W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page    Contents Page for Volume  What is New

Chapter 4daniels

INCOMES AND OUTCOMES

OVERVIEW

As 2010 comes nearer, and the Rudd Government's horrific effort to meddle in internet affairs come into the light of common day,  from whatever base or background it may have had, not only historically^*1, but ideologically, and indeed spiritually and morally, it is time for Australians to awaken to their threatened loss. This is not not only of financial independence (in good measure), so that another government can be prepared to bluster away if we do not quite like what they do with one of our citizens,  to whose treatment complete access before and during a crucial part of the trial was reportedly not accorded: but of far more.

If you are going to be dependent, it is better by far to be dependent on God. Internally, it is thus unwise to throw liberty in speech to the winds, or even to suffer it to be controlled in its outings, by people who are supposed to govern by law with understanding, not elevate their ministries to the skies, without at least first being elected for such purposes.

To filter the internet for the common good, where obvious physical crime against children is concerned, or threats to physical national security, by intended means, are present: that is one thing.

To adjust freedom of speech in a spectacular slide,  from correcting the obviously evil to threatening this freedom by demeaning means, occupying the seat which is that of God only, validating and invalidating on social, or psychological lines: this is an atrocity the full force of which has been felt often enough in history, often enough.  To invite it, however, would be a folly which would result not only in mischief, to those so embarking, but to those who happen to be on the same national ship.

Let us hope that Australia, long buffeted in this field, and allied ones, escapes, that this country comes to realise its special opportunities and privileges in world history, and rises to the moral, spiritual and social challenges which face it, instead of subtly at first, stripping even aspects of biblical and reasoning defence of the Gospel in free mode, from the national agenda. As shown in Ch. 1 above, this is well within the scope of present laws, and their development, which may now be enabled to bypass State resistance, and swallow up the land. In such areas, it is necessary to be sensitive, and not to wait till what is discounted, becomes all too clear in the light of common day, as it did in Victoria in the now famous case of the two Daniels (cf. Ch. 1, *C above).

If this nation fails to avoid these restrictions, however craftily put (cf. Ch.1, *2 above), this would be a move which could, short of divine mercy, yield not only sour fruits, but rotten ones, and this with remarkable ease.  Much is sour already, with limitations of a philosophic kind on freedom in colleges and schools (cf. TMR Ch. 8, and Ch. 3 above); but the transition from what in much is still a free nation,  almost startlingly free in the present world context, into one not only subordinated in many academic spheres to naturalistic, humanistic religious and scientistic dictates, supported by neither logic nor empirical research (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!), but to a place where the citizenry more generally become in crucial liberties, pawns of political pundits, this would change things vastly. Is it not enough to molest the minds of babes, that they must abort the due and just expression of the thoughts of adults from whose conclusions and beliefs they may differ! Is the exclusion of criminal folly to become the exclusion by the kings of mores, of divergent views from the cultural norm ?

What is too proud to be corrected by word, is often found liable to the humiliations of history; of which, in military terms, the French Maginot Line which was obviously so great and good, is a prime example. It was bypassed because not really relevant to actualities.

But what would such a failure to protect national liberty, say this time, on the Internet, be like ? In effect, it would be like taking a national drug, sedation by psychology, set-up by philosophy, imposed by man playing God, which however is a work, not play, and one for the infinite and eternal Deity alone, not for the spuriously directive children of man.

Let us then consider the point at issue in the light of the tissue of developments over the last few years in South Australia, and to some extent in Australia more broadly. We have had the Russell report of vacuous, anti-theistic, all-knowledgeable survey of religions and nature, unfounded and unfoundable on any logical basis (as shown in the Thesis, Lead Us Not into Educational Temptation); and the 1988 SA Circular to Principals, of precisely the same inadequacy and knowledgeability (as exposed in TMR Ch. 8).

While these things proceed, we very recently have the imposition on independent schools in SA of a naturalistic, reductionistic, and philosophically floundering pronunciamento (Ch. 3 above). Thus,  in this, scientific method is in practice forsaken in the areas of concern,  while being acknowledged. Indeed, its openness to all comers, on the basis of contribution, testability, verifiability,  rationality and NO philosophical exclusions, by a mere  politically authorised intrusion, is denied. Intellectual freedom has become subverted; scientific liberty has become, as the USSR at one time sought to do, a matter of political interference. A task force, a Committee, becomes a substitute for test, its dicta doctrine, its opinions mandatory in practice. This is and can only be scientific subversion and pedagogic servitude. If this is not persecution, it would be difficult to know how a case could be found. Even the UN Declaration against Discrimination in matters of belief, is multiply transgressed in any such action. And this country has made that Declaration a matter of Australian law!

What is deemed undesirable is stripped away from entering into the discipline,  in a sort of ecstasy of derangement, a quiver of intolerance. Though rigorously scientific, these are excluded  as scientific contestants, as if origins were excludable in advance, depending on religious preference, and performance was entirely, 100% irrelevant. The selection of what is the ruling absolute IS a religious matter, and this is merely persecution by one form of religion, by the devious device of subordinating science and its method, to this preference. In the meantime, the only scientifically valid approach is lost. The 'Emperor' has a beautiful and dutiful garment to put on, but he prefers nakedness, despite the obvious fact that this 'covering' is phantasmal.

