Instead of this being a 'problem',
the folly of making a contra-law enterprise in the
human mind
the source of a design product by any feasible definition
(Deity and Design ... esp.
Chs. 2 and 8):
this is a solution.
*3W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
EPILOGUE
THINGS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE OFTEN BEEN CAUGHT
LIKE INSECTS IN A VENOMOUS SPIDER'S WEB
THE PURPOSE OF THE SPIDER
The sheer absurdity of not believing in a Maker, when you have made-manufactured, character-assigned types of things before your eyes, their principles and laws before your mind and their creative flair before your spirit, their type of case before your experience and the logic that impels them, together with massive energy that seems to have no bounds, back of them, and in them, limited, directed, technically consigned, this even in its deposited state, is as negatively impressive as household brawls and international murder ministries in endless wars. Such a dismissal of directed dynamic from eternally adequate energy base has almost no end of scientific and logical dysfunction, just to be spoken.
To live, it requires rational type argument on an irrational base with imaginery procedures at every fraudulent fiction that is given. The term just-so stories applied here but an eminent evolutionist*1, willing to face such characterisations explicitly, rather than face the need to abandon a foundational philosophy of materialism, shows the extent of the confusion, imposition and religious passion. God must go! Long live unreason! is the implication, whatever the intention.
Otherwise put, the denial of all the principles of mind and spirit in order to exclude the multi-level, cognitive, conceptual and creative components makes the efforts of Iran, to hide its own creative facilitation of nuclear potential to bomb grade, look like Primary School antics - BY COMPARISON!
Why hide ? In the Iranian case, the trumpeting, the seductive strumpeting of the call on the basis of a false prophet specialising in attainments of pride and might in this world and in pleasure (not that only but that most markedly with physical overtones) in the next, for Israel's destruction, removal, extermination has been the open part. That is not hidden, but shouted from Teheran like an intoning for worship. This however is not worship; it is indistinguishable from genocidal intent.
Thus in the case of Teheran there is a parallel to the secular, pseudo-scientific attack on God in the philosophically explicit encirclement of scientific method (looks for answers, does not prescribe where and in what they must be, being neutral in intent), and confrontation with God.
It is the means to achieve the stated ends, purposes, in either the secular or the religious case which tend, like revolver hand in the pocket, to give no subtle appearance of the assassin. Certainly, it is not usual for an assassin to proclaim his intention for years in the most forceful and religious language, and then to proceed to develop the methods in no uncertain or unseen method, closer and closer to the activation point, and then expect everyone to believe that the coincidence is casual. Having heard, whether against Israel or against God, the vociferous, not to say passionate call for the death, deletion or despatch of what is in view, matched by the development assiduously of the means seeming suitable for it, it is rather much to expect ANYONE to credit a different plan. Indeed, in such a case, to expect everyone to continue to chew the lulling chewing gum, and leave it all in a hopeful kind of chagrin, and do nothing! It would be an outrageous thought.
It is therefore not surprising that PM Netanyahu is speaking of a bad deal, implying if so more, utter betrayal. If people make noises, as does the US President, over many years asking Israel not to protect itself by attacking the revolver (in this case a serious thing called atomic weaponry), of support and then leave this means of assault close to operational in some bargain, how can they be trusted! How many have so run and how often has this occurred, that assurance becomes fitful, realism ridiculous and betrayal becomes closer and closer to realisation.
There seems not a lot of restraint in that new international agreement, when the enemy, the vociferous Iran, by comparison as large as a bulldog next to a new puppy (that is, Israel, reborn in this case, in 1948), is left in a status quo poised for a ready resumption of emplacement of the ammunition in the 'revolver'. Small wonder Netanyahu is reported outraged, clinging to independent power and will to act as the case in such a terrorising case, would seem to warrant. After all, the intention to eat up Israel, national source for the Old Testament, the birth of the predicted Messiah and the start of the Christian Church, is not a May dance. Genocidal degeneration in declared aspirations to destroy another nation are not a dream. When it is a large and rich nation which makes such boasts, amid a near and hovering array of ordnance, while speaking with eloquent hatred and incalculable hypnosis from a false prophet, as predicted by Christ (Matthew 24:24 cf. More Marvels ... Ch. 4, Divine Agenda Ch. 6) ). What then ? Does one not watch the hand of the declared assassin in his coat pocket ? or does one indeed continue to stand innocently near him at all!
Let us make a canine comparison. Dire intentions have repeatedly been announced as a law for bulldogs, aggressively inclined to attack, where those in view are those hardly worthy of any name more than this, that of young pup! To be sure, Israel has little teeth, atomic ones, but the world is overpopulated with them; while Russia is aggressively inclined toward Israel just as is Iran, though not to the same stated degree. It has indeed warned Israel, both Russia and Iran appearing in line for prophetic assault (cf. Ezekiel 38-39, Isaiah 31, Micah 5). At the very least, this is the direction of the indications of sites for this vast assault to come.
Let us not however go too far in our certainly confirmatory parallel. Our main intent here is God Himself, though the parallel is in line with the same territory, more or less directly against the God of test, confirmation and verification, the only One so attested*2.
Thus in base case, that of God Himself and human actions against Him, when many philosophers and philosophically active people who happen to have a professional relationship to science and therefore to scientific method, try to eliminate God, delete, deny, decry or dismiss at option, and this they often do with statement of intent attached, and that with passion, then the case is in no need of disregard. It is an attack not only on logic, but the young, on the cost of professional training, on the standing of our nation.
Talk about toleration of religious customs is irrelevant here. It is the core teaching logically and empirically, and its scope which matters; not to say its method, that it should be scientific, rather than a strategy of capturing campuses and rigorously indoctrinating*3. This is the way to justice, and not that of wallowing in the culture so that it is made to appear that anyone not wanting to join in this annihilative effort against the very name of God (parallel, the deletion of the presence of the State of Israel in mind or in fact!), is defective, deficient, witless or what ? Why, hardly worthy of being academically acceptable, irrespective of whatever academic brilliance may be shown. If this be done, what then ?
Then you see the same fixity of passion, citing of the source of the passion (in this case, philosophic preference masquerading in contradiction of scientific method, as scientific), without concern or restraint. Professor Lewontin of Harvard University is a good example*1, but how many have chafed and been moved like organ pipes in the industrious search for ways of removal of God and, as the USSR put it in early days, God with all his baggage. It was to be an extermination process, like removal of rats, and presented as long overdue.
Hence it is like someone saying, I did not see Dr Smith ANYWHERE within the covers of his book, and expecting us to be impressed or even to regard this as rational, indeed NOT as irrational raving. It is not only misled; it is a case of delusion and that is precisely what the Bible calls it. In II Thessalonians 2:4-10, we read of two collated processes. The first process is a REFUSAL TO RECEIVE THE TRUTH (like someone refusing to believe that her son could have won an exam distinction, with his intellect, and hence attributing cheating - a case of family alienation). The second and related procedure is the result (like the results of taking drugs). It is that the God who is there sends an ACTIVE DELUSION, just like the mind alteration achievable with drugs.
