NEWS 21

In particular of interest here is Stephen Jay Gould. This also is taken from Wake Up World! and in fact continues on from the quotation from Gould, given in *1 above.

With a typical incandescence, Gould with a sense of outrage similar to that of Nilsson, when turning to the facts, in a 1977 paper titled The Return of Hopeful Monsters, wrote: "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change....All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

Dr. Soren Løvtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote,

In his book, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Soren Løvtrup points out that "some critics turned against Darwin's teachings for religious reasons, but they were a minority; most of his opponents ... argued on a completely scientific basis." He goes on to explain:

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many,
but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence
through accumulation of many small steps,
and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it,
because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."
(Lovtrup, 1987, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275).

From SMR pp. 108ff., we find this (somewhat expanded):

Meanwhile, so great is the travesty that even a non- creationist like Nilsson declares war on evolutionary gradualism, through the force of its sheer unfactuality.
What then does Nilsson say, facing the scientific facts ? His terms are reminiscent (*18) of those used by Pierre-Paul Grassé, former President of the French Academy of Science on evolution by mutation, and of Malcolm Muggeridge's contribution. To the former, there was a question of nugatory 'day dreams'; to the latter, evolution provided what would be looked back on as a massive twentieth century joke. Nilsson for his part deemed the essential chapter of this bedevilled theory reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland (*19)!
In fact, he found the drab dereliction of disillusion no less, in the evidence! Over long years, he found the facts displayed a robust if not rambunctious seeming refusal to conform to the requirements of this imperious theory! Indeed, he declared,
"My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint." (Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung,1953, p. 1185).
Alas, wayward facts! For them, the theory had no place. Not spawned by facts, it was spurned by them, just as now it spurns them. So much for scientific method: a precious method, it is suborned by deceit, conquered by confusion, but above all, allowed to slide silently away. Now Alice in Wonderland is fun for children of course; but what could Nilsson do ? After all, as he said, it was precisely where the branches of change, the ramifications of 'developments' should appear in the record of life, that they were not to be found (op.cit., p. 1188). This was verification in reverse, justly deadly.
Hence OPERATION INSTANT ORCHID, Nilsson's expedient, was at least a bold if only verbal substitute for creation (op.cit., p. 1210):

Do you really mean to say that an orchid or an elephant should have been instantaneously created out of non- living material ? Yes I do.

Thus spake Nilsson. His desperation, though delicious, in unwitting humour, is a testimony to the bowing of unbelieving mind to relentless evidence. For this reason, in the ranks of distressed, embarrassed or beleaguered academic evolutionists, Nilsson - with his passionate denunciation of what he had found scientifically unworthy - is among my favourites.

Lovtrup is defending macro-mutations, and he rejects micro-mutations as the sole mechanism of evolution (pp. 261, 274). On p. 369, this is found:

"It thus appears that all the objections against the macromutation theory may easily be met, and this is in itself perhaps the most compelling evidence in its favour."

Then this professor continues (op. cit. p. 275):

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."

When he insisted on facing evidence as he found it, then of course the ludicrous nature of the Darwinian hypothesis became the more impelling.