But what of testability, empirical results, implications and comparisons of different approaches in a disciplined, scientific manner ? Here it is lost, and testability is ignored in this sphere.

It is creationism which passes the tests, some of the first for consideration, as in SMR pp. 140ff.. Is it true that it is scientifically irrelevant then ?

Quite to the contrary, in scientific method, it is 100% relevant,  and rational performance,  sustainability, cohesion with other scientific laws which are verified continually, are not merely NOT to be ignored if we do not like their source, for  some soulful reason, or soulless one as the case may be, but these are essential, and what fails here, fails. That is science.

It is NOT a matter of finding and funding a theory (as Professor Løvtrup charged, of the improper doctrinal direction of funds in scientific research), and expressing constantly dashed hopes that one day it may work: HOPE is not science. It is PERFORMANCE. This is ONE of the tests for truth; and while it is not all, it is indispensable; and indeed, without it, science has neither respectability nor the ground of its advance left intact: in fact, then it is not the scientific but the scientistic, a philosophic take-over mechanism, such as you find, in parallel, in politics in various coups in different countries at different times. This is a mental one.

In the midst of these things, authority is ensuring

	that students in various disciplines can be RESTRICTED by CLASSIFICATION of things by political power (directly or indirectly, by set-up authorities pronouncing their will), and
	that they may not inspect things without restriction in terms of their performance characteristics, so that they live in a surreal world, boasting of science while belittling truth, what stands up to  empirical and  rational investigation.

Thus, whatever the intention, we have a NEW RESTRICTION, a new  CLASSIFICATION.

Its nature and scope so far have been considered above,  This is to move from  merely afflicting the schools, colleges and later on - as  so well indicated in  Ben Stein video, Expelled - often Universities,  as objects of exclusivistic restriction for thought. That is too small by far. Now, the restriction philosophy with its marvellous mandate to cover much of the information and expression of man, moves to a much broader cosmos: that of the INTERNET. What this actually has involved and may yet involve, has been detailed in Ch. 1 above.

The various restrictions are here merely EXTENDED and it is necessary to realise the anti-God, irrational reductionism involved, within this movement,  slowly gathering momentum. Some, to be sure, add a servile god, even at the creative level, submerged in his system, even as he creates it, and so a party to its impassioned and abusive imperfections in so doing; but such a god has no testimony in empirical or rational terms (cf. Sparkling Life ... Chs.   4,    8, TMR Ch. 1, Ch. 8, Dancers ... Answers Ch. 5, Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed ... Ch. 4, SMR pp. 179ff.).

That is why the Dawkins atheist convention in Melbourne earlier this year, 2010, with the sensationalistic book, The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution, was well met by the Creation Ministries International counter-convention with its work, The Greatest Hoax on Earth - Refuting Dawkins on Evolution, was especially significant. Dawkins' dilemmas and and showmanship (cf. The Dawkins Meta-Mythical Creation, Ch. 9, The Kingdoms of This World and The Kingdom of Christ), by which indeed he might seek recognition as a performer, cannot stand. Indeed, they were more than matched by the incisive, factual, scientifically backed answers and demolitions of Dr Sarfati. Moreover, the latter is but part of a large team of scientists of high educational credentials, who work together in Australia, as does another larger team in the USA. It is profoundly useless to go for shows, when science requires answers, not in the spectacular or sensational mode, but by SHOWING what is required in its department of test.

This merely dramatises the point: in creationism there are answers, and as shown on this site, there is no COSMOS of rational operations where they do not provide a coherent, cohesive and accurate answer to questions in a scientific, rational and investigative mode.  This is the exact and logical opposite to what is found, in the simplest as in the most detailed terms, in naturalism such as that of Dawkins (cf. SMR pp. 140ff., Deity and Design ...), Darwin, Gould, Løvtrup and others, who contend. For what ? for  'science' when the thing does not happen ? .

Let us condense the issues somewhat, here, with two excerpts from Chapters 1 and 2, and ponder the history and nature of it a little more in *1 below.

Before then Australia moves from irrational restrictions, by metaphysical muddling, let us take care. Many of the great have fallen in the past by concepts now seen as so ludicrous that one can scarcely imagine how they achieved popularity, except of course for the drugging effect of ditching God and in the process becoming, even ideationally, all but part of the mud left. It does not create, but denial of its  source desecrates and leaves only irrational  repartee, of which neither science nor  logic is part.

What then ?  in the field of science in education, and in many other fields in supportive sympathy with this bizarre and religious pre-occupation which organic evolution in particular and naturalism more generally exhibits^*2, which even dares use the term 'science' of its failed intellectual experiment, and empirically dashed ideas, there has been a continuing coup, a putsch. Children have been forced to participate in one of the most outrageous philosophic coups of all time, a figment of the imagination which does not empirically or rationally work, while a fact of the intellect, which does, is rejected. It is true that logically there is no contest between evolutionism and creationism: the former has no place for a contest,  only hopes  and words. There is always something about to happen; but it never  does. Science fiction is of this stuff; and if you want entertainment,  this is the place. Not however for the facts of life.