The new state is one resistant to reality, and hence alien to its appeal. In this case, it is logic, and reasonableness, and scientific method, taht is lost, together with immense hostility, sometimes in sarcasm, propaganda devices endlessly repeated, cultural slogans and exclusion of truth in systematic teaching of the young, that is found. The purpose is more or less explicit, but always implicit: to CREATE A CULTURE of defiance of the divine, instead of deference, of irrelevance instead of majesty; and it is often linked to the pollution of the very name of the sublime, with eagerly pursued devices. One of these is reductionism*4.
You get that too in other areas of life, not only the intellectual. Thus some jealous person says of an associate: He ? brilliant ? why do you know that on the second of July last year, he stated that he would rather have one intellectual advance than help ten families. He has no heart; he does not understand humanity at all.
That would be the propaganda: ignorant, illicit, passionate and presumptuous, based on intolerance for the truth in the glorious world of creating judgments by gossip.
In fact, the person could have said such a thing for the following reason (that is the thing to do with gossip: do not stop in and have cup of intoxicating drink with it, savouring the taste - cf. II Corinthians 12). The Bible declares that the one who slanders his brother is a fool! Gossip as the god of morals is a foul thing, often practised in high, and sometimes even ecclesiastical places.
Take our hypothetical case above. What might the man have meant in fact ? He might have meant that if this thing were solved, then not only two or three families, but the whole of mankind on earth would be so much better understood that almost illimitable blessings would come. In that case, the opposite of hard-heartedness might have motivated the speaker! It is just one remove from the obvious: the little intellectual thing that he had in mind might unleash vast results for many. In that case, it would not signify insensitivity but the usual human method of looking for small means to achieve large results, in the given direction.
So it is with God. Those who stress His insignificance have a problem at once and always and altogether. Take the birth of babes, the procedure through procreation (in the end, as in the beginning, through designer procreative programming in a personal setting, to whatever else the word 'marriage' may ineptly be applied. Why is this birth of a rational, sensitive, ideationally developmental, voluntary being, equipped with will and imagination and analytical powers on maturity, an event ? What is its basis logically ?
It does not happen because nothing got up one day, stretched, had a cup of tea, and decided to make something of itself: saying, Enough of this lassitude, though it WAS comfortable. It was not however comforting to the spirit of nothing, so it acted, and behold là, là, something! The something then went on to try to follow the dream of doing things and achieving a place in the world (which it made, just in passing, as it had use for it, as it considered advances and progress of various kinds).
It then, that is the original nothing, had the idea that if you compressed everything to the point that it was unspecifiable as to extent, not really measurable, and so in a dreamy and illicit sense not really THERE (where is there in such a case ?) at all, and then started over, an extreme explosion of this inconceivably compressed something could do what had never been achieved before by this means, a constructive results of enormous complexity and vast creative exhibition, staggering to the imagination, cohesive in kind and functioning on mathematical principles.
With it, this same nothing in the original case, provides explosively (or in any other way that is not, like this, palpable irrationality in kind) a development of logic in method, logical principles in mind (which it decided it really OUGHT to acknowledge by now), together with the power of thought and imagination. All of this and much more is thrown in to the pool of resources achieved by nothing from nowhere for no reason, except the one supplied where it is merely a device to exhibit the question-begging folly of it all! Rreally required fro such 'arisings' is an inordinately intelligent and creative being above matter, mind and spirit, the rmaker , which is in view. To do that, this One has to be there, and sufficiently powerful and creative, an energic eternity with given qualities as the basis that anything ELSE might be; and something else does exist, so requiring such eternity as basis. Results speak. The ear should listen, the logical ear.
Should you not buy this philosophic miracle, starting with nothing and brewing such drugs that it gave content to the mind, satisfaction to the soul, system to the thoughts and the universe to man! Such is the incessant pseudo-academic chatter or expectation or presumptive basis in the pseudo-education given by those so misled, on behalf of aggressive parties, parallel to Iran relative to Israel.
It is not, in this State case, necessary directly to assail God, though that comes; it is enough to make chatter seem to make Him irrelevant, tolerable if never in action!*5 This can become in various fields, such as education, part of a policy of compulsory religion
This is the superior scale of the thing. Here it is not to degrade and take-over all function from Israel; but from God. It escalates. As to Israel, it is for many of the ungodly an insufferable token of their own weakness compared to God who has both spoken and in detail DONE. Why ? Not least it is because of powerful associations and the demonstrations of history, both to raise and discipline it; with the ultimate restoration so obviously and repeatedly promised that it is acutely troublesome to the God-haters and God-removal brigade, to have it there!*6
With God and all His ways, their response is similar: it is a clash for the brash to have Him OPERATIVE at all!
Like lust, it never knows quite how or why to stop! So there comes in this academic little castle building, to make fortresses for firing, a wonderful result. The universe is now available for sale to the highest bidder. They then typically and predictedly (Revelation 19), use war to seek to take it over, unsuccessfully of course, just as they tried in the service of unspiritual lust, to take over each other so often before that.
The universe gained for exclusive human use, by deicide: quite a notion! Think of the power! It appeals to some just as bank robbery has its adherents. Here it becomes mordant, in ordinate and most popular. Morals are just part of it. Do what fulfils what you are! comes the chant. Listen to that inner voice of destiny! Such is the chatter. Love whom you please, decries a Governor-General. Surely! That has its points, for love is not restrictive, if pure. But as for confusing love with a reproductive specialty in a critical design feature*7 in mankind, this is an appalling blunder that is as common as night. This is a specialised, racially relevant, procreative act of immense significance for the future of both pair and babes. It is not generic. It is the love which this should enshrine, that is generic. It is far from desire only, sacrificial and not selfish, concerned on all sides and not merely on one, not concerned with its own fulfilment, but with that of its object.
So does repose in the Almighty as in our Constitution relative to the States conjoining in 1901, now become instead resistance, fealty dysfunctional, and man his own god. Divine morality lies slain (as in Isaiah 59); for the only thing on this phase now coming into more prominence, is that it may be condemned outright, and so will it find condemnation outright (Isaiah 59:9-18), from the Almighty, whom it has forgotten to fear, disregarding wisdom and its own construction alike But God has not forgotten (cf. Isaiah 59:17-21).
Quite a take-over: one universe and each person for itself! That is the overall position. Consider it.
Really! what a heist! Though, at the logical level, such thoughts seem too fantastic and dreamily obfuscatory of actuality to interest, perhaps, any but a child loving fairy stories and particularly relishing this one because it WAS SO ridiculous, yet lust makes children of its lovers. It might appeal to the child's love of dreamy adventure, kinky follies of thought, fascinating ideas as an escape from the dull monotony of growing up. Universe for sale, no maker, no owner, all our own, for the highest bidder ... have ambition, and do as you find attractive to your own godlike glory of personality!