The reality of what he proposed, the super-vast macro-mutations, is at once apparent to logical enquiry as devastated by its use of chance to erect law, and this as DNA research progresses, is present to an increasingly devastating degree. Thus is revealed by empirical science an embarrassing distress signal: DNA with its miniaturised marvel of code is merely physical science catching up to the equally real rigour of logic. Coaches and pumpkins are for Cinderella, instantaneous orchids perchance for Nilsson; but miracles are for God, and the mind of man has been created able to examine evidence.
For Christian creationists, the evidence is a very pleasant thing (cf. Proverbs 3:17). The word of God declared the truth long ago. Here, revisionism is neither appropriate nor necessary (cf. Jeremiah 6:16, I Peter 1:25). It abides for ever - mutation of the word of God could only spoil it! It abides now, like the creation; but in its case, it is under no curse whatever! For that matter, the actual mutations in man, as Professor Sanford of Cornell is showing, are not merely in direction, detrimental in type, but potentially devastating in degree of degeneration, and as such increasingly pressing on mankind.
You can get something FOR nothing, in the sense of a gift from someone WITH that gift, but something from nothing, in part, measure, degree, gradually, sensationally, when the nothing is all there is for the contribution, is farce and tragic misconception, a grisly misapprehension in line with walking on someone else's property, on a floral carpet, and remarking that you have no idea what sort of forces could have created this. Actually, neither would force be enough, nor even seed (the equivalent of the begged question syndrome afflicting evolutionism), nor even fertiliser, nor rain or other water source, nor the timing of the use of the same, nor the sunshine, or other source of heat and light and so on: what is enough is all that it takes, here a composite of many elements, items and intelligently construable actions from well and suitably equipped agents and agencies.
Re-arrangements within any system not equipped with the cosmoi of operation, whether conceptual, or ideational, or purposive, or comprehending, or comprehensive, or mathematical, or architectural, or engineering, or linguistic as in code production, or creative so that the results can exist coherently in such a realm and so on: are irrelevant. The moron CANNOT discern, for that is not in his nature; the brain dead CANNOT compose, for that is no more in his nature. What never had it is no better off. Presumption on the basis of an effectual call to NOTHING to produce at the start (or to beg the question and just PUT it there, but this is too late, in fact); and then to provide at each step, what is lacking in creative and composing kind, and what yet must come from somewhere; and hence for nothing to provide that somewhere too, and the mode of its coming ... It goes on as a comedy of errors. But this life is no comedy, but filled with sober facts, vital life and abundant in clear thought, capable of verification, validation and operational felicity.
You have it all from the first, in macro-thought, for there is nowhere, otherwise for it to come from. It is called God.
What then ?
Whilst some non-creationist scientists hold a vague pseudo-religious hope for what they would like... one day... to find: precise, Bible-defined religion has predicted a result of just such a character, empirically, as the one we have; just as it predicted the coming of Christ from the Godhead to become man, and predicts His return in judgment upon this creation. Creation is not being created; it is here already; the word of God is not being revised, it is right already (cf. 1 Peter 1:25, Jeremiah 23:28-29). As it claims, so is it evidenced.
It is time to face reality and cease from that which bears nothing but just reproach. Small wonder the world gave unjust reproach to Jesus the Christ, when it so reproaches the truth daily! Let us remind ourselves of the cleavage between what is logically necessary and evidentially attested, and what is rationally insolvent, and evidentially fanciful to the point of oblivion. What chaff is this casuistry so common, and how long has it been exposed! (cf. Jeremiah 2:27-28, Deuteronomy 32:17.)

Something for nothing

Let us look at: The Call of Magic.

Indeed, to look at the hypothesis of organic evolution narrowly: to act as if a system possessing a given level of intellectual base, coded contrivance, law - itself no friend of chance - at one level of ideational conspectus, should 'give rise' to another of a diverse, or divergent and more developed order: this is worthy of the djinn of modern magic^*1. Such action makes of pseudo-science such as organic evolution, an amusing magician forsaking in this, the laboratory (where nothing to the point of organic evolution is EVER found) where he more properly would belong, for the vagrancies of undisciplined imagination. If thereby logic suffers, how much more the mind of man.
This brings us to our second consideration in the tortuous twistings against the evident reality of truth. It is this...
Designs upon design

One of the additional less than amiable meanders in the mind of man, then, is to be found here. One can detect at times, as perhaps in the School case noted, a fear or reaction relative to the word 'design' in this context. It is in fact quite futile to quibble about the word 'design'. By definition, it would refer to a close and apt correlation of operational components, with coherent overall functionality. It is this which precisely is the testimony of a seemingly almost inexhaustible supply of biological units, by the massed billions: cells.