Creation and intelligent design, however, are excluded by name. This is NOT ONLY rejected by preference, but even NAMED as to be excluded BEFORE it can be discussed, a slain non-guest to a dinner, an  excluded contestant  to a non-meet..

Why ? Is contest unscientific ? Is challenge improper to scientific method ? Is lack of interface, so that there is no LAW for evolution, as Dr Karl Popper insists, to be congratulated ? Are children to become the acolytes of this quasi-religion, with its baseless enthusiasms, this flight from reality acting  an imposed intellectual disease ?

NOW, in the field of the INTERNET, the same PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITARIAN REJECTION, by which the evolutionary matter has been established (the only way it could be), there is now a new field. It is not in any particular category that this austere action of dictatorial government is to be enforced. It is not the area of concern, but the nature of restriction which is now being considered. THIS NEW RESTRICTION on ideas and even on the method of their presentation (not too vigorously, lest someone be troubled! even the MODE is mooted for being under control), can do with religion (it is explicit in the current law), as with matters domestic, what it will.

Exclusion, restriction notices can be served when the  all-knowledge of authorised mentors feels it is not really, or not quite, what is to be desired. Ethical policemen,  cultural determinants are to be deployed in what is getting nearer to Orwell's 1984. Thought police can now mount guard over errant thoughts, as they are thought to be. Such has been the direction in existing law on  Classification on the Film mode.

In this way,  emotional or psychic reactions can become more important than reason and the necessities of debate; and under the guise of protecting the young, damage unscrupulously wrought may thus be done to them. You EXCLUDE what does not fit the current conventions of culture. They are thus in these fields, denied it. It is like the British election method, now perhaps to be changed, accordingly to report. If you do not GET THE NOD, first past the post, you are OUT.

Here the nod is a cultural one, but it is final, except for the miraculous action of God:  if  this passes.

In this way, NOT ONLY are children to be drugged irrationally for years in schools, BY DECREE, at the whim and will of a group of a particular party, but INTERNET USERS are to be prohibited, these also, from hearing or presenting certain matters, by NO MEANS LIMITED to the abhorrence of physically seducing minors or learning to blow them up with bombs; rather are these limitations carved out of cultural preference, what most find are  supposed  to find 'reasonable' (cf.   *2, Ch. 1 above ). So is man to rest on man, culture to rest on  cultural change, so is truth to become a toy, a plaything, a manipulee, an object for  erection  like a  idol  tower, a totem pole, to which people must bow. If not, then various  ... disciplines are in view.

From Chapter 2

When Law is Judge and Justice does not Rule,
you have the State of Folly

It is apparent that the follies of the Russell Report (cf. Lead Us Not into Educational Temptation!), and the Circular to Principals^*1, the former in Victoria and the latter long exposed in this State of SA, are mere approaches to the tyrannies held in store. One cannot be surprised: it is foretold. It is however always with a measure of astonishment that one finds the name of Christ open to subtle but perilous blight in one's own land.

 

We read in The Advertiser, December 22,  2006, in the Letters section, a heading:

Back to the Dark Ages.

It is apt. Just as in a rainbow, however, you see, and seek to distinguish the different gradational changes from violet, through indigo to black, stirred by the shifts to ever deeper darkness in such progression - though from the light point of view, it is anything but progress - so here. You move as you go forward to greater darkness.

 

In the Dark Ages, it is easy to see that old rainbow with its sad and scurrilous, its brutal and its unfeeling, its exultant and its vainglorious Inquisitions, Islamic invasions, militant maestros, anti-semitic persecutions, and grasping intolerance of truth. It has passed, but there is as sometimes may be seen, a second rainbow, above it, and later. This is the one seen now.

 

Its darkness is strangely deeper, its solemnities of sin more munificent if it be possible; of mercilessness, its  scope is broader. Now, in a way made  popular by Communist fantasies, we have the STATEMENT of protection in the very act of the FACT of misuse of force to  strangle freedom, just as then we had  a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and a 'liberty' about as near to a new child of joy, as a prolapsed uterus. As some Communists apparently felt,  if this is heaven,  what  can hell be! for it was no haven,  let alone heaven, which slaughtered  by the tens of millions,  and strangled souls  as far as it might, by clever and gradual  tortures,  mixing hope with compromise, and horror with its own version of the holocaust, if by any means it might make some betray what stood by contrast as the cliffs above the abyss.

 

The newspaper letter published with this Back to the Dark Ages heading, then, is not without light.

 

It refers to the Equal Opportunity Bill, which most mercifully escaped being rifled into law recently, and is to re-appear like a hangman in February next year, and contrasts the approach of that document with that of current defamation laws.

 

In fact, from January 1, 2006 a new nearly national defamation law code was brought into being by the Commonwealth Government in the Defamation Act. In this, we learn from the Press Council, February 2006,  there is much ground for gladness.

 

In this, TRUTH is a most material ground for defence if anyone is assaulted for defamation, wrongly. What the case is, is most relevant, and the fiction of feeling^*2 as king is removed by the necessary consort of Fact as Reality. Obviously malice can be like a weapon in itself, but this is a construction often subjectivistic and readily defamatory in itself. The fact of what is said becomes applicable, as well as the speaking of it! Otherwise of course, justice is without ground, and becomes a shrug of the social shoulders, of no more significance than that. The Commonwealth is to be congratulated on such a unifying move, in this direction, for the nation.

