The topic of origins is very important to understanding who we are and where we come from. The problem is that because none of us were there, assumptions need to be made about the types of processes going on. These assumptions are largely philosophical in nature, because our philosophical presuppositions are going to influence what types of processes we will accept.
Sadly, many people think that such research is totally objective and that the only reason creation and intelligent design models are excluded is because they're not supported by evidence. The problem is that this presumption of objectivity can easily be demonstrated to be erroneous, based on the reactions to both creation and intelligent design.
There had to be a beginning.
There are two primary ways that we know there had to have been a beginning to the universe as we know it. The most widely accepted, commonly called the Big Bang, is a projection of the observed expansion of space-time projected back to a starting point. The most general however, is the simple fact that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe had to have had a beginning in order to have any useful energy today. By the way, If the universe had been supernaturally created at some point in the past, the Big Bang Cosmology could simply be in over projection of the observed expansion, beyond the actual point of creation.
Now there are attempts to get around this evidence. One common one, known as the steady state cosmology, never really dealt with the second law of thermodynamics Issue. They simply assumed without evidence that newly created energy and matter made up for it, by somehow being generated to make up for the expansion.
The past is ultimately unobservable
A key component of actual science is observability; however, the past by its very nature cannot be observed. Sure, you have observed the part of the past that you have actually lived through, but you can only observe what is actually happening in the present. The only way you can do anything scientific with regard to the past is to start with a model about what happened in the past and then make predictions about what we should see in the present.
What about looking out into deep space, you may ask? After all, light takes time to reach us, so doesn't that mean that when we're looking at distant objects in the universe, we're looking into the past? Not really! First of all, even if this were true, we would still be observing them in the present, as we can see them in the present, we could not observe their past before that. Second, this idea is based on a specific method of synchronizing clocks based on a presupposition of the one-way speed of light. Consequently, it is just as legitimate to say that we are observing distant galaxies in the present as it is to say that we are observing them in the past. It is simply a question of how you synchronize the clocks. Because of Relativity, within the universe itself, there is no absolute now, particularly over great distances.
The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot study the past directly; therefore, the scientific nature of any such research is limited, and the philosophical assumptions that you make can have a tremendous effect on the conclusions you draw and how you interpret data.
Philosophical naturalism.
Also known as absolute naturalism, this is the philosophical presupposition that only natural processes exist. Furthermore, it presupposes that everything in the world can be explained entirely through natural processes. By its very nature it excludes anything supernatural, this means that it excludes God by definition making it inherently atheistic.
Now this does not mean that you have to be an atheist to accept philosophical naturalism. After all human beings are quite capable of believing mutually exclusive concepts. This frequently occurs in two main ways. One is simply to create a workaround for the conflict, and the other is to simply ignore it. The most common way in this case is for people to simply ignore it, and this is often the case because they are unaware of the conflict, often willingly so.
However philosophical naturalism not only excludes God, but it also excludes from any consideration such events as Creation in the Genesis Flood. In fact, philosophical naturalism forces natural explanations on any phenomenon regardless of the evidence.
Philosophical creationism.
One of the single biggest misunderstandings about creationism is the notion that it is an alternative to evolution, or even universal common descent. However, creationism is not on the level of theory, but rather the philosophical level on which theories are based. In other words, creationism is an alternative to naturalism, not an alternative to any form of evolution. This is an important fact that is often missed by both sides.
Consequently, it is true that creationism being a philosophical concept is not in and of itself scientific, but then again neither is naturalism. That is the key to understanding the difference between these two philosophical positions. What they both have in common is that each of them is a starting point for creating scientifically testable theories.
When dealing with things such as the normal functioning of the universe, you are going to be looking primarily for natural phenomenon. However, while pretty much by definition the regular functioning of the universe is going to be natural phenomenon, it is possible that at extremely small levels such as found in quantum mechanics, that even this might prove problematic. This is because, it turns out that on quantum scales, particles often have properties that do not have definite values until those values are actually measured. This is problematic for looking at reality from a purely naturalistic perspective.
The influence of philosophical assumptions when studying the past.
When studying the way, the universe regularly works, assuming natural explanations is quite reasonable. However, even under these circumstances it is hypothetically possible to run into a situation where this is not the case. However, at least in such a situation the phenomenon is being directly observed.
For example, if a giant marshmallow creature was walking down the streets of New York City, because the phenomenon could be directly observed it would be a little hard to deny that it was actually happening. Now philosophical presuppositions may still influence how you interpret what is being observed. That is whether you allow for the possibility of it being supernatural or not, but at least the fact of the event could not be simply denied because it could not be explained by natural causes.
However, when studying the past nothing that has happened in the past can be directly studied in the present. The most you can have are eyewitnesses, and data that suggests what happened. For example, you could read eyewitness accounts of the marshmallow man walking down the streets of New York City, and if any samples were available, you could study them directly. However, how you would interpret the eyewitness accounts, and the physical evidence would be highly affected by your philosophical presuppositions.
If for example, the samples reveal nothing physically unusual, and you held to philosophical naturalism, you would inevitably conclude that the eyewitness accounts we're not legitimate and that maybe they were all the result of massive drunkenness. However, if you had a philosophical position such as creationism that allowed for the possibility of a supernatural explanation, you would be more likely to consider possibilities where at least the eyewitness accounts or accurate, from a Biblical perspective you could even conclude that a bunch of marshmallows got demon possessed. Don't get me wrong, this would not be the immediate conclusion, but it would at least be a possibility that could be researched further.
The point is that the further you go back in time the bigger this problem becomes. If you look at the past from a creationist perspective there are quite a few events described in the Bible that can easily explain a lot of what is actually observed, such as the Genesis Flood. If, however, someone is looking at the same data through the perspective of absolute naturalism, they have to dismiss the Genesis Flood has a possible explanation, simply because that would be a supernatural act of God and philosophically forbidden by naturalism.
In other words, because you cannot directly observe the past, by definition, any conclusions you draw about what could have happened can easily be limited by your philosophical presuppositions. If those presuppositions exclude supernatural phenomenon, and such phenomenon did occur such as Biblical Creation in the Flood, then you will inevitably draw the wrong conclusions. By the way, in all fairness the same problem can go the opposite way, but a creationist would be less likely to make such a mistake because natural explanations are considered possible explanations. However philosophical naturalism forces naturalistic explanations regardless of the evidence, consequently it is limiting.
Can this problem be solved?
In theory the answer to this question is yes, however, it would be extremely difficult. On a personal level it will depend upon how limiting your philosophical presuppositions are. The less limiting they are, the less likely this is to be a problem. Consequently because of its limiting nature, as long as absolute naturalism Is the rule within the scientific establishment, then there is no way this problem can be solved. This is because the best solution would be cooperation where possible explanations are considered regardless of philosophical presuppositions.
Conclusion.
Ultimately when studying origins the conclusions you are going to come to are going to be highly influenced by your philosophical presuppositions. If you're looking at the past through the atheistic philosophy of absolute naturalism, then all of your conclusions will be totally naturalistic regardless of the evidence. If you look at the same evidence from the philosophical position of creationism you can see both natural and supernatural explanations as suggested by the evidence.
In either case, regardless of what the actual evidence is your conclusions are going to be consistent with your philosophical presuppositions. The simple fact of the matter is we cannot observe the actual origin of life, nor can we observe the origin of the Earth or the universe. The best we can do is draw conclusions and develop hypothesis based on our philosophical starting assumptions and the evidence that we have. This means that yes indeed the study of origins is highly philosophical in nature and denying it shows ignorance on the part of the person making the claim.