These we find with their infinitesimal construction, codes and economy, including the microscopic fuel and energy production sites... in general, in species... provided with systems not only apt for inter-cytological programs and inter-organic correlation, but aiding the coherent expression of that dazzling trilogy: mind, matter and spirit, found in man.
To deny the use of the term 'design' to the fact of design, complex, coded and replicative; this is to illustrate rather well the sharp dichotomy between organic evolution and evidence. We must not mention design; we must not refer to it even when we find, and investigate in awesome detail, the self-duplicating machine tools relating to it: even indeed when its immensely integrated multiplicity of components, with sectional and overall control and expression features, is found to incorporate programs for the making of new mini-creator bodies... called babies (cf. Deity and Design ... Chs. 2 and 5, where this is dealt with in considerable detail).
No, it is as forbidden as might be the mentioning of the name of an architect who designed the house of a competitor!
To refer to the forms of another time, with another image: we, in our generation, have found not only the "watch on the beach", the find that betokens mind; but the machine tools and the factory assemblage plant and indeed the ordering system for factory erection, to produce more of them (cf. Waiting for Wonder Appendix). All this, we have found; but still, this is not thought, not creation, not design! The brilliant academic buffoonery of our time has the smell of death, a disordered, mental miasma of Belsen about it.
Objectively, this has come to be a matter of balking at fact. There has indeed been a tendency for fashion to replace thought, it appears. Meanwhile the personification of Nature, as C.S. Lewis implies in his Mere Christianity, with sensitive sardonism (*20), is a wholly implausible ruse. Nor is it always man who is the source of such shameless 'creation' by the flick of a figure of speech: he is however the butt.
In various places, we may read that 'Nature' has 'striven' to do this or that; has foreseen this or that need; has provided against this or that contingency; has created this or that and in general is the most marvellous mind, brilliant fellow and greatest chap you could ever meet... except for the fact, you know, that it has no mind, is no person. For a figure of speech, however, it does them rather well at engineering... So cheap, these words, so very cheap. But how it serves the philosophers in constructing with idle words, what takes applied power. You would almost think that they were entertaining thoughts of being God, so freely do they create by their... words.
Man is indeed free to leave God out, whilst smuggling in His power through semantic deviations, self-deception or theoretical 'grave fairy tales for older children', such as evolution: where fantasy rules and neither logic nor observed data determine things. Man does however for ever seem to be worrying about the consequences of this selective mental oblivion.

Before we proceed, let us look at the citation above from Waiting for Wonder, Appendix:

As was earlier pointed out (op. cit. Volume 21(3), 2007, on pp. 111ff.), in a fascinating article by well-known biologist, Alex Williams:

"DNA information is overlapping-multi-layered and multi-dimensional; it reads both backwards and forward; and the 'junk' is far more functional than the protein code, so there is no fossilized history of evolution. No human engineer has ever even imagined, let alone designed an information storage device anything like it."

He proceeds to note that "the vast majority: is "meta-information - information about how to use information." Let us reflect on all of this. Now in the midst of wildly misnamed 'junk', we find the jewels of the crown, interpretative and collative, directive and explicatory background to the busy engineering of the protein-coding DNA. How often has it been necessary to point out on this site that magic is inoperative. You do not have things 'arise', for they require cause, and that in detail, and if you are going to have specific marvels of construction, you need specific marvels either of the power to construct, or of what such power has made in order that it may do it. With that, you need all that construction of a given finesse involves in imagination, conceptualisation and creativity, functions of person.

You do NOT, repeat NOT, have things wafting their way in on the wings of philosophy, rudely awakening specialists who are either unwitting or unwary or both, to the realms of delusion. You want it, it must be paid for, in cause cost. This world is not a dreamland.

Thus, to have this ultra-sophisticated, mathematical maestro level advent, you need the simultaneous advent of what is coded for command and what is coded to receive command; what is the instituted language for the production and reproduction of the same, and the performance of it. With this also, you need of course, what is available to BE commanded, commendably synchronised in its presence with the orders; for to order is of no use, whether chemically or in the Army, unless you have someone/something to order. A General without those to command is of little worth, and they must be integrated in one system where the fact of command and the mode of expression is understood, both to give and to get, while the means to institute, whatever these may be, persons, products or both, have to be synchronised with the issue of orders to the point that there is no mere wafting of sound, but intelligible symbols uttered in a plan of speech which allows semantic interpretation, programmed or personal, to act in the desired time-frame.

Thus there is for example, in the human kind case, need of making a threefold simultaneity of two coding specialisations not only with the same language, but with the same specification-symbol entry equivalents, to give and to receive; and with the correlative commands, the capacity to bring the stuff up for action upon it. For that, of course, it must be both there and in commandable condition, with all due technical specifications for the state in which it chemically exists, and is physiologically reachable.

Williams is especially interested in meta-information, which is information about information, such as any student, whether over long years or shorter ones, needs to understand in order to be semantically functional. You have to know language in order to convey it, how it works, where it goes and does not, and to be really effective, why! ^*T1

Thus, from Williams, we have further data (p. 115, op. cit.).