 

To this importance of FACT in defamation, then, the correspondent in The Advertiser refers. Under our defamation laws, he insists,  truth or substantial truth is a defence. It is good to know that fairyland is being distanced, since this earth is real and is no place for fairies outside the imagination.

 

It is then noted in the letter posted in The Advertiser, that on the basis of what is now the South Australian Bill for Equal Opportunity, hideously misnamed in this, that truth would be no defence for those attacked as 'victimising' by their explicit divergence from the opinions of others in these things. "People could lay complaints of victimisation against those who disagree with their opinions on nationality, sex, sexuality, marital status, disability, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, chosen gender, chosen profession etc (the list seems endless) " ... 

 

Is the position really as bad as this on victimisation ? Certainly the word is ludicrous in terms of the scope of the Bill, since to 'incite' contempt for a class of persons MIGHT be deemed to have occurred if one were to criticise what they hold, if it is deeply grasped, and to exhibit its fallacies.  Since so many things in history HAVE been ludicrous in logic, in misstatement, in casualness of evidence and wallowing in offence at what is the actual weak point, to point this out, with adequate courage and character for the case, might induce a vast reaction. It could well be as so often in history, one of outrage on the part of those wrong, and in power, or viewed with favour by them.

 

What is the all too possible result ? It is this. It would be to expose those who seek good by helping to circumvent error (as Churchill did, for long, before, almost too late, England awakened and made him PM), to what ? It would expose them to legal assault. They then become the victims of intrusive law, passing beyond defamation to feelings, sacred sites of the psychic mind, be they godless or other. Intimidation becomes the instrument of Equal Opportunity; but it is not equal. It is sensitised to what rejects being sanitised; and which is which being in deep and turmoiled contest, the possibilities of objective truth in a legal situation with the law tilted this way or that in the first place as to which sacred sites are to be honoured and which not, confusion should have a heyday.

 

Victimisation should taste its glory; but despite the law, but because of it.

From Chapter 1

The 2010 Autumn Session of Parliament is supposedly to contain Rudd's effort to get his new internet filtering Bill through Parliament, though many question both its efficacy and its undue liberty of targets to suppress. It can expand contacts, removalists readily, using the significant array of possibilities which the Act presents. Using the same Broadcasting Act approach as before, with Film Classification concepts, and new legislation, it appears the Government will therefore suffer AT LEAST the same lack of obstacles to wilful extension of exclusions to its own satisfaction and desire. The words as current, suffer almost innumerable woes to liberty, making man material for supervision, at the  call  of current sociological, philosophical and cultural  concepts.

Restraint, responsibility and openness have not so far appeared in this matter, and its past if horrific in authoritarian approaches to the whole spectrum of human discourse, as it gains its unwarranted, new Moses mouth, without Moses' background appears likely to open to an unlovely future. That is, unless this unguarded dragon can be tamed before the cage is opened.

The Communications Minister, Conroy has interesting remarks this month (April, 2010), as reported by the Illawarra Mercury.

"Why is the internet special?," the Minister asked, saying the net was "just a communication and distribution platform".

"This argument that the internet is some mystical creation that no laws should apply to, that is a recipe for anarchy and the wild west. I believe in a civil society and in a civil society people behave the same way in the physical world as they behave in the virtual world."

Newton said this was a "gross oversimplification", pointing out that Australia Post and Telstra's telephone network were also distribution platforms but were not censored.

What is nearer to a mystical creation than the internet is the human race that uses it! There is here such an interplay of mood, feeling, subtlety, drama, awakening, challenge, information, instruction, exhortation, and with this, such an opening to God who made them, that the restraints of self-assured mortals who make their own mouths, or those of their appointees, in place of God, in this, that MORAL and PERSONAL, RELIGIOUS and DOMESTIC things are not only available options for repression, in lieu of liberty, but for legal assault'. Thus those who differ from authority on the standing of anything in these realms, may not only be blocked but characterised pejoratively, or worse!

To give a Government such power, it reminds one of Hitler's beginning. It SEEMED innocent enough, he SEEMED to be well-meaning in the eyes of many who thought his exhortations to the point, his highly particular ideas and solutions were only in nymph form, and giving him the Chancellorship did not appear too drastic.

Yet power can beget power; and once you start trading off some vital things in the name of mystery, to some others, there is a long line where ignorance on the part of those who give, and self-confidence with those who take the power, can lead fast to a change-over, exactly such as hit Germany. We are not thinking of concentration camps: that was highly specific. It is rather that

	same laying down of the law, of morals, or new visions and vistas, new ideas and ideologies for humanity, new power to man,
	freedom  even toward virtual and unfounded assault on the Bible and its application, so as to ignore the grounds for it and the results of it, put into some "too stressful" box;
	liberty to impose these ignorances on others:

it is these of which we think, and these are politically nuclear devices.

 Born with presumption, they tend to  career with power and end in tragedy.

