the facts and the fancy

There are physicists who are accepting the idea of a designer source, in an effort to understand how things came to be about. The viewpoint of a designing force takes in more than one entity at a time, which seems to rule out anything evolutionary. These entities are often binary in nature. They multiply by dividing similar to observations under the microscope. What I find fascinating is the mathematics of binary functions. Why is the numerical mathematics we utilize  so well, not the foundation of the designer? Binary code is the most simple and fundamental of anything that could come about. It does allow any room for evolution from within a single source and is not even intended to be visually useful or easily recognized. Who can recall a binary number in their heads? They all look alike.

So what is the nature of binary numbers and what is their significance in understanding progressions. One entity evolves but two would have to evolve separately. The male was designed with the female in mind. In other words, the designing force had to be behind the evolving of both as not one but two. 

The ghost of Isaac Asimov has entered deliberations. Whenever he wanted to know something about anything, he wrote a book about it. When you know nothing about a subject, this is the perfect time to explain things. Sounds like first glance we could get something from nothing, as has been suggested elsewhere. 

If one does not believe in the concept or the need for a purpose in the progressions, what do we do with the resulting absurdities? Here one can wonder why it is that when we finally figure something out we find all our previous paradigms weren't even close?