The 'Standard Story'
We use the term 'standard story' to identify the concepts and assumptions behind Darwin's theory on evolution. Much of this is what is taught openly in class rooms in public and private schools. The same assumptions have been used repeatedly over a long time. The use of the term 'standard story' is not meant to be a negative characterization. This simply points to a current practice. By contrast, the window's view highlights added information that is generally not included in open discussions on evolution. Like turning over a rock, or looking at the other side of a coin, the scientific data provide a viewpoint beyond Darwinism. This is simply already there for the looking, if one is willing!
Darwinism assumes long periods of geologic time [gradualism] can account for changes that 'should result' in biological life forms if evolution is true. Such changes are also a product of a natural process that ends up selecting the best result (natural selection), but a result no less that by definition comes from 'trial and error.' Therefore it's chance that appears to produce positive results leading to higher more complex life forms. Logically that would take time. We do in fact see evidence for natural selection in a more limited context. But that is not enough to explain evolution in its greater context.
Few in science take make the effort to model evolution in a way that calculates the time required to make the entire scheme of Darwinian evolution workable. Those who have made such calculations find the answers contradict the expectations for a natural, material process of evolution. The standard story is simply told over and over without rigorous review. Why challenge a story that on the surface looks to be a functional solution. But that's the problem, it looks like it works, but that's not what one finds upon further review. Since Darwin's day scientific quality control has been lacking.
What do we see today? The data tell us life appeared quickly — in geologic terms — appeared with complexity, is based on highly specific information (in DNA and cell features) that has no explanation for its relatively rapid and complex origin. Yes, over short time frames science sees an evolution of species from related species (microevolution), but nothing much beyond that (not macroevolution). The standard story often forgets to account for the mechanisms that came before. How did chemicals give rise to life in the first place? What made that possible? Anything? Chemistry and physics pose barriers without explanations to help the story move forward. The assumption is we are here, so evolution must have happened. That's the assumption.
Today the standard story is being challenged by the same scientific evidence that's used by evolutionists. This reveals the standard story is not on solid ground — including data ranging from fossils to recent molecular evidence. To see this, we encourage constructive but critical thinking. Our review of these topics is not an effort to discredit science. In fact, ironically, it's members of the scientific community that are now reviewing the problems with the standard story!
The idea today is to put aside misinformation and to offer additional, viable perspectives. That was what we were taught science is all about. We just never saw it happen like this before now! In fact, much of the evidence for evolution — when examined carefully — reveals something very different from what many academics or the popular media told us previously.
Seeing what is extra ordinary beyond the standard story is the pivotal point in the Science Area at WindowView. We are identifying something special without trying to win any debate ... this is the simplest goal here ... and achieving that goal is enough ... it tells us something awesome about life's existence.
This opens the floor for discussions elsewhere — that too is a key goal. But if the mindset that comes with the standard story is unjustifiably limiting, then let's understand why and explore beyond imposed limitations. The standard story states we are here by chance? If not, then what conclusions remain for you to consider or adopt? This is the reason for looking through the window!
Tweet this page address!