As the current classification model stands in law, as we shall see, this is precisely what it COULD be used to do. It is apparent that if Australians are going to be cautious, prudent, careful, as they might with their savings, NO ROOM can be safely left for such extension of powers, even if this Bill is passed. There will have to be an enormous clipping of the wings of the authority to debar, to delete, to condemn, in areas too delicate for the jack-boots to notice; and let's face it, metaphorically of course, jack-boots are exactly what the current situation permits and may even in the heady power of government, incite.

To allow full human expression, short of physical violence and prurience, is a necessary corrective for the unillustrious ideas and ideologies which circle the earth and seem to love nothing so much, like evil spirits, as a touch-down for their fantasies. Law is to keep freedom intact,  truth available, not to make political masters who, masquerading (even if confused) as leaders, produce only prisons to thought and preaching without basis.

THE ANTI-SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF SEEKING
THE LEAST INTERFACE FOR THE MOST RESULT

As with the creation issue, as already shown in rules passed, so there is scope for the same sort of  meddling at will, and many follow these ways, and given power,  can implement their cultural 'norms' as they see fit.

But what do  these authoritarian minds,  these magisterial supplanters for science and its method, these divinity-excluded, deniers of whole fields of human discipline, these cosmic expansionists, these naturalistic necessitators have to offer ?

Nothing, literally, as the source. When this is decided against, since it is a mere self-contradiction, not a good academic start, they may try for reductionism. Everything is only this or that.

In SMR p. 307-8, some coverage of this pathological presumption is given briefly.

"They sacrificed to devils, not to God; to gods whom they did not know, to new gods that came newly up..."; so that the Gentiles have in this followed the Jews, that judgment might be spread on all, except they repent. And in particular, they sacrificed their children... Let us consider this further. It is especially applicable in South Australia (cf. pp. 375 ff.infra), though much of the world is going after this 'beast', as Daniel names such matters.

Lest such blessings be lost, care is taken by many peoples to ensure that the young are taught this grave and modern myth, and that it is given status by being put not with legends as a modern case, where logically and historically it belongs, but in science classes! Whilst some may have thought that science had to do with observable events, noted direct or by instrumentation, with formulated laws and consequent predictions which are verified in the event, this new science goes with new myth (it is much worse than was the vogue for 'new math'). It refers to unobserved events which go with unformulated laws, liberally exempted from any need to predict, and which are not verified in those non-predictions (cf. pp. 145 ff.supra, cf. Chapter 9, EXTENSION, infra). Worse than bizarre, as science it is a partly grave and partly hilarious imposture.

If we continue to advance like this, we should soon be teaching kindergarten in third year University. More, in the well-named Festival State, South Australia (*14), children in High Schools may not, in unrestrictedly rational terms, debate this theory where it is met. Rational debate is not the order of the day!

Perhaps (although a rank denial of our entire educational system, freedom of speech, facility for open research and contest by results...), this is at least in some sense understandable. It would perhaps be demeaning to science teachers to have to face continually this parody of science, before even the small knowledge of young minds who might rationally challenge it, all too well. Perhaps even the mammoth disproportion in age, time of learning and educational attainments, between student and teacher would not suffice, to protect so gross an abuse of scientific method as this, from exposure even from babes and sucklings ... to speak comparatively.

This slavery inflicted on childhood, this intellectual serfdom, this pernicious misuse of authority - however little it comprehends what it is doing - is to club the minds of children: a phenomenon as sad as was the genocide in Biafra. That too had its legal side. It is ideologically reminiscent of Tiananmen, where authority, in 1989 there also, before using violence, just... knew! (Just as its 1966 'Red Guards', themselves twisted and then tormenting, 'clubbed' and then clubbing ... knew.) And now this authority, it has wet hands.

Let us then review the broader issues. The gradual elevation of uni-series to substance, of engineered matter in its sophistication to errant human thought, of movement in a line to a concept of a line, and to the failure to draw it right... of awareness to objectivity, processive participation to plenary powers of oversight, of determinism to freedom, of interactive interfaces to supervising systems-assessors, of components to critics, containment to illimitable perspectives, of coercion to liberty and material units into error-prone persons, of forced fragments to foolish philosophising (as mutually often judged) where pundits say what is wrong and hence imply access to what is right; the elevation, I say - of elements prodded by force into persons goaded by guilt, of reagents into agents, jostled particles into judges of particularity, asserting obligation and denying it both in theory and in practice: all this may satisfy 'God' machinists.

It may seem splendid to deity manufacturers, who have nowhere from which to gain all these powers (having denied God). But their manufacture of these gods is one of the most obvious testimonies (*15) to God, manufacturer of themselves, giving them logical bases for such powers, though here they are but abused.

How beautifully scripture sums up so much:

"And just as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind ..." (Romans 1:28). and again, "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator who is blessed for ever."(Romans 1:25).

Marvellous in multitude, mesmerism (*16) and popularity are the modern aids to unbelief, providing with extravagant seeming liberality, for many a Classroom the means of confusion. The move to that antichrist, the 'man of sin', declaring that he is God, is exceedingly well underway. In this respect, the world is beginning to contain some very developed societies...

