosmologists—Hermann Bondi, Fred Hoyle, and Thomas Gold—would call it the perfect cosmological principle and carry its implications in the 1950s to the ultimate refinement in the so-called steady state model.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Moreover, as indicated by the quote above, Einstein’s original model was also based upon the assumption “that the universe as a whole is static” which means that “its large-scale properties do not vary with time.” Einstein’s original model could suppose this third assumption because Hubble had not yet discovered the expansion of space. But most importantly, as we can see from the quote, even in Einstein’s model, this assumption is present as part of a longstanding desire to avoid “a creation event.”

Consequently, not only do the quotes presented above sufficiently demonstrate that philosophical preference plays a role at the foundation level of theories, but perhaps more importantly, the quotes above also demonstrated the extent to which much of the philosophical preference is a desire to avoid a “creation event” and its theological implications.

Before we leave this topic and move on to explore the actual modern model of the universe and how it works, there are a few more items to briefly comment on. All of these items relate to the issue of philosophical preference and they also return to the scientific criterion of falsifiability.

First, having seen that philosophical preference plays a formative role on the foundation level of cosmology theories, it is important to note that its role is a solitary one. Or, in other words, concerning the foundational points of evolutionary cosmology, observation does not play a joint role with philosophical preference because its principle components simply cannot be observed.

As we have already seen, the Big Bang explosion itself cannot be modeled.

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY – Cosmologists believe that they can model the universe back to 1 x [10 to the -43rd power] seconds after the big bang; before that point, they would need a theory that merges the theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity to explain the behavior of the universe. Scientists do not actually study the big bang itself, but infer its existence from the universe's expansion.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

And, like the origin of life, no human was around to observe the Big Bang explosion. Furthermore, the other foundational concept of Big Bang evolutionary cosmology concerns the formation of the major structures of the universe such as superclusters, clusters, galaxies, and even stars, which also has not and cannot be observed. Like the origin of species, these processes take too long to actually observe or identifiably observe and any processes that might relate to or even hypothetically simulate these core concepts occur at locations in the universe that are inaccessible to our observation.

“Astronomy, Computer modeling – This kind of model can help astronomers because many important processes occur much too slowly for astronomers to observe. Other important processes that can be simulated occur in inaccessible places, such as the interiors of stars.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.

Consequently, with no observations for the core concepts of an initial explosion or the subsequent formation of the structures of the universe, the basis for the Big Bang theory remains solely philosophical preference. This becomes even clearer given the fact that the only 2 points that are observable don’t fit the Big Bang theory any better than they do the creationist model. The only 2 points that can be observed are current expansion and isotropy. As we will see later, isotropy is a term that refers to the fact that every direction that we look into space, we seem to see a roughly even distribution of matter, at least on the largest scale.

Moreover, as we pointed out earlier, the only other truly observable fundamental concept to the Big Bang model is the current expansion of the universe, but expansion at the present time simply does not necessarily imply expansion all the way back in time to a starting explosion. And, as we will see later on, expansion fits perfectly with the creationist model as well. Since the only 2 observable evidences for the Big Bang theory fit with creation theory as well, we can see that philosophical preference was not only the sole determining factor for the basic evolutionary cosmology, but that philosophical preference, not observation, remains the only reason to choose Big Bang theory over creation theory today, specifically the philosophical bias to avoid a “creation event” with its theological implications. It is that preference that has been the driving force from the beginning and remains so today. And it is purely philosophical, not observational.

Here it would at first seem that creationism is on the same footing as evolutionary cosmology. However, that is not really the case. As we have pointed out, the Big Bang is based upon assumptions that go beyond what is observed and observable. One primary example of this was the observation of current expansion, which does not necessitate expansion all the way from an initial explosion, especially since Big Bang theory has to assert a drastic change in expansion from what we observe today. And throughout this segment, the larger point that we’ve been building toward is that Big Bang cosmology, which uses expansion as its observational base, actually ignores known observations about expansion. Once factored in, the previously ignored observations about expansion inherently indicate teleology and foresight. We will see exactly why this is the case later on when we cover the ignored observations. However, the result is that because observations about expansion inherently indicate teleology, unlike evolutionary cosmology, creationism is not relying solely on assumptions for which there is no observation. Instead, the core concepts of creationist cosmology rely on the observation of expansion, the observation of isotropy, and one other known observation that the Big Bang evolutionary theory has to ignore.