It does appeal to many not children, except perhaps, children of their cultural Age! The Communists too promised land to dispirited returnees from the losses of World War I, but of course, they actually took it, the land, all of it, making it somewhat of a crime to have it, as possessors of the wrong mentality, so that many went to Siberia, losing their land, to enjoy the cold labours of underfed toil in the frozen fields and vast land there! The same kind of ignorance of causal reality afflicts the present generation, more and more on a world-wide basis.
As what diligently denies truth is lie (I John 2:18ff.), and as lie is not reliable, you can always expect irrational revolutionaries NOT to give what they do not have. That is always part of the affliction of it all. Then again, why revolt in the first place, from God, source of spirit, wisdom and truth, mercy and discipline, yes discipline, for untruth is not merely an intellectual fact, but a spirited salient!
THE NOT SO DISARMING CHARM OF IRRATIONALITY
Thus the charm of irrationality drives this nature myth, death to logic, evanescent dreaming, ludicrous chatter fit for a kid's show to wow them! But it denies and defies reason at every point; and the use of personification is not at all amiss, merely an illustrative device to bring home the IMPLICIT principles in operation. Indeed, to go even further, 'nature', the only thing around to talk about on that sort of basis, is often credited quite explicitly and with a straight face and no intention at humour at all, at times even in the name of science, which with murder as to its method, can be brought in to the philosophic and idolatrous charge (like that of the Light Brigade in result, being like that, ill-considered).
With what is this glorious entity (but what IS it!) then adorned to make of it an idol ? It may be said to see a need, thrust itself into a vacuum, empty space or opportunity (nature 'abhors a vacuum'), to strife to do this, or to manage to do that and so forth (cf. SMR pp. 212 - 213). Some sort of mystic FEELING is thus generated, as personal powers are attributed in this way, before personality is even deemed to have been found, discovered or invented, to 'nature'.
Thus you get an idolatry, more or less explicit, and of course quite obviously with no small need, Darwin was drawn not a little to the ideas of Lamarch, a self-launching something from somewhere which somehow did marvellous pushes ahead. Like the concept of the moon being (secretly) made of green cheese, it had no basis, but imagination, no demonstration but negative evidence, and no source but the obvious logical gap in dressing the dilemma of irrationality in the flowers of imaginative thought, always confronted by reality, whether in things great or smaller (cf. SMR pp. 140ff., TMR Ch. 1).
For all that, Darwin is cited as descending to fact on the occasion when he acknowledge this. In fact, Gould cites this, in his Wonderful Life, p. 257, of Darwin's own musings: "After long reflection, I cannot avoid the conviction that no innate tendency to progressive development exists." This is taken from a letter to an American paleontologist , Hyatt, in December 4, 1872. Merging of systematics as in bacterial parts being deposited in a system-bank through accretion pathways is merely part of the given, an external systematics component, within the ultra-dynamics of the entire uni-system. It does not create. It is a matter of moving furniture, not creating it, let alone housing.
One writer makes the point: The classic Lamarckian scheme appears untenable owing to the non-existence of mechanisms for direct reverse engineering of adaptive phenotypic characters acquired by an individual during its life span into the genome. Taken logically, this should be seen in situ: thus IF something systematic were to be achieved in one sudden swipe of multiple actions, despite its lack of coherent grounds for its unity and functionality at all as a mini-system, yet to make this fit into the classic constituent multitude of systems and devices does become a type of reverse engineering. Here is the result, how can you instil it into the operation of system in which it is thrown! How can you make mini-systematics create themselves and merge themselves into the macro-maxi-systematics, layer on layer of them, in the rest of one of the most systematic tiered-systematics ever found by the human eye ?
Is it not enough to invent a doctor by chance ? must you also invent a specialist ? Here are the works, and you do not invent by non-logic and non-system such exquisite counterparts of the precisely personal.
You do not do it in steps; nor in logic; nor in logical, coded mode; nor in multiply conversant modal format; and if you did make system out of non-system, complete with all adjustments (it has to be better than the original at once and always at once, never vulnerable, in principle), then the rest of the system is subject in terms both of observation in the genome and in terms of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, to decline. Professor Sanford's findings even show the divergence to be considerable, thought-provoking for man at the ultimate survival level.
The problem in this unchaste kind of category transgression, as if particles were king, not system, as in programmatics which can be highly intolerant of asses, let alone morons, let alone random forces, is that there is neither logical room for superman, nor man, but room only for decline, which is the new direction of emphasis, and it is not new in principle, since one of the chief laws of the natural world (which it did not make, it does not institute a principle over all its 'works' being not that sort of an it, but a product of what has powers comparable to the product in all its ways and wares, in the DNA).
Where there is logical room, in decline, there is the empirical fact.
|
|
Instead of this being a 'problem', |
|
|
the folly of making a contra-law enterprise in the
human mind |
|
|
this is a solution. |
|
|
It is all as logic indicates, |
|
|
as the empirical exhibits, |
|
|
as likewise the lack of vast numbers of false trails
|
|
|
as 'living fossils' laughingly attest: |
|
|
it all shows one face. |
It does so at level after level (cf. TMR Ch. 1).
Indeed, if this were trial for murder, only one face would be found to fit the action, and with this one by prejudice removed from court, no other comes anywhere near even at any level. The sheer multitude of METHODS of doing not very different things in the parallel to massive human ingenuity as in buildings of wonder made by the mind and muscle of the human race, and the utter brilliance of solving potential problems (without showing the failures on the way), by methods so good they constantly are inspiring engineering works using them, all is part of the exuberance of creation, and not at all of the lumbering efforts of what by NATURE moves down and not up, in terms of the observation back law noted.
In this case, the 'culprit', that is the one responsible for the creation, is the Creator by just such rules; and He is not in fact the culprit but the Wonderful one ( Isaiah 9:6-7) not only did it but provides for it. While it is He who did it; yet man blames 'nature' which IS His product for what is created, when it merely mutely attests the minimal features of what did make it, protesting furiously against all attempts*8 (if one may be permitted a metaphor) to MAKE it make things at this level of information-backed invention. So far from revealing a law about such creations, the actuality of non-apotheosed 'nature' reveals the opposite about their tendency to degenerate. As it is, inherently and experimentally, it goes down, not up. As in the First Law of Thermodynamics, the basis in matter and energy is a given (though of course there had to be sufficient cause for it to be given from a competent giver as noted); and as in the Second Law, the trend is for less availability of energy, more entropy. Cration is the opposite of that.
It has come; it is going. The Bible (unlike inadequate naturalistic glamour) declares just that; and experimental science relates to the latter. It is not concerned with the former; that is where it has a mandate, in studying it. You can be a student of pens, or pen factories. They are radically different specialties; and in any sort of a job, you should be sacked if you could not differentiate.
Yet, as in adoring a fallen dictator, the mind of man in multitudes has come to regard as success, this failure of 'nature' as creator. Nature is said to want, to fill space, to strive, to endeavour, but it can of course do none of these things on this model. The FACT of the logically insufferable omission of the Maker of it tends simply to lead to such 'Freudian slips' , or better exposure of underlying tensions at the reductionism in their model. Reality cannot squeeze into their pattern, so what they exclude (as arbiters prior to science, appallingly controlling where science may look), comes into their language.
