In the context of the other thread on science in the “natural v supernatural” sense, it’s maybe significant that these three origins questions - in fact, any origins matters - weren’t on the radar of the early modern philosophers like Bacon who laid out the parameters. To them, science begins only after creation is given.
It’s interesting also interesting how these three “origins”, in particular, remain so intractable scientifically, and I wonder if that might suggest they denote “real” origins, contingencies that are intrinsically beyond science, rather than simply that they’re complicated.
The “origin” of an individual organism, though unique, is scientifically tractable because it’s a recombination of what exists already: generation is in fact the outworking of some past origin. It’s describable as “more of the same.”
Scientific attacks on the origins of mind are attempts to reduce it to emergent neurology - though many, including myself, regard mind as truly new. Likewise the attempts to explain biogenesis by chemistry, and the indications both from failed theories and other considerations (such as Yockey’s denial of the evolvability of the DNA code) that life too is unique. Likewise, too, the universe and the attempts to redefine “nothing”, or the eternal mutiverse, which seek to make the big bang only an apparent origin, bit an actual continuum, but which at the very least are speculative and mutually contradictory.
In between these high order origins and the easily explicable are lower level “origins” which still present scientific problems. Genetics and “microevolution” are increasingly complicated, but increasingly understood. Much in macroeveolution - from phylogenesis to the DNA code’s origin - remains murky and controversial. How would one decide whether they are in the category of “not yet known” or that of “unknowable,” apart from expensive research programs either succeeding or failing?
And theologically, is there a correspondence between"unknowable origins" and “creation”?