Again, in Alpha and Omega ... Ch. 2, we have some survey of  opportunistic efforts to FIND (desperately and after a while, rather foolishly, as the efforts decline in their fitful popularity contest)  what is lacking, whatever it is that makes it all, including the power to make, never found in information-creating action,  always sought with law-ignoring hope: such is naturalism, humanistic naturalism. It is a giggle in some ways, but tragically necessary to expose, since in the dust of the confusion of the competing and justly criticised endeavours to TELL us some basis,  there is either a pseudo-sanctified silence (too hard for the young, though the myth is not to hard to tell, ex-grounds), or a touch on this or that model, that has failed.  What succeeds MUST never be mentioned in science; for this is, make no mistake about it, a religious exercise and has its own sense of awe, only nothing to worship, to  explain,  to give grounds (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!). 

What better in the end, at the international level, predicted to be coming, than to worship oneself;  and it is precisely this that is given as the end, when the representative of the human  race, the 'man of sin' parades himself openly in that imposture. We are not there yet, though Stalin had ideas about controlling 'nature' and Mao had a so very wonderful little red book; but it is well in this world's affairs, to cultivate a sense of direction. Imagine, if before the flood, some more, at least of Noah's relatives, had considered, just a little ... more.

We turn therefore to a little overview of these things in Alpha and Omega Ch. 2.

ON HOPELESS CAUSES AND THEIR CAUSE

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. 

He rightly sees that survival does not presuppose by any means, superiority of design (p. 238).

"But we have no evidence that the winners enjoyed adaptive superiority, or that contemporary handicapper could have designated the survivors. All that we have learned from the finest and most detailed anatomical monographs in twentieth-century paleontology portrays the Burgess losers as adequately specialized and eminently capable" - p. 239. "But if we examine the Burgess fauna honestly we have no evidence - not a shred - that the losers in the great decimation were systematically inferior in adaptive design to those that survived." Anyone, he cries, can invent a plausible story after the fact.

This adds to the consideration that terminating the life on this earth of this or that creation is not going to create, and is merely a maintenance phenomenon.

Easy outs at this level at last are being forsaken with some appearance of rationality, most rare in the company of those normally alight with the magical fervour which is organic evolutionism.

4. Indeed, p.260 brings us this impactive announcement, of the gradualistic, progressive,
'lottery' approach: "The modern themes of maximal disparity and decimation by lottery are more than just unacceptable under such a view of life; they are literally incomprehensible. They could never even arise for consideration."

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 Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote,

"I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary... thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events."

 He went on to say,

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, " 'Evolution is 'anti-science.' "

And so it is.

In his book, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Soren Lovtrup 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 Løvtrup,

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 Nilsson 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).

 

 

ON THE NECESSITY, FOR REASON AND LIFE ALIKE,

TO  RESTRICT RESTRICTIONS, AND REPLACE CULTURAL MANDATES WITH RATIONAL REALITIES

Three principles need to be made clear and pondered, for remedy for these perilous paths on which Australia is increasingly moving.

Firstly, scientific method must be reinstated, not re-defined.

There has been some movement, in the most irrational excesses of naturalism, constantly aborted and thwarted as it is in the laboratory, and contradicted by laws of long standing, to redefine scientific method, so that the empirical is not necessary (in certain selected cases, perhaps ?), but the obvious and the fundamental to science (naturalism, that is) is made impervious to refutation, and this by DEFINITION.

That is merely begging the question, even before you begin to DO science, in terms of what science is. IF it is not to be subjectible to empirical refutation, not to mention rational discipline, then this represents merely an invasion from religious sources, philosophic domains, and should be resisted like any other hostile take-over bid, here  of the very method of science.

Thus what WORKS, what is confirmed, what is verifiable and verified, rationally, empirically, in terms of other scientific laws based on observation with scope for refutation by events, is to be re-instated. WHAT fails in any one verification element, is either to be refined as a theory or rejected. If to be refined, UNTIL it is refined, it has no support from science. ONE blemish is sufficient. If it does not work, until it does, it is not in place; it is merely an idea.

This is the first need. On that basis, only creationism would be taught as noted above; but since there is a huge tussle because of religious-type convictions which are not really relevant, in cornering the market, and the matter should be fought out in the field, in secular schools, evolution could be seen with due criticism,  as well, but no means put forward as an operative theory: merely a way of seeing things subject to discipline. In independent schools, independence should, having been bought, be operative.

What of the Christian school, biblically based as to background ?Only where what is strictly contrary to testable scientific method could be excluded in this case from science teaching, however sore this might make some heads. Philosophic views such as organic evolution could be given enough treatment to make the students aware that this is a cultural occurrence,  and to be conversant with its type of policy, program and approach. The stress should be on what meets the case in all respects, and what these are. Joy in creation should by no means be excluded,  any more than joy in any other area of research, when the meeting of the case and challenge is found.

In this, some acquaintance with the history of creation and evolutionary thought would be appropriate, in order to make students educated and not propelled by failed philosophies, nor ignorant of the devices employed. What works, however, being in full accord with the Bible,  would be as basic as such a category deserves.

The second need is this: the whole idea of RESTRICTIVE FORCES CONTROLLING information should be kept to the proper place of law and criminality where it belongs, not as an aid to people's religious bents, who wish to rule the ultimate standards of beliefs of others, by their own..