Not only is this 'nature' credited with what it constantly evidenced as being unable to do (just as a pen cannot and is not expected to make a drawing design for its construction, but just to write as composed); but it is ultimately on this model to be credited with making itself before it was there. What slavery is worse than this, that makes the young mute recipients at the scientific level, of such disastrous philosophy, such revelatory science, so immersed in pretence that its pretension is frequently not perceived. It is like a magician: where did that rabbit come from ? Oh, magic! We know however that it had to be born and bred, and this magic talk, as in naturalism, is necessarily fraud, jusdt as it cannot provide any direct evidence, let alone for the initial impossibilit of getting something from nothing.
The Existent Eternal with power to create is the only logical option; His use of that power by the nature of the supernatural model, is exhibited in various ways, including firstly the fact that the product is there with a characterisable grandeur of kind from the first of life (the cell), and secondly, that this creation action has stopped. That, a s noted in Ch. 8 above, is precisely the way of creation. It is not compulsive; continual by nature; but by choice of the creator. The Bible in addition tells us that this is the way it was: He worked briefly and comprehensively, thus solving all institution problems in their mutually dependent complexities; and He then stopped, for He had done what He intended. That is typical of the way it is with creation; it is far from production line procedure, though it may use those at will or in the interstices of what is first of all created. That however is mere maintenance, not production, not creation.
With myths as predicted (II Timothy 4), amid flood denying fabrications (II Peter 3:5), as also predicted, the creators of the concept of non-creation continue to be creative, literally failing to distinguish between the empirical reality and fairy stories, free of the need to pronounce and test for basis either of existence or its logical procedures, whether in the outer world of man, or in his inner one.
Accordingly, instead of empirical science, but with pre-selected field of operation, with all its antilogies and antinomies, the education machine pushes on, leaving the mainland of logic and test, for the world of fantasy, or as Leowontin of Harvard put it of the appearance, of just-so stories. Better to have it look like than get out of materialism*9, appeared his emphasis. Many fascinated to various fanaticisms, in word, thought or action, revert to the same irrationality.
An unreal concept of man can not only ruin education, for the force of delusion is at the disposal of God when the truth is not received (II Thess. 2:10), but in politics likewise, as happened to Hitler, whose fanciful racial pre-occupation led to the folly of Stalingrad no less than to the horror of Auschwitz. Equally dream-filled cultural products may lead to effort to misrule an area of culture, such as education, or even the world, as Hitler and Stalin vainly and ludicrously failed to do, despite millions of death on the hands of each, on a yet broader international basis. Such political aspects of failing to follow the testimony of truth have proceeded as predicted, and this consummation comes apace (cf. Revelation 19, SMR pp. 750Bff.).
But what of the plight of students in this land, increasingly controlled by a forced curriculum of philosophy so merged with biology that fantasy rules at the ultimate level ? (cf. Secular Myth and Sacred Truth, The gods of naturalism have no go!). In effect, many students are turned into non-disputants at the decisive level, concerning these things, while culture force-feeds the healthy with poisoned goods. That, it is education ? it is dogmatism in a religious form, misappropriating science and distorting history (cf. Bon Voyage! ... Ch. 1, SMR pp. 925ff., 614ff.). Is this the cultural concentration camp that the UN is never likely even to learn about; for it is hard to hear with stuffed up ears. Many is the land, even now in our quasi-illustrious twenty first century of advance, which harbours these mental and didactic atrocities.
Introduce what is not in terms of new information found, nor pre-crafted for there is a beginning, and meld it into the realm of this most masterly tiered systematic thing called for example, the human body ? at the DNA level, so to make it work better ? Provide the wherewithal to make the systematic, and that to merge it into its micro-world of many systems, and you are fine, and can act with commendable understanding. Try it some time, or watch it, or show it. It is all one.
But then even if you could, you are not making it as a criterion, with mindless force, as this product called 'nature' is alleged to do it, even performing such a daunting task for you, all by itself. God back and do it from the start and in order to start, for without God, there is nothing else, and without the eternally competent, there is no source. So you would not be there to try it, nor nature, nor logic, nor time, nor space, nor thought, nor will, nor anything. Proceed then.
Logic is here dead. Its funeral is the platform for orations to students about its powers.
Let us sing at the funeral. Only systematically in such subtle and continual systematic thought that all the coherent requirements are met, whether with subtlety or sophistication, is there found cause or case in such affairs. Not in 'nature' is this found. Even if it were, it would still have to bring itself into being from nothing, which lacks all powers, including the creative. Why work by contradiction!
Design of logical systematics at one level does not happen from another, which is systematically found null in power to act at the level required. Matter does not transmorph into mind since it lacks the specifiable and definitive power to do it (cf. SMR p. 80). It leaves no evidence; it is attested by no swath of failures on the way, endless errors in the area of systematics; it shows no power so to act; it lacks the critical causative capacity.
|
|
Galileo was right if he uttered, |
|
|
'And yet it moves'. |
|
|
This, however, is overwhelmingly wrong, if it be said of 'nature' as creator, |
|
|
'And yet it creates.' |
One was a progressive statement about astronomy; the other regressive about the universe. One had constraint for it; the other has constraint to expel it. Prejudice only makes it live in the mind of man. It acts on the basis of the cult of the forbidden*10, now more and more explicitly in utter rupture of scientific method. It is a combination of politics and religious vagaries brought into science to tutor it in advance. It is like a dispute about an expensive house property which it is claimed, really created itself, so that no one could actually lay original claim to it. It is well defined as a cult, if by 'cult' you mean
 |
a religious phenomenon, dealing with underlying
realities |
SURREPTITIOUS CREATIONISM AND MANDATORY RELIGION
In the naturalistic mode, what living objects do and are able to do is determined by what and in what they are; but as for any propulsive force able to act beyond their domain, to raise them whether en bloc (Gould, Nilsson), or in a slow rendering of an itemised account (Darwin), this is there excluded. If, however, such a directional dynamic, however hidden, nebulous or arcane, is within it, at the creative level, and assists its movement down the generation line, then it is a Lamarckian principle: mystic, unexhibited, to be achieved by conceiving variation within life's dynamic and directives, in some way creative in type, though never so found at work.
While Darwin was at some pains to remove any concept that ONLY natural selection did everything, yet he utterly and expressly rejected the Lamarckian type of concept of something pushing things upward, or to greater organisation. Though Darwin did accept the concept of creation of differences through use, as with giraffes, that is merely a function in flow and action. To make it more, is to turn to Lamarck in type. To make it what it purports to be, a matter of something proceeding to act as made, there is no principial addition. Chance is still doing the dance of life for Darwin, wearing shoes unmade on ground unselected; but this is the supposition no less.
This matter of the use of a thing certainly was added to his concepts, but when all is said, logically what does use add to chance swirl, except the utilisation of what is there. To think it MAKES, rather than DEVELOPS WHAT IS THERE ON ITS NATURAL BASES is simply surreptitious creationism.