Not only is this meta-information case what is found, he declares, but in the regions yet to be more fully investigated, there appears to be a situation where all or almost all of this type of DNA is engaged in the work of gene regulation. This is an arena of current thrust in investigation. Rearrangements and circuits, orders, need some device to protect and to inject, and this meta-information seems full of it. Brilliant devices to use massive information structures to gain specialised variations on them, come with that fluency of mobility in the fixity of underlying structure which allows generic specifications to be adroitly adapted, like Mark I and Mark II automobiles, for example, as people await with expectation what variation on their desired make will be forthcoming. The mobile genetic units called transposons are one such device, which in one aspect, almost seem to resemble working mechanics, hands-on.

Williams moves (op.cit. p. 116), to note the work of Dr John Sanford of Cornell University, citing the latter's Entropy & Mystery of the Genome. Here, the mutative exercise considered in the genome, which as with most designs exposed to the elements, involves deterioration, not progress. This is what could be called the Gould phenomenon: things in terms of design KINDS or types, are going down, not up (cf. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Ch. 6). This is in part the Werner Gitt phenomenon: information does NOT arise without intelligence. There are laws, and these need to be known and applied^*T1(Journal of Creation 2009, 23(2), pp. 96-109).

In other words, these are areas of a kind relative to humankind, the way they go at the physical and physiological level, in overview.

What then of this finding of Sanford of Cornell ? That is the correlative both of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and of the basics of information science. His contribution is reported as showing that "deleterious mutations are accumulating at an alarming rate in the human population and that both natural selection and even the worst possible nightmare scenario of eugenics is powerless to stop it." This results from the enormous synthesis of variables, in holistic accords, weak points arising after several thousands of years, in hidden and varied ways. What there is to select from is being impaired, and the old chestnut, that to remove the worst creates the best is seen in its practical drabness. The best is going down.

Here is to be seen not only the meta-information fact in DNA, so that for the realms of orderly invocation of linguistic control, there is even something resembling a virtual dictionary of terms, information for the better manipulation of information, but an empirical restoration of more cause-and-effect order and discipline forcibly into arrant thought. Thus the DNA is DECLINING, not inclining and upward bound. Why up ? Why should anything want to go up ? if it is doing very well, why improve ? This is the point Gould has made so forcibly in terms of what is found and what continues, arrives and so on, on his readings of the evidence in the Cambrian, especially its designs compared with those found now: a large reduction in KINDS.

To be sure, neither Lovtrup,

nor Gould,

nor for that matter Nilsson

(who exploded as we see above, while the citations from Gould suggest rather that he imploded)

in the course of his presentation of a large tome in his concern to meet the need to be factual, and hence to cease the ludicrous allusion to gradualism)

produced anything logically feasible INSTEAD, for the Darwinian theory of evolution, logically and empirically incapable as it was (cf. Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Ch. 4 - death of the idea; News 94 ).

Rather, it was exposed in its comic incapacity to meet facts or thought alike, Gould becoming an expert in stoppage of advance, and a declarer of sudden onsets, but without cause, reason or ground, while Nilson specialised in rejection of the incumbency of folly and fairy tale, and insisted that FACTS FIRST at any rate, must end Darwin's rule. Lovtrup, for his part, insisted on macro-dynamics, sudden arrivals to meet empirical fact, things of vast uplift, hoping perhaps in the minuteness of the embryological to find help. It does not come. Causation is not controlled by size, and while it is not prima facie a bad idea to look at genesis (of babes) in its interstices, when you are wanting genesis (of the race), still the coding is not now shown to be open to seduction, production of advance, with new information.

Always there is the telling and resounding insistence of science properly so-called, that is, something that stands to be shown or disavowed, by reason in conjunction with testable empirical data: it does not happen. To this, when the nature of the case is further examined, we find as some of the above attest inferentially, it CANNOT happen. Something unknown (try something breaking off from an intelligent segment of something in space, with the often compelling Hoyle, but forget that this merely sets the necessities one step back, without resolution, and adds what has no evidence, the common denominator to all evolutionary roving), something else unknown with Gould or Nilsson, something unseen but visible if found, with Goldschmidt, in his hopeful monster: these are psychological phenomena of hope. That is all evolutionary theory ever has been. It DOES NOT HAVE THE ADVANTAGE of being a visible happening.