That is in line with the pertinent observation of the US Ambassador to Australia, when he spoke in the matter of internet filtering in particular^*3. Treat criminal matters, efforts to aid explosive impacts on the land, to entice minors to physical seduction, to secure subversion of government by violence and the like, as such.  Leave information alone. Let people who want filters, outside that, for particular help, just as you have in the case of Day Care Centres, have it available; but do NOT send ALL to the equivalent of Day Care Centres, for information is too valuable to allow governments to use their powers to dictate access.

Totalitarianism -

	whether of festering bureaucratic kind,
	or the nestling 'dear leader' kind,
	or the Father figure sort (as with Hitler with his trade name, Fuhrer),
	or the pseudo-science type, one more method of 'club exclusivism' but much more offensive merely than that, defining knowledge by fiat, not by fact -

is to be avoided.

Schools should no more be restricted to the scientistic, rather than committed to the scientific, with empirical liberty, as should be the case with universities: things should be open in all fidelity to enquiry, not to abuse, to refutation by relevant performance, as to current accreditation of no mean type,  where overall results coalesce with what is claimed, and the more so when this result is acutely distinctive to the position taken..

The Internet should likewise be free of big brotherism, once clear-cut and unarguable legal matters are taken care of.

The third need is this: Australia should cease becoming a cultural conformist, whether to the United Nations, or cliques in bureaucratic or other popular power, and virtual terrorism in things academic, informative, educational, religious,  should be aborted, lest it abort what is far better than itself. We need peace for thought and understanding, practical demonstrations and illustrations, not shut-up confinements according to taste. It is too late in the day of this Age, to wallow in wilfulness: truth, reason, the empirical, the rational, must be given freedom.

We are in danger of losing our so notable independence of spirit and mind, and I speak as a Christian: there is every advantage in allowing free information concerning what happens when you do this and that, to be available, investigable without religious invasion. Since the truth is a Christian central feature, from which one does not vary, it is a concurrence of religion and investigative method when things are tested, as with Elijah (I Kings 17). The one draws, the other propels, and while deceit and deception may try to secure temporary advantage, the principle is clear.

What then ? While this may seem contradictory, it is not so. It is merely based on the premiss that Christianity is the truth, and so has everything to gain - people have everything to gain, and nothing to lose by being exposed to it, the more the better! This is a challenge for one and for all; and if this testability and empirical and rational liberty is to be further abused, let us be clear. This nation is on the way to be in the midst of the universal contusion and illusion, confusion and dictatorship to come.

You doubt it ? Live in many other countries and you will SEE it already. Is this nation to become one more, or do we return to freedom of information, with the legal and minimal restrictions noted, not subject to abuse, far less providing for it, as in current information on FILM, and other applied, censorship.

Finally, let us be clear. This is in no part or in any sense a matter of indulging pornography, almost too detestable even to mention, voyeurism, virtual internet rape or any other folly. There may be restrictions in measure, where they CANNOT be abused but where they stop abuse, not of someone's sacred cow, cultural desire, but of children by physical seducers, peace by explosive devices, and the like. It is for freedom of instruction and understanding in what confirms itself as true and stands in investigation that one seeks. It is against gratuitously forbidden areas and arenas, the cult of the forbidden^*4, exclusion by cultural mandate (which changes), such as is already increasingly apparent in this land, already in colleges, with a consuming glance now levelled at the internet: it is against conduct and commitment where truth is prostituted by philosophy, and excluded by a pretence of concern.

 

 

 

NOTES

*1

Historically, the desire for  rationalistic, secular, religiously devised or wantonly desired, control over education, often tyrannically expressed  has been rampant for millenia. The efforts to impart this have been successful for a time and to  a degree, but whether from Hitler, Stalin, Nineveh or Rome, they do not endure. Man comes very often rightly to detest this invasion of his independence, often as if man would make gods of his own  flimsy philosophic foolishness, and worse, try to force others either to worship them or to sit as evidently here, near to their shrine.

The fact that the Film Classification rites, embodied in law, enable vast invasion of things religious and personal, in the name of what is proscribed or not prescribed or permitted, is a matter of sufficient simple objectivity to enable people to think of what may be in law before long. It is important that what is good, in restriction, be carefully defined, and what is impudent addition, with secular intimidation and direction, be defined OUT of the law. Further, in view of the tendency over history, for pleasant political ideas to become lupine with teeth, and that in recent history repetitively, it would be better still to prevent the whole concept of Classification as a basis for any such powers, from being permitted in such broader domains. It is one thing to attempt to be informative and descriptive, though even this, in view of philosophic penchants, can be dangerous when backed by Government. It is another to have prescriptive powers in this area of thought and disputation,  where emotions can, by law, be substituted for reason as a criterion.

One way of handling it, would be to limit the matters for stated reasons, to the obviously corruptive, and not to permit the inclusion IN KIND, of what is merely the philosophically disliked. We do not want children seduced by paedophiles, or immorality of lustful enterprise given public recognition: of course.  Very well. These are morals; and if this is desired let it be done CLEARLY and without wandering into gratuitous and pompous controls on free speech with covert hand and aggrandising looks. The thing is monstrous. If Australia is awake, it will see this and dismiss it with the disregard it deserves, the intensity it merits and the astuteness over which it should have command..