Given what we have seen so far, that the Big Bang cosmology is formulated and accepted on the grounds of philosophical preference not observation and that the competing theories are rejected on the grounds of those same philosophical preferences, it is important to note what this means for the Big Bang in terms of the scientific criterion of falsifiability. When a theory is accepted or rejected on the grounds of how well it fits the observable evidence, that theory can be falsified. Philosophical preferences, however, cannot be falsified, even as indicated by the quotes below.

“Positivism, Logical Positivism and Logical Empiricism, The earlier Positivism of Viennese heritage, The verifiability criterion of meaning and its offshoots – It was in coming to this juncture in his critique of Positivism that Karl Popper, an Austro-English philosopher of science, in his Logik der Forschung (1935; The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959), insisted that the meaning criterion should be abandoned and replaced by a criterion of demarcation between empirical (scientific) and transempirical (nonscientific, metaphysical) questions and answers—a criterion that, according to Popper, is to be testability, or, in his own version, falsifiability; i.e., refutability. Popper was impressed by how easy it is to supposedly verify all sorts of assertions—those of psychoanalytic theories seemed to him to be abhorrent examples. But the decisive feature, as Popper saw it, should be whether it is in principle conceivable that evidence could be cited that would refute (or disconfirm) a given law, hypothesis, or theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Science – A theory developed by a scientist cannot be accepted as part of scientific knowledge until it has been verified by the studies of other researchers. In fact, for any knowledge to be truly scientific, it must be repeatedly tested experimentally and found to be true. This characteristic of science sets it apart from other branches of knowledge. For example, the humanities, which include religion, philosophy, and the arts, deal with ideas about human nature and the meaning of life. Such ideas cannot be scientifically proved. There is no test that tells whether a philosophical system is "right." No one can determine scientifically what feeling an artist tried to express in a painting. Nor can anyone perform an experiment to check for an error in a poem or a symphony.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Joseph W. Dauben, Ph.D., Professor of History and the History of Science, City University of New York.

When a theory is formulated out of correspondence with actual observable evidence, then that theory is likely to be falsifiable by its nature. But when a theory is formulated merely from philosophical preferences without any observations necessitating it, then that theory is likely to be un-falsifiable by its nature. Similarly, when a theory is accepted merely out of philosophical preference while competing theories are rejected merely out of philosophical preference and not because of the evidence, then that theory is most certainly un-falsifiable. And this is the picture that has emerged concerning the Big Bang model particularly in contrast to the Steady-State model and the creationist model.

The Big Bang model has no actual working theory for the initial explosion, the fractions of seconds that immediately follow the explosion, or the formation of the structures of the universe since that time – all of which are the areas where the theory makes its defining claims. The evidence in these areas has so far proved to be irreconcilable with evolutionary Big Bang cosmology, yet as we have seen the Big Bang model has continued to be accepted due to philosophical preferences, despite its “unsatisfactory status.” Meanwhile, those who have accepted the Big Bang model have rejected the competing Steady-State theory for philosophical preferences. And although it is admitted by secular and evolutionary sources that the observations, which pose problems for the evolutionary Big Bang model, require foresight and fine-tuning balance in order to be solved, and although current expansion and isotropy, the only 2 actual observations incorporated into the Big Bang model, are equally fitting to the creationist model, the creationist model is similarly rejected out of a philosophical preference to avoid its theological implications.

