I'm reading an online book called Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary, by Kenneth W. Daniels. He states a position which I have similarly come to. Admitting ignorance goes right along with my determination towards honesty. Here's what Mr. Daniels wrote on the subject of origin.
"Consider the following fictitious scenario, set in 1000 BCE in southern Asia. Tradition has established that the earth rests on elephants. A boy named Rajah, like all his peers, grows up accepting this view, but as he reaches intellectual maturity, he begins reflecting on the difficulties associated with it: What are the elephants standing on? Where did the elephants come from? What do the elephants eat? Rajah begins posing these questions to some of the community sages, but instead of answering his questions, they accuse him of disloyalty to the sacred traditions and ask, 'If the earth is not standing on elephants, what supports it? The earth is firm; it must be supported by something, and if you can't come up with a better solution than elephants, you must accept that elephants indeed support it. Or do you think there is nothing to support the earth? Virtually everyone from every culture accepts that there must be something solid underneath the earth to support it—whether pillars, turtles or elephants. To doubt the existence of these supports is simply ludicrous! You must make a decision one way or another.'
"Rajah agrees that it seems reasonable for the earth to be supported by something firm, but, in the absence of any evidence as to the nature of that support, thinks it best to withhold judgment as to whether that support consists of elephants, pillars, or turtles, or perhaps something else that no one has yet considered. So despite the threats of the sages, he does what he must do: he professes his ongoing ignorance concerning the nature of the earth's foundations. He remains an agnostic, and in his lifetime he is reviled and fails to be vindicated. It is not until centuries later that science empirically determines the true nature of the earth's support: gravity and centrifugal force, which no one in their wildest dreams could have imagined in Rajah's day.
"Given the track record of premodern speculation versus the results of science, it is unwise to commit oneself to ungrounded answers to ultimate questions such as the origin of the universe until or unless empirical evidence can be brought to bear on them or until God reveals himself personally, directly, and unmistakably to us—not to ancient writers whose claims of inspiration cannot be authenticated—but to us. However uncomfortable it is for us to accept that there are things we simply do not know, we are on surer ground to admit our ignorance than to fill the vacuum with our imaginings or with tradition; we must not pretend we know that which we do not know. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, 'He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors'. Thus, the Oracle at Delphi said Socrates was the wisest man in the world. He did not know any more than anyone else, but unlike others he was willing to admit his ignorance.
"But ignorance is an unsatisfying state of mind, so scientists continue to seek answers to the big questions, and they have floated a number of hypotheses that are not presently subject to testing. It is profoundly ironic to hear theists' most common response to the multiple universe ("multiverse") hypothesis: 'There is no proof of such a thing.' They may be correct in observing there is no evidence for it, but the same may be said of the god hypothesis. The difference is that most scientists who subscribe to the multiverse option do so only provisionally—at least not with the same air of finality with which most theists hold to the god hypothesis. And they certainly do not threaten with eternal punishment those who do not subscribe to their untested point of view."