We have to look then for exemplars of evolution, of creation. In man, in his vast ranges of creativity, you have a resultant of an adequate cause of creation, something that does that type of thing, though at its own level. Nowhere do you find anything that ever does the evolutionary type of thing, and this for the very simple reason that for rational adventures in code, you need concept, in any resource you wish to name, you need what is apt and adequate for that, that each cosmos requires its containing cause, and not irrelevancies of romantic mathematics, as if a sub-moron could in time write Shakespeare.

Apart from the statistical monstrosity and computer attestation! (cf. Earth Spasm, Conscience Chasm and Renewal of Life Ch. 1, Sparkling Life in Jesus Christ Ch. 8, Overflight in Christ Ch. 4, SMR pp. 132ff., 15ff.) , there is the causative absurdity. Conceptual apparatus is needed for coherent, maintained, pervasive conceptual results. Waiting for absurd times, not even shown possible, for some conjunction of items to have a similarity to what might otherwise have been constructed is not to the point at all. You need a whole summary of them, a system of them, a code for them, a continuity provision for the code, a dynamic as cause comparable with the systematic dynamic in what is being investigated, whether man or atom. If not, you do not have a rational ground to offer, and your work has nothing to do with science.

The Bible however does have a rational ground, involved in an eminently testable book, and even explains how it is that man can create, including mischief of course, and decide to lie, have aspirations, turn cynical, or sceptical, or abandoned, or move to any other little spiritual item which has appeal to a competent body for movement in such fields, his spirit. It predicts that creation will not continue in this current world; it does not. It states why it happened, in the confines of what moved on into a history of genealogies, the first being that of the heaven and the earth, which God made when He created. It declares that the nature of man allowed for fall, a thing found in less basic modes ever since, with lamentation at loss so frequently found, as wonders of possibility erupt or erode into horrors of failure, needless, wilful, desired unrelentingly. It is so with individuals, societies, cultures, nations, the world. The last is beginning to wear out, as are our genes, as noted above.

It predicts in effect, no information without intelligence, since it was God in HIS intelligence who invented all, including human intelligence, and He is ONE, and there is no other, and it is all derived from Him (as in Isaiah 44-46 repeatedly). As Christ put it, DO figs come from thistles!

It indicates that there will be degeneration, but NO UPLIFT biologically, since it is God's domain, and He did it. Whatever intelligence in man may manage, this is merely to emphasise how well God used His own to make this tool for intelligence deployment, from His own, without limit.

It indicates in history what will however in fact happen and it does

(cf. The Pitter-Patter of Prophetic Feet Ch. 4,
Outrageous Outages ... Ch. 1,
Lord of Life Ch. 3 Galloping Events, Highway of Holiness,
It Bubbles, It Howls, He Calls... and SMR Chs. 8 - 9).

As previously proclaimed, so when the time of the prophecy arrived, what it had said, was what happened: it did so to Israel, as to Assyria, Babylon and Egypt, to Persia and to Greece, to Rome and is still happening as we write, constantly, in a grand sweep and in great detail to Jew and to Gentile alike. It happened in terms of the death date of the Messiah on earth, interpreted in advance, in the power proclaimed in advance (cf. Christ the Citadel ... Ch. 2), as in Isaiah 29, 35; and the repentance of Israel was proclaimed, for murdering the Messiah (as a nation), before Christ was even killed (i.e. about 500 B.C. in Zechariah 12). This, it was presented for coming history, with the normal biblical assurance, speaking of it as assured as if already newsworthy; and when He came, He was killed because He could not be rejected rationally, though it was as God in the form of man, He appeared, eminently testable.

In fact, there was then for the nation, as now for many a nation, no other way to get rid of God than by killing, or rejecting, His salvation given in Jesus Christ; and little more effective than insisting on compulsory educational dictates, which remove the doctrine of creation: since it is He who was the Word of creation, by whom all things were created (Colossians 1:15). Things change but little, as the world gains the promised power through knowledge (Daniel 12), and misusing it, gives itself a crash course on how to continue against a roaring headwind, engendered by disbelief in the rational, pursuit of illusory quests, rejection of the word of God, testable and triumphant in the Bible, and of course of the Christ who came. It is all there. It is all happening.