Thus Darwin is indeed left with survival of the fittest as his basis, the effort to add use-disuse merely referring to fulfilment of a resource, not its creation. That is an entirely different thing. God being marginalised and rendered effectually dysfunctional by the nature worshipper. it is merely a mixing of the two modes: arrival and due use.
To have use of what is there the ground of what is not there, but is to be is implicit in the survival-forget-arrival concept, is fatuous. If the question is how come this comes, whether of a knife in your drawer or any other category of natural things, then the concept that it comes by using a fork is irrelevant. True they are used together; but the one has no more logical ground for making the other because of use or any other feature, than excessive staring improves the schema of eyes, let alone in studiously tiny spots that gate-crash the apparatus. The point remains of the fork or any new design feature: How did it GET there! The use of a product wears it, and does not bear progeny.
Use draws forth potential (in some cases), but it is not found to draw new vitality plans for composite, complex, multi-tiered action systems, based on collated information. It does not create in any known example, more information; the potential remains from its construction. Stirring up potential is not placing potential; so we are in effect back to the point that potential has no basis in Darwin, only chance in a system which is based on what for no known reason is there, which in turn never shows power to create new types of information in BEING THERE any more than getting there in the first place, even in kind or in mind. USE is not creation; but its deployment.
That such thoughts grab man is a rank testimony to the usurpation of reason and indeed sight, by desire, whether this be jaundiced and cynical (cf. SMR Ch. 3), or glistening with ambition for man or for some individual or group.
What then, the misconception that use creates categories rather than deploying potentials already there, except in the sense of deterioration in time according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, allows nothing IN PRINCIPLE to be added to the survival concept, in Darwin's effectively naturalistic model. What is most used and survives becomes the paradigm. This is not only subject to the same conflict with law, experience and findings, in the empirical and the logical world alike, but to the error of mixing of models. USE is merely part of the workings of 'nature' in which appearance and use are portions of the assembly. Natural selection relies on the workings of chance in a system given, use being part of the system and an inherent feature. It is merely a component of that model.
Producing changes through use, and their passing on to the next generation, typically Lamarckian features, but without the inherent thrust upward added, leave Darwin amid the blind forces of nature, without addition. Reservoirs of innovation coming from re-assemblages without upward liaison, have to be found, though the model lacks them. We are dealing with codes, commands and reactions to the same, meaningless without a conceptual conduit between them, in terms of which to operate. The move from the blind to the conceptual, the norm to the innovative command, the institution of command, and the linguistically expressible format it takes, to its execution proceeds like an aeroplane landing on a field that is not there, and that with considerable skill.
The more they operate the better idea does not add to the concept. Formation, formatting and insertion with sensitive adherence to the conceptual apparatus expressed in receivable form, is all very well if you want something to work. It is not well if you have nothing to offer at this causative level, any more than there is anything to offer from nothing at the first. The name of this model game is nothing; and the results are quite something indeed! Domains of labour are specific, specialised and sensitive. In each, the works that relate are performed on an adequate causal basis, with an adequate causally useful interface.
The whole entrepreneurial work is simply assumed (cf. Ch. 8 above). It is rather as if the wh ole Council equipment is automatically on scene, if you are trying to fix drains; and rather more so, if the point at issue, requiring a cause is this: HOW to improve them. Let us not imagine that specialised systems in rational interfaces of many kinds are not conceptual-command-control issues. In another analogy, it is as if a multitude of dust particles (all just unprompted except by normal natural forces) were striking on your camera for some years.
The use factor indeed enters in; but if the dust enters in to the case, the normal wear and tear procedures move, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not cease, entropy is not cheated. In the end, the thing is ruined, not developed, the more use the worse. That is the direction of the thing (cf. Waiting for Wonder, Appendix).
The basics are the same: it all has to come as nature unfolds, through chance. More or less use is in the impersonal mode, merely turning formatted material to re-forging material, by the same natural means without addition. Only surreptitious creationism can alter that, a mixture of models.
Creativity per se, for what is created (for it advances so on nothing) is excluded. It is an null idea.
What then ?
A specific in a system, or a component in a model based on a given principle, does not add to it, but simply shows it at work. At the creative level, it is as irrelevant as before; and making structure by function (other than fulfilling a natural development as of muscle and the like), no more adds to creation by chance than passing on the inheritance of the same, makes an addition to the kind or category of the system in view. Darwin may want to put chance creation with chance use of it in as two principles; yet they are but one: chance in nature making what is to be by their mutations whether by use or other aspects of a chance system.
As soon as use becomes creative of system, you are adding from another system: that of creation. Either it is chance operative on a system; or it is not. If it is, then fusion leading to confusion is part of the chance system: otherwise being subject perhaps to more rapid deterioration, as one of the component dynamics in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which did not earn its spurs by going in the opposite direction (cf. Wake Up World! ... Ch. 4).
The situation is not changed in outline. No wonder Darwin felt rather lonely in his chance system, product becoming producer; however use of the product does not constitute its creation, in principle, in kind or in system. If something is leading use to become productive, then you DO have a Lamarckian thrust upward, and it is a mystery unakin to the basis. Importation of missing elements of the divine is a constant source of what en bloc dismisses it. Otherwise, it does not work. In this case, it does not show itself to work anyway. Information is not like that.
However attractively regarded, you do not find it happening. For linguistic style commands and effective reception of the same, you need the means for explicit command to make a given level conform, as a drain in mind to the spade in hand. The concept, with the command, has to be so made for a system, so that the two are reciprocal; and reciprocity is precisely what chance flutters lack. This is a conceptual, conformity-bound, system-situation type of image-object action in all life. You get out the type of thing you put in, whether it has it in its actual potential (power to respond to a stimulus on grounds already there), or its very type of relevant manoeuvrable being. Put succinctly by Christ, the issue is in this vein: You do not get fig from thistles. That is the way it is, and there is good reason for it.
Thus one can indeed speak of Darwin and his survival of the fittest chance system as quasi-creator, without specifying the use component in that system, as it is properly part of that system. It is then part and not a magic mystique to be accredited with something other than the working of the system in its natural basics, where produce and use are of the same kind, so that the need is to find, to feature, to function and to bind. We are not talking of life that is not, but of life that is. This kind on that model has only one source, but various features in that source, all chance-operative, none additive IN KIND are the generality of the case. This is the model level.
Indeed, the moment this concept is fudged into some inherent power of use to create, or command to be continuity, then it ceases to be a chance system in nature, and becomes a creative thrust using use for advent, while ignoring command for the format. If so, then it becomes a type of creationism, which it specifically rejects, and in Darwin's own words: there is NO inherent thrust in nature to turn things upwards..
THE STING OF THE SPIDER - NATURAL DRUGS
Let us leave the individual exponents of barren, impersonal, uncogitative naturalism, that deals with matters linguistic, cogitative, conceptual and reciprocal in an information system, in kind, and look at the initial thrust, right back to the steps towards building the pyramid of life. The very term of course, far less than that of the realities of life, which is vastly in excess of mere geometrical form and clever building techniques, exhibits the intelligence of man manifested and deployed in making those famed Egyptian structures. That is their basis.
