Okay, have we begun to Recognize What We Don’t Know? Have we begun to see which side(s) of “the box” is(are) softest and why -- where further study and a few new assumptions might be most productive in further pushing back the horizons of understanding ?
    It seems pretty clear that much of what we firmly believe we know about the very early history of the universe and life is more GroupTruth than truth. Scientists have often simply gathered together, developed consensus opinion, and then gone on to proclaim and sustain that as “The Truth’. For almost two centuries (300 BC to 1600 AD) no one thought or dared to challenge Aristotle’s geocentric view of the universe, and Galileo was thrown in jail when he tried to do so. Would you be willing to stand up and pronounce that General Relativity may not be applicable to our universe? You certainly would not be published.
Is it important that we Recognize What We Don’t Know? Well, if we are ever to further push back the horizons of understanding that answer is clearly YES. We will go nowhere unless and until the new (young?) people examine existing “Truths” and start thinking outside of those boxes.
    Herein we have discussed five areas of the early universe and life and tried to identify such weaknesses -- the unsupported assumptions, the soft spots in the boxes. We encourage you to recognize and acknowledge those uncertainties, and begin to evaluate alternatives.

IN THE BEGINNING
    It does seem that the current scientific explanation of the beginning of all things, the Big Bang / expanding universe hypothesis, is a classic example of GroupThink. That theory is based on so many totally unsupported and extremely doubtful assumptions and definitions that it is hard to imagine that science even considers that scenario to lie within science. There seems to be little question that the Big Bang hypothesis does not / cannot survive examination by the scientific method.
    In cosmology, the Big Bang hypothesis represents “the box” -- this is what science today considers we know to be the facts. If science is ever to significantly expand the horizons in cosmology, researchers must bring themselves to recognize the “softness” of the walls of that box, and begin to think beyond -- outside of that box.
    There is at least one different physical scenario which science seems not to have considered. That is the universe that we can derive when we free the speed of light from the “constant for all time” assumption. This approach does not require a massive chain of unsupported assumptions to make it fit available physical observations, and there is no need for such things as super-light-speed expansion, dark mass, or dark energy.

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
    Today it seems that science no longer has the courage to make a “scientific” statement at all about the origin of life from non-life. While nearly all seem to agree that “first life” originated billions of years ago, they also seem to agree that no one was there to make observations and to take data, and no one has ever created life from non-life. As a result, today it seems clear that the question of the origin of life lies outside of science, that science simply can have nothing authoritative to say on that subject, at least unless and until someone demonstrates controlled creation of life from non-life.
    No one really “knows” how life got started -- there simply is no credible “box” to think outside of.

THE AGE OF THE EARTH
    Scientific records seem virtually unimpeachable, and have been repeatedly recreated and re-examined. Radioactive dating and the geological and fossil records all suggest that the earth is somewhat more than four million years old. In the light of the certainty of the scientific records it seems quite reasonable to accept this age as “fact”, as the “truth”. That seems to be the appropriate “box” and analysis indicates that the “walls” are firm -- well established and proven.

EVOLUTION
    The question of the biological evolution of life as we know it today seems a classic illustration of how what seem like vast differences of fact between naturalists and theists are really vast differences in belief systems, in worldviews.
    It seems that if scientists would be willing to admit (gulp) that there is absolutely no evidence that the species evolved from each other then (simple as that) almost all of the evolution arguments would go away.
In this case, then, it seems especially important to define and agree on what we do and do not know (the current “box”):

HUMAN EVOLUTION
    It seems clear that science does not recognize anything unique about human evolution. While science does recognize “Information Technology”, even sufficiently clearly to define and work with the concept, scientists do not seem to recognize it as a real, physical phenomena -- as a real part of physical science. Science does rather clearly define and constantly talk about “understanding” (and the related ‘horizons”). However, these concepts are not understood as sufficiently real, sufficiently scientific, to recognize the direct conflict between this side (intellectual) of human evolution and the (physical) Second Law. Just seems too philosophical for science.
    As a result, this type of evolution has not been studied as such, so science has no real position here -- science knows nothing. Researchers should recognize spiritual (informational) evolution as a very real and physical part of human evolution, and should include it in all further studies.