As to Israel, it has been extradited by divine decision, and has languished without its land for some 2 of these millenia. It is not that Jews were not there over that entire period; but the nation was not! As Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 30-32 so poignantly but gravely indicated, this people would in due course be removed from its land, only much later to be restored. We have seen often, as in The Biblical Workman Chs. 1 and 3, and SMR Appendix A ).

To reject

what has independent and pervasive predictive power
(an element in all science, whatever the source, person, theory or whatever),

what has harmonising embrace of all philosophic problems

(cf. SMR Ch. 5,
Deity and Design ... Section 8,
Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ,
Who Answers Riddles and Where He is, Darkness Departs),

what makes no error in its origination-continuation declarations,
nothing capable of being rationally rejected to this day and hour,

but rather anticipates by stating that God SPOKE and the creations happened,
in this, anticipating the very most recent findings not only about information,
but meta-information in DNA, an entire domain of systematic intelligence deployment, and this by WORD^╬ :

what shall be said of this ? To defy Him who so speaks, what is it, to do this now ?

What indeed, except that it is an operation of the will, and a wonderful eye-opener to the vast extent of this liberty of will, given to man!
There is perhaps a progression here. If truth is too enervating, then invent fiction; if this is found too embarrassing, then hug fiction; if that is too inconvenient, then legalise fiction ? This at least appears the outcome in South Australia, whatever the brand of cause. Once thing is surely attested and yet is so treated, or indeed is surely NOT attested but is accepted: it has nothing to do with science, but as one secular scientist of fame put it of the latter, in chagrin at the violence done to factuality, and the violation of truth: it is anti-science.

Some of the more thoughtful, among many scientific scholars,

	long for an answer, cannot find it in naturalism,
	put it irrelevantly (simply shifting the point of departure)
	in space-men,
	in (literally) ghostly spectres, in drawing forces, lifting things up, helping them surge, and this without foundation, and implying the thing at the first, and the results at its onset, a mystification of God, and that without logical or revelatory evidence, a thing set in a futuristic mode, but needing a past,
	in principles never made to appear (a science requires) in testable form or format,
	in monsters dowering hope, but without being sighted or solving any logical problems, in 'what happens' which is no solution, nor is it seen ...
	and so on ad nauseam.

These are intellectual frustrations, reckless wreckages of reason, irrelevant, ineffectual, variable, without background or foreground, indirect attestations that there is no rationality without God, that naturalism is making a creator out of creation, which it naturally enough, steadfastly refuses as a new and higher office.

It WILL not co-operate (cf. TMR Ch. 1, *2).

Indeed, in Ch. 1 of TMR, when we look at the various actual findings and consider logically to what they relate, both singly and in combination, and find the pointer to the biblical presentation, away from all gradualism and magic, the two actual options when you consider the bases presented for evolutionary imaginings: then there comes a different result. An interrogative method is used, pursuing this possibility, and being rebuffed, seeking what meets the thus exposed conditions needed. Now it all points to what is precise, steadfast, in principle comprehensible, in practice consistent, constructive and comprehending. Indeed, by this simple method of moving where the evidence sequentially points, we then find perfected harmony with what biblical revelation exhibits, with an almost eerie persistence, precision and cumulative impact. (Cf. TMR Ch. 7.) On all sides, whatever was found wanting in one set of theories, is thus exposed, and when put to the test of the alternative of creation, is met totally.

Thus, there is a way to progressive movement from evidence to competent theory, step by step, aggregatively, cumulatively, attuning the hypothesis at every point till it becomes not only a testable whole, but one able to be considered in the light of other laws or theories given due examination and place in science in the past, and thus one can find a happy working family, a model magnificent, overflowing, far broader indeed than any one phase, such as science, but precise to meet this area as any other. Indeed, even within scientific exercises, it meets correlative laws, with assiduity. This is what is done when, for example, the second law of thermodynamics is considered for harmonious composition with creation; or the fossil record, in its wholly competent totality, attesting no oddities that could not work, like rubbish tin versions of failures.

But the powers that be, which will soon be the powers that have been, will have none of it. They chafe, they frequently decline to debate, they announce almost revelatory documents dictating to the contrary for education. Even in fair contest of EVIDENCE and logical implication, they abuse scientific method, exclude by educational fiat instead of contesting by resultants; they hide in authority, they abide in a lordship which is not for man, and tyrannise. Such is the very frequent mode in secondary, and in some direct and many indirect modes of tertiary education.