Nature destroys as well as forms. You have to overcome that. How did the desert come, then, to pursue the image, or the minds that made the design, or the labourers that made the commands flick into function. It was hard work. It required a whole series of energetic and efficient, relevant creative labours at a multi-level of co-operation. You either have no order, nothing, or order, something; no format nothing, or something; no function or function, a work episode not under natural creative initiative powers, by observation. Let us look back, then.
Let us see what one mere universe needs, rather more than a pyramid, itself self-declarative that builders and not nature built it; and if it HAD lasted for a billion years, let us be frank, it would have MEANT that it had been built by a yet more highly endued and superior intelligence, than if it had not. It would be a work of what is creative above the operation of natural law, and people in a naturalistic bind might understandably have even dared to wonder how whatever it was managed to do it. It came back to intelligence; it is not as easy as that to have geometrical, architectural, assignable purpose fulfilling units in a multiple system, requiring conformist crafting wit, and to have it without idea, command and conceptual basis for language. Sand sears, wind bites. Structure stands; or falls, according to the way, beyond the lower levels of order, it is formed, formatted and forged into being.
Witlessness would be as source FAR below the level of thousands of years of endurance of the intricately, detailed and unitary significance of correlated systematic structuring, such as the pyramids attest. The longer the time the worse it is to build because of negative elements; and the longer again, the harder it is to conserve it.
That would be vastly superior both in kind and in implication. For a pyramid to be made, wewould be exhorted to use our minds, apply logic. Of COURSE, nature does not produce things like that given indefinite time endurance; it does not have the power to construct a bit and conserve it, and make more and conserve them, and put them together, and preserve that.
They would be wearing out before achieving coherence, and suffering mutilation and not upward mutation. In life questions, it is far worse; for we hav for our own looking, the very commands themselves as well as the products, and we even have opportunity in birth to see the correlation of those commands the actual construction, coming to be. It is not chance; it is command. It is not slack, there are correction modes for dealing assiduously with many miscopying features.
The underlying causal principle is the same for life or not. It is just that life has amazing technical powers of purifying what destroys it, though it has no answer in itself to death. That too follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics with what some regard as pitiless anonymity, impersonal, oppressive, dooming. Negation has its way. What could be conceived though not experimentally confirmed, as building something up to advantage, like the human genome, yet lets it breaks down far more quickly, as Professor Sanford's researches attest. How construct if the move to deconstruct is faster ? The law is THERE.
That is how things work. Otherwise it would not be a law but a trend at best. But in evolutionary mysticism, that distinction, in parallel with not carefully keeping to the confines of the empirical, does not matter. Imagination is the thing. Magic is the mode, shrouded in the devious terminology of 'more knowledge needed', in the mists that shroud the words, SOME empirical attestation required. Small wonder Professor Thompson, sometime Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa exposed the modes of rank organic evolutionism repeatedly.
As this eminent Professor put it (Introduction to Everyman edition of Darwin's The Origin of Species):
This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypotheses on hypotheses, where where fact and fiction intermingle in inextricable confusion. That these constructions correspond to natural appetite, there can be no doubt. It is certain also that Darwin established what may be called the classical method of satisfying this appetite. We are beginning to realise now that the method is unsound and the satisfaction illusory.
Something very much and readily understood must here be noted. Professor Søren Løvtrup sees and sees clearly in discussing Darwin's famous fantasy; and to this we do well to attend (Darwinism: the Refutation of a Myth, pp. 352-353).
It remains an unsatisfactory state of affairs that the fossil record stubbornly fails to deliver one single bit of evidence in support of ...'phyletic gradualism' which is supposed to be a prediction of the micromutation theory.
(For a considerable development on this them and the above quotation, see SMR pp. 252Aff.. From p. 203 op.cit., the excerpt below is taken)
The point is well taken. It is anti- verified, non-science. Since it is non-science, as science it is nonsense. Indeed these raw facts appear as distressing harassments of all evolutionary theories, none of which can give any experimental examples, none of the whole 'cornucopia' of them, to use Løvtrup's expressive term for the multitude. (As to this experimental side, Løvtrup appears weary of what he feels undue stress here, upon students who seem chained to doctrinaire unproductivity, by cultural conformism at the academic level. Things are no doubt difficult when what you seek quietly refuses to appear. Only evolutionary religion's popularity can redeem such follies, by its degrading assumptions (cf. Ch. 8 above, as marked)
None can give, then, experimentally verified principles or laws in terms of which such reluctant 'creations' are seen to occur; while few show any facility to accept the efficient factory from which these duly operative facilities in the world of biota were - by the logical necessities so often shown - engendered. Like so many wild children, evolution is bankrupt; but it refuses to return to the parental home - for better instruction; while playing vapid games with words (Løvtrup op.cit. 351-353, 384-385, 422), antics with semantics that produce nothing. (Cf. pp. 132-139, 157-159 supra, 251-252N infra.)
This child of thought remains ''in a far country'' (Luke 15) and lives on husks that contain no life. As always, God is not mocked; and the many mutant theories of evolution achieve no progress to the point... but merely tread water - and the water is deep! Large parts of the academic, political and social world are as well able to drown in this as in many another anti-God dam of delirium, deluded by defiant surrealism.
Darwin in better moments could be frank, too. Thus in his work,The Origin of Species, 1859, Ch. 11, this is to be found.
"...intermediate links ? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory ..." {of evolution}.
In fact, start at the beginning. You can either beg the question or start with nothing, the way some young entrepreneurs, in their case, relatively start with nothing. This before us, however as an account of the universe is not metaphorical but literal. Nothing has no future, so this lair does not exist: for that is something with a future. Therefore start with something. Failure to do this is the first logical breach.
Next give it form, from nothing, for the something is merely at this stage, a quiddity, something or other. It must have form, and possess energy, which even so, has its own form of being and its own equations, in nature, it is found. So start with energy and its form. Add its laws, for it cannot operate without its structure-function arrangements. But if it did, it would need a SPIRITUAL capacity instead. That is merely one step nearer to God.
To do work, the supreme scientific definition, the capacity for this, it needs form and power to form progression. That needs structure.
Then you need, as noted already, the laws for the transition from structure to form, form to fact and act, so that this formative, law-donating energy is moved to provide something that works in accord with what nature is found to be, not being bound to it, before it exists, but binding it with putting it into existence, so that we might find it as it is.
Whatever is envisaged, this source STILL has to work in a directing manner to produce anything other than diffuse rushes without direction, protection, point, purpose, provisions, procedures or determinable results. If there were no determinable results, then there would simply be logical need for a source which would provide this, enabling more structure, limits, and inhibitions, prohibitions and compulsions.
Source for the course ? Cause for the consequence ? Basis for the enterprise which is unified in monumental interchanges at many levels ? What of all this ? Where from ?
Then you need the fashion of form-function logical arrangement, space and time in which it can happen, pressure to push things along, starting methods to engage energy in action, decisions or programs to determine which way it will go, procedures and enterprise to create programs. The alternative ? - it all goes nowhere in no space and uncontained by law or form, format or feature, all at once it proceeds to be gone. It isn't. However that is not the result that we have.