Consequently, the Big Bang theory has proven to be un-falsifiable because the basis of its acceptance is not observation and evidence but philosophical preference, which cannot be tested or falsified. And as we have seen from the numerous quotes above, unlike creationists who repeatedly argue for how the observed evidence actually proves creationism, evolutionists admit that they accept the theory despite the fact that its central claims do not fit with the observable evidence and also fail to provide a functional explanation. This meets the criterion for un-falsifiability that we described early on in the segment entitled, “Premature Dismissal in the Origins Debate: Is Faith Unscientific? (Part 2)” In that segment, we stated that a theory becomes un-falsifiable when its claims become detached from the evidence. This happens in one of 2 ways. First, when a theory’s primary claims are defined in such a way that they have no relationship to the observable evidence. Or second, when the theory itself is accepted despite the fact that its primary claims have been disproved by the evidence. When we consider whether or not creationism is a theory that is detached from the evidence in either of these ways, we find out that it clearly is not. As evidenced by the quotes above, evolutionists admit that they accept the Big Bang theory despite the fact that the observable evidence disproves its current formulations.

However, the next quotes will demonstrate that the Big Bang theory is also un-falsifiable with regard to the first scenario as well. Particularly, some of its claims are defined in such a way as to avoid making any assertions specific enough to be tested and potentially disproved by the observable evidence. The long quote that follows begins by affirming that the evolutionary Big Bang theory, augmented by inflation theory, is accepted as “the theory of choice among nearly all astronomers” despite its “unresolved internal difficulties,” lack of an actual working theory for the formation of the universe’s structures, “shortcomings,” the “need for major modifications,” and the resulting “incompleteness.” The quote then goes on assert that the problem with the Steady-State model, the alternative to the Big Bang model, was that it “had the virtue of making very specific predictions, and for this reason it was vulnerable to observational disproof.”

“Cosmos, Cosmological models, The very early universe, Inflation – As influential as inflation has been in guiding modern cosmological thought, it has not resolved all internal difficulties…Steady state theory and other alternative cosmologies – Big bang cosmology, augmented by the ideas of inflation, remains the theory of choice among nearly all astronomers, but, apart from the difficulties discussed above, no consensus has been reached concerning the origin in the cosmic gas of fluctuations thought to produce the observed galaxies, clusters, and superclusters. Most astronomers would interpret these shortcomings as indications of the incompleteness of the development of the theory, but it is conceivable that major modifications are needed…However, the apparent difficulty motivated Bondi, Hoyle, and Gold to offer the alternative theory of steady state cosmology in 1948. By that year, of course, the universe was known to be expanding; therefore, the only way to explain a constant (steady state) matter density was to postulate the continuous creation of matter to offset the attenuation caused by the cosmic expansion. This aspect was physically very unappealing to many people, who consciously or unconsciously preferred to have all creation completed in virtually one instant in the big bang. In the steady state theory the average age of matter in the universe is one-third the Hubble time, but any given galaxy could be older or younger than this mean value. Thus, the steady state theory had the virtue of making very specific predictions, and for this reason it was vulnerable to observational disproof.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

It is hard to overlook the fact that Britannica Encyclopedia’s comment that “making predictions,” which are “specific” enough to be “vulnerable to disproof” by observations, is intended as a contrast to Big Bang cosmology, which has survived when Steady-State has not. The obvious point from Britannica is that Big Bang cosmology has survived while Steady-State cosmology has not, because Big Bang cosmology does not suffer from this same “virtue” of “making very specific predictions” which make it “vulnerable to observational disproof.” On this note, it would appear that the Big Bang theory has moved from falsified to un-falsifiability. In other words, in light of the admissions by evolutionists that Big Bang theory does not work with the observed evidence, apparently Big Bang theory has shifted its claims to be less specific so that the theory will no longer be vulnerable to disproof by testing it against observations.