This insidious solecism, like a blindness, like that which started other sorts of wars, the military ones, steps in to madden men, to make them forget justice, even their own professional disciplining modes, when the rope is taut, and the pressure moves. What then is this ?

It is as predicted (cf. II Peter Chs. 2-3, I Timothy 4), we are to have masters of myth, that is, of having a RESULTANT imagined into existence from NO COMPETENT, TESTABLE cause! The biblical test is as above, that whatever it has said about creation, its kind, nature, content, time, time of cessation, limitations, opportunities, historical sequence, outcomes, HAPPENS. Of its origin, it declares the testable competence of the Creator, attested in myriads of resultants. Of its current working in that dimension, from beyond nature, it attests nothing doing: it is finished. This is what happens. Not only did nothing not make anything, but the One who created all things, including human will, when finished, stopped. IT stopped because He did, for HE was doing it. SO He said. SO it is.

Of history, this same word makes stipulations, confirmations, predictions, and as with the word about creation starting, stopping and finishing, so with the move to the finish of history, things move as stated. In nothing is the statement false, inadequate, and all of the numerous verifiable statements in many fields, prevail into fact as the time comes. Nothing is out of line, contrary to reason, to fact. Man contests it as he has always done; he peps it up as judgment draws near as predicted, but all that is altered is for many, their destiny; and as to that, God knew it beforehand, as the author knows His book.

The beauty of it all is that He is very sensitive to man's heritage, his powers to a point, of self-determination, but also of his weakness, his movement to become manacled to and by himself by obsessive actions which can possess him, irrespective of talent. He has ALSO sent therefore the Gospel, as available as flu vaccine in our country, to many, but in this case, to all. Surely we have all sinned, but surely He has offered the creation of the Cross, that is, the events which allow sin to be granted pardon through substitutionary atonement, through grace, received by faith, implemented by divine power, in a new creation (Titus 3, II Corinthians 5, I Peter 1).

God is personal. Like many, He is very inventive; but unlike many, He is kind with it. He is not playing; it is serious. Man is beginning to see that the whole world is sunk in what it cannot control, its factions no fictions, its power no myth. The answer to creation is from the same source as that for degradation and devastation. it is in the God of the Bible.

Man declines, but God does not.

What then ? God is very willing to co-operate, with what, with those who first learn the need to find an operation of spirit which provides sight for the mind, resolution for the intellect, peace for the heart and attestation of evidence, verification and validation, unique to itself. That is like God. He, for His part, knows what He is doing. Thus He even grants the way of re-creation for man, just as He has declared the way of creation (cf. TMR Ch. 3, 5,SMR pp. 561ff., 582ff., Barbs ... 17 ).

Just as determinism (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7, Christ Incomparable ... Ch. 2) cannot account for error (since error is meaningless when all must be, and could not be otherwise), so God makes available an entirety of comprehension of this phenomenon, and in particular, of man's resistance to rationality about Himself. As to that, here lie the latest irrational efforts by such as Dawkins, who fails to answer the problems with empirically sustained evidence, or reasoned bases that are adequate for the results, far less sustainable interfaces for the supposed actions, merely providing a ghostly illustration for each caprice.

No less does the South Australian contribution to such irrationality, taken to the same pitch as was found in Communist and Nazi education: namely this: that thought to the contrary of that dictated, or including what is forbidden, abort progress, llke an iceberg pounding on the sides of a ship. Truth in this area of creation, earns nothing but rejection, argumentation is excluded by naming fields forbidden, and the only field permitted is not found by science, but by desire. How long will this provocation to God continue, and what is to be expected in answer to such desolatory tactics!.

In the former political cases, it could be physical; in the SA case, it is professional. In both, it is an invasion of human freedom, and not surprisingly, massively contrary to Australian law, in the form of the UN Declaration Against All Forms of Discrimination ... in the field of religion and belief. It majors in this contradiction, as shown (Let's Be Reasonable! Ch. 8 and Appendix).

Man declines, power surges, folly uses it effectually; for destruction can be simple and short; while to build for man's part, can take centuries.

But God remains the same; His word and His works do not change, though man is failing, even in his genes over time, and history is developing as prescribed, over time: and it is about time man listened. You need no lease for listening. It is time to hear.

Something for nothing

Let us look at: The Call of Magic.

Designs upon design

Darwin's Own Confession

Fossils

DNA