Next you need arrangements, geometrical equivalents of design, definitional equivalents of design, and hence design (cf. Deity and Design... Chs. 2, 8). For that you need mind. You need it anyway to produce mind, for matter does not mind, nor is it ever shown to create mind or act as mind. It can act as files and resource for mind; but it thereby is simply configured as an implement for a different dynamic.
Since we have minds and act as if we did, then we have another origin to come along with matter, like bon bons at a Christmas dinner. These too are to be supplied. But from what ?
But no matter, this fantasy being step by step exposed, is not in itself an exercise in logic but quasi-creationism misnamed naturalism, to show its void character. That is just another breach. We proceed by breaches, as when cannon fires into a castle wall.
Next we need minds that can mind their own individual business, and yet have a condition of uniformity among billions (at last, and for that too, you need a reproductive SYSTEM). That needs crafting into its individual and personal format to operate as it does. Nothing is never a good resource or reservoir for ANY of this. The ONLY other option is something as the original: energy plus (otherwise nothing could be done), and we are looking at the pluses by imagining their arrival from nothing, and then seeing the nothingness of the hypothesis that nothing would in any case, let alone all, suffice.
Next we need spirits. Mind can ad nauseam specify what is needed, what follows, what are logical laws (which have to be invented, which requires conceptual manipulative and integral capacities). However a man may decide to IGNORE the counsel of his own mind through passion, wilfulness, hostility, revenge and the like, passions or dispassionate oddity. For this, he needs will, capable of disjoining from reason, following it, or tutoring it in the process known as rationalisation. It is not the same as reason, but as with the whole concept of naturalism a parade of fantasy, without reason, contrary to it, an abortion of it, this too has to come from the almost illimitable reservoir of diversified dynamics with utterly diverse powers of operation.
The other option: To account for reason by unreason is as foolishly inadequate as to account for something by nothing in the first place.
So spirit has to be drawn on the account available for 'nature' from its nothing account, or the related account preceding it. That does not work. But spirit does. It like the rest has to come from what is adequate for a universalisable and universally operative mode of work, attackable by will; and for this too, there must be reason, even if as a negative means - as an instrument (like a dagger for a death).
Everything has to have source, except the required energy plus all the necessary capacities noted (at the minimum) without which, there is no original or subsequent either. This energy is everlasting, since without it, you would have nothing from which to draw it. There is no slightest difficulty about having something everlasting; and indeed, without it there is ONLY difficulty, since nothing is unproductive always; and when everything not eternal is based on cause for it, nothing only can never be there, if you want ANY results. We have in fact quite a few. So it is everlasting energy plus, that we have at the outset. Other capacities have been noted as we have been proceeding on the way. The power to perform plus the prerogatives and adequacies for results shown are all indispensable to reason.
The capacity to draw up and implement all these things as designated and commanded in turn requires at least personality.
On the other hand, avoid reason and you are dismissed from any argumentation. In a model, what you sack, you cannot surreptitiously re-employ, and expect this inconsistency and deviationism to be ignored. Truth can never be ignored without penalty, including life.
Let us consider. For the source, then, to be adequate, all manner of physical, mental and cognitive, conceptual and information type codification of energic principles is required. Since we are accounting for what is here, a creation as distinct from nothing, and not just there from nowhere, there are incidental needs. Failure to cover this is to give no account or reason for reason or anything else; but if it is all to be implemented, there have to be what in our terms goes by the name of person, mind, mentality, spirit, organisational skills. In fact, there has to be AT LEAST all the potencies of our nature in the CREATIVE MODE functionality. Thus if you are a house, you show it by what is put into you and how. If you are a man you can show what is in you by what you do and can show in word or deed. If you make, you are above the made, by virtue of joint capacity to be, yourself, and make something else be.
This is called creation and is constantly reviewed, used, delighted in or misused and abused.
Like mind, it is a facility and begin personal, it is placed with spirit and will, this creativity, as part of what man is in showing by his works the innate capacities. They are in vogue and in place. In the All Sufficient Eternal Energy Creator, drawing on nothing for anything, since nothing is unproductive, and sufficiency is needed at the outset in these absolute and original terms, the products were not always there. If these conformed and controlled elements would need a creator as well, so that the duo would need its Crea tor and so on. Hence there is One. But what of the ingredients of the creation made ?
They had to be put in. What put them in had at least to have them in eminent degree (just as any functionary has to have implements to deploy to exhibit the powers within), all this. The Eternal, Specifying, Multi-Competent Energy had to have it in the creative-capacity mode (just as Le Tourneau was far superior in mind to his earth-working equipment, but showed this by that equipment and what he put into it and how he did so and his comments before and after, as in word attesting what deeds showed, concerning in the consciousness, purpose, program, performance quartet).
Nature does not hunger for all this, because it is not there to start with, showing non-eternal modes and capacities by its nature. Let us finish off more fiction quite directly. 'Nature' does not see need for some novelty, possibility, advent, entrant, and fulfil it as if it were an employment nature. The personification of nature is not superior to personifying cars, or factories, the products or the mass production producers, and forgetting the imagination, money, power, co-operation and resource used required at ALL levels, material and immaterial. In fact what is itself material, is the least material to the whole operation. It needs genesis, not begging of the question for its institution.
You can have God and logic and creation; or unempirical irrationality. You can multiply breach logic by bringing it all in, step by step, using this or that means, imagining it all doing it when NOTHING material is ever found making new realms, and logic gives no scope either for nothing to act, or question begging to enact.
Quite simply, you have to have what it takes. Taking it for granted and then assailing it, as Iran was seeking to do to Israel, does not make the basis non-existent. It only shows how existent it is, that such conceptual obliteration comes from the coded basis, the language of the mind and the spirit of what has been created amid man, in one nation; which would now make havoc. That too, it is creative, of agony to be sure, both for results and for logic (in the logical mind), unless you follow the former to the latter. You NEED what it takes. You NEED to verify all types of creation specified, if you want 'nature' to make nature before it is there to do it, and to see the job with nothing as base. You may wish to invent from an active, adequate and relevant source, without acknowledging it. That is not only wayward mysticism but subversion wedded to the surreptitious. It is best to be open, the more if science, reason or logic is to be involved, as for any kind of presentation!
What of such outpourings of cohesive operational, advance-thrusting creative work in the universe, to expand, increase now ? None is ever verified. Logic finds this obstreperous incoherence, a matter of using its name by some kind of plagiarism, constituting mere effrontery. If you want to dream, do it; but don't mix it up with being awake. God says much in this line in Jeremiah 23.
Man in masses insists on being himself, amid natures other than his own, invented by the uninventive, made by no mind, for no reason, while calling on reason to show that it is so. It is not very bright. It is a matter of aversion to reality and efforts, conscious or not, at subversion. Reality does not budge. Truth does not change. It is overwhelming because it never stops, and though the false culture of one generation may seek to scarf up God, to use Shakespearean terminology, when it gets hot in the next, the scarf is re moved. Truth never moves.