As a side note, we should also point out the further implication from Britannica that adherents to Big Bang cosmology criticize Steady-State theory as both un-falsifiable and yet falsified with regard to the very same point. The quote above from Britannica asserts that Steady-State theory was “vulnerable to disproof” regarding its “very specific prediction” in which it “postulated the continuous creation of matter.” However, the next 2 quotes from Microsoft Encarta both directly assert the exact opposite, that Steady-State theory’s claim about the continuous creation of matter was “much too low to be observationally tested” or “verified.”

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, B Steady-State Theory – In the 1940s British scientists Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle were philosophically opposed to the requirements that the big bang theory put forth for the extreme conditions in the early universe. The big bang theory was framed in terms of what they called the cosmological principle-that the universe is homogeneous (the same in all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions) on a large scale. Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle suggested an additional postulate, which they called the perfect cosmological principle. This principle stated that the universe is not only homogeneous and isotropic but also looks the same at all times. Since the universe is expanding, though, one might think that the density of the universe would decrease. Such a decrease would be a change that would not fit with the perfect cosmological principle. Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle thus suggested that matter could be continuously created out of nothing to maintain the density over time. The rate at which matter would have to be created was much too low to be observationally testable, however. They called this theory the steady-state theory.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Steady-State Theory, II THE STEADY-STATE THEORY – Therefore, the steady-state theory says that new matter must form as existing matter spreads apart…The amount of mass that would form under the steady-state theory is so small that it would be too small for scientists to measure for verification.” – "Steady-State Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

It is one thing to say that particular points of a theory have been falsified but that the theory as a whole is un-falsifiable. Here there is a distinction between an individual point and the whole theory. And this distinction allows for the 2 different objects (the individual point and the whole theory) to be categorized separately. But, it is another thing to say that a particular point of a theory is itself both falsified and un-falsifiable. Here there is no such distinction, but the same object, the particular point, is deemed as both un-falsifiable and as having been falsified at the same time. And, as we can see, that is what evolutionary theory is doing. It is asserting that Steady-State theory is un-falsifiable in its prediction that matter is continuously created out of nothing and at the same time regarding that very same prediction as being falsified because it was so specific that it was “vulnerable to disproof by observation.” This is very much similar to the common charge by evolutionists that creationism’s main claims are both un-falsifiable while also simultaneously charging that those very same claims have been falsified.

Ultimately, it seems that Big Bang evolutionary theory suffers from the criticisms that it levies against its competition. Big Bang evolutionists admit that their theory does not fit with observations and yet they hold to it anyway, thus revealing that the theory is un-falsifiable because it is held without regard for what the evidence actually indicates. And, in light of the extent to which Big Bang theory is recognized by evolutionists not to work with the observable evidence, it would also appear that the definition of Big Bang theory is shifting to a vaguer series of claims so devoid of specifics that the theory is no longer vulnerable to falsification by the evidence.

Specifically, this shift to vaguer claims, which don’t specify a testable relationship to the evidence, manifests in terms of the lack of any actual working theory on central issues of the universe’s formation, its origin and the development of its major structures. As we have seen evolutionary Big Bang cosmology lacks any specific theory on these points and, in the absence of any specific theorization for these events, Big Bang cosmology has simply reverted to the vague, bare minimum claim that the universe came into existence by unobserved, undefined, unidentified automatic, routine processes that proceed without foresight. This is the exact same status that we have seen concerning the evolutionary claims about the origin of life and the origin of species as well. On both of those issues, we have seen that evolution lacks any specific, working theory but instead reverts merely to the vaguer, un-testable claim that life and species originate from undefined, unidentified automatic, routine processes that proceed without foresight. Because this is the case for evolutionary cosmology, our second definitional point for evolutionary theory is not biased but accurate when it asserts the following conclusion.

2) …Despite the lack of even a working speculation for how automatic, routine processes could cause the existing structures and their distribution, nevertheless an automatic, routine process is advanced as the cause and it is hoped that a working scenario can be conceived and articulated at some point in the future.

Having finished our commentary concerning the philosophical and pre-suppositional nature of evolutionary cosmology, we are ready to move forward to describe the model itself so that we can understand how the ignored information about expansion impacts that model.