What then ? This is perhaps the greatest perversity that ever was. Its result, however, this too will be according to reason. That is only reasonable. What does not fit with reason, reality, the empirical, what happens, has only its own will to make things happen. In this case, it is too small to evict the basis of its own power to will. It is futile.
If you don't want even logical light, how much less spiritual light to guide you with the same precision and purpose shown in your own power to think and will and imagine. Sure you can misuse it; but there is not natural but supernatural law (that is one of the things non-nothing has), far beyond mere Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is the nature and way of the Maker. If you refuse the light, then you are not raped by reason far less spirituality. You just fail, perhaps with a permanently injured conscience, and perhaps with an easily roused temper; for it is intemperate so to act.
You go with the darkness, the unreason that you so love, whether cryptically or deceptively or otherwise. Life has many categories. So has death.
The Creator gives natural life, human life, human redemption and with restoration, regeneration (Titus 2-3). You can take it or leave it. He has also given the curse on conditions noted in Genesis 3. Accordingly, exquisite beauty abounds, just as venomous snakes, sharks, and enormously deadly viruses do (cf. Romans 8:17ff.). When the writer of DNA comes on the scene, He writes more than DNA!
When God called personally on His creation, man. He even called Himself alpha and omega. He first gave not a card but a book in advance, describing it all from first to last. He also gave a corpse and the power to resurrection to be found in unavoidable resurrection, in the vicarious redemption available in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. He also gives in the Gospel about it all, an invitation. It can be refused as you see in Matthew 22. This is not a very gracious thing to do, rejecting such a gift, when He has been so exceedingly gracious in making it so. But you can do it. Read about it Matthew 22's parable (1-14).
The other way is to go with reason to redemption, with repentance to truth, with pardon to peace and with faith to God, by His appointed means (just as He appointed electrons, molecules and magnetism for matter), Jesus Christ. But God who made us after His own manner, for thinking and imagining and deciding, leaves nothing vital to the imagination. The ONE who did the redemption on the Cross, is the eternal Word of God who became flesh, the repository which was made by Himself, now used for Himself, to save what might be saved, of mankind.
In Him therefore you come not to priest or text book, but to God Himself. He directs you to His word, but receives you to Himself. It is best to go to the top. Though it can be presumptuous; that ceases be so, as here, when you are invited. Study Matthew 22 yet again.
NOTES
See The Lord of Longsuffering, Prince of Peace, Lord of Command =, Ch. 2, *2, from which the excerpt below is taken.
Professor Lewontin of Harvard University in biological science, makes the matter clear, and this is not the first such admission from scientists, what is the philosophic point.
Lewontin, notable figure in the aggressive evolutionary program wrote this: ("Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997 - emphasis in original)):
Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
Here we see many non-scientific philosophical assumptions, some impossible logically, set not as an admission of a zealot, acknowledging the fault of putting personal ideas into a container unit, into which science is to be sovereignly suppressed, a sort of papal pronunciamento on doctrine, with a new kind of authority without ground, but as a glorying, in true religious zeal.
He freely admits how ludicrous is much in materialistically captured science, as shown in recent volumes as in SMR and Repent or Perish Ch. 7 and Christ Incomparable ... Ch. 2, where such basic concepts are shown to be logically incoherent. It has to appear so, the point he admits, because it is so, and this truncated insistence, based on nothing, a mere preference, MUST produce such ludicrous results, such just-so stories, since it abandons just use of logic and causality, and what this requires. These admittedly appalling looking results come as simple verification that such cut-down science is incompetent. that it does produce such results, when what is removed from the actual evidence, in terms of what has been called THE CULT OF THE FORBIDDEN (cf. SMR pp. 150ff., 330ff.), not only ruins scientific credibility in these forbidden cultish procedures, but cuts away truth, and leaves a desolated result, much like Hiroshima.
Commitment in science, if it is to retain any respectability, is not, as with the Romanist body, to a preferred philosophy, which gave it ludicrous results. Rather, it is to the whole realm of investigation, the entire empirical read-out; and results should be the basis of hypothesis, not the appalling residue when ludicrous hypotheses are insisted on. AT ONCE, when verification fails, and the theory is contradicted, in science, that ends it. It is not necessary to live a whole life of contradiction, while bravely asserting that you will fight them on the beaches of materialism. What is irrational is SURE to be defeated, at length, by reason, and this is the case here.
See:
LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST
WHO ANSWERS RIDDLES
AND WHERE HE IS, DARKNESS DEPARTS
Bible or Blight, Christ or Confusion:
The Comprehensive Resolution of Man's Intractable Problems
is Found Only in the Bible, the Word of God
See Ch. 8 above.
One has met this freakish phenomenon personally. While a lecturer at what is now an SA University, I was required to desist in teaching the full scope of the data and the logical requirements in illustration of scientific method, because to do otherwise was deemed "not convenient". It was a good Christian situation, since the life of Christ was deemed not convenient by the High Priest prior to Calvary. The servant is not greater than his Master. Truth costs. Payment is often declined, and the reality with it.
Since one's mouth is not for sale to the secular diatribes or to anyone or anything else, being for God, the post had to be left. Money for truncation of truth is betrayal. Request along such lines is manipulation.
See *1 of Ch. 8 above.
See extensive coverage of this kind of case in the State of Victoria as in my Diploma of Education thesis, Lead us not into Educational Temptation!
See for example: Ch. 1, above, and Vol. 1 of Department of Bible ..., Ch. 10.
*7 See Deity and Design ... set of volumes.
See History, Review and Overview ... Chs. 4, 5,
Deliverance from Disorientation Ch. 6, TMR 7
The gods of
naturalism have no go! book.
See Repent or Perish Ch. 7, Christ Incomparable ... Ch. 2, for example. A merely interactive world has no way of finding, on the part of a component, the objective truth of it, in order to tell it in terms of a world theory. Attempting to do so is antinomy. It is made worse by the point that on such a model there IS no objective truth. The system is merely interactive.
Similarly, making matter mother of mind is mettlesome, but defies logic and empirical fact, though intelligence of course could USE matter in resource areas for mind, as in the human brain. That however is no part of the naturalistic model. Magic is the only known method of making it operative. Suiting young children AS romance, it assuredly suits none mature as anything but diversion from reality. To divert a car from a road to the rough side-track can be dangerous, fatal.
To divert life from its basis and hope, is a lugubrious and lack-lustre folly, a boon to heart-break, and a stimulus or pep-pill to confusion. So to treat the young, whatever the intention, in educational abuse, is an evil of considerable dimension. Freedom at least to receive, as in the UN Declaration on Discrimination, in matters of belief and religion, sound and equal teaching on all these things, in creation and not just indoctrination on a philosophy, reeks with inequality and discrimination.
AVOIDANCE of this is something to which Australia is by law bound. Is this nation to become a bounder in this, that it abounds in words and in this sphere, no less in their dismissal in deeds of maximal disjunction from fairness on the one hand, and didactic coverage on the other ?
Even if in this, this nation goes to sleep for a time, God does not.