As to some background on the laws which appear to be held in view, from various statements on the case, the following may prove helpful. Since it is merely an historic coverage, it should present no difficulty. For its source, see the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia -

with Historic Summary from Wikipedia, concerning the intended Rudd legislation, 2010.

A collection of both federal and state laws apply, but the most important are the provisions of Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 inserted in 1999 and since amended.^[10] Under this regime, if a complaint is issued about material "on the Internet" the ACMA is allowed to examine the material under the guidelines for film and video. If the material would be classified R18+ or X18+ and the site does not have an adult verification system, or would be refused classification, and is hosted in Australia, the ABA is empowered to issue a "takedown notice" under which the material must be removed from the site. If the site is hosted outside Australia, the site is added to a list of banned sites. This list of banned sites is then added to filtering software, which must be offered to all consumers by their Internet Service Providers.

*2

See the strange religious-style conviction for example of Lewontin, as noted in Alpha and Omega ... Ch. 1, the shatteringly deep foray of Professor Fred Hoyle of Cambridge, who on showing the necessity of intelligence for this universe's existence, proceeds to talk of a spectre beckoning things on, merely presenting a logically useless and empirically vacuous  way station to what is needed for space, spectre and their capacity to interact (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space ... 150, 1981). Again, he seems bemused by the idea  of genes from space, since rightly enough, he does not see them originating on earth; but this is merely changing position, when what is needed is origin, not placement. Similarly, there is need for the foundation of what the spectre talks to, or leans on, and for the spectre in the mutually active system, leading back to creation. Yet he can see no way for the generation of the admittedly vast information content by natural processes and here says so.

Professor Denton, likewise, having delivered himself of a remarkable assault on gradualistic evolution, comes back to some guiding teleological principle, subject to the same problems, and like the other case, without rationally accountable basis or naturalistically observable action (cf. Alpha and Omega ... Ch. 1, Ch. 3).

Goldschmidt's hopeful monster is merely a provision of potential in information for later selection, and the entirety of these various gaps in interface, how it all comes, why, on what basis, surges of thought without rational or empirical attestation, merely illustrate naturalism's inadequacy, when an original, eternal, competent causal basis is not admitted for the whole. That this answers all the questions and removes conundrums (Deity and Design ... Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ, Who Answers Riddles and where He is, Darkness Departs), being itself testable and verifiable, does not seem to matter; and this sort of exclusion is justly termed religious.

Mystic naturalism, trying to get 'nature' to do what it does not under any circumstances manage to do, and then imagining something, somehow, doing something (names provided) to do it IN NATURE NOW, whether you want to have it wide as space or narrow as earth, is no advance. What does not and will not yield to such entreaties to DO IT, show this creative power, is not scientifically citable as evidence of the theory, but as its disaster area. You simply move to what does show evidence of a testable character, that it can do it, has done it, and stands up to all parallel matters of law in operation, and reason, with empirical accessibility. This is the case with biblical creationism (SMR, TMR, The gods of naturalism have no go! and Deity and Design ... for example).

*3

See Ch. 1 above, endnote  B.

*4

See SMR pp. 150ff., from which the following is taken.

viii) The numerous evolutionary theories (provided to meet even distant facts) by their disagreement, the one with the other, and by their incredible character - creation arriving incognito as in 'quantum' evolution, or the so-called 'hopeful monster' concept - are in a predictable situation. These unsatisfactory theories show what one would expect: multiplication without solution. This is verification of the creation concept, Biblically invariant. That is, it is unchanging because it is Biblically defined; and because what is Biblically defined, does not need to be confined or refined. It stays in the form, function and rightness given. This case simply verifies that. That is what it had to be; that is what it is.

ix) In the Biblical formulation, this situation is also explained psychologically, and indeed spiritually. There it is declared that man is alienated from the life of God and is systematically dimensionally ignorant (Ephesians 4:18-19). Romans 1 even traces the process. This ability to account for the activity of the evolutionary thrust, personally, is also verification.

x) What contains in its ambit most areas, covers them most categorically and elegantly is deemed the desideratum: this is verification at its acme. In general, the more broadly a presentation covers all known facts, explains all relevant data and the more readily it does so, the more it is deemed to confirm itself.

This excursion into scientific theory and its nature, scientific method and its formulation, and current controversy and its analysis is presented to stimulate you into thought. Culture is not a sufficient condition for thought and acute analysis is always in order. It is what can make certain responses more incisive, sharp, clear and arresting. It helps remove confusion. Further, discoveries can the more readily be made when the cult of the forbidden is not followed. Evidence must be pondered and conclusions subjected to the discipline of reality in such a sphere.

The wrong-headed trend to reject culturally, as at one tertiary institution in this State, at which I taught, because it is not convenient, and not because it is wrong, without indeed giving it due rational interaction with those who present it, is in essence a form of cult. Is not what is culturally dictated in the dereliction of duty towards reason and evidence, a cult ? And in how many universities does one find evidence from Staff or students, of this deplorable cultic phenomenon: creation, or the grand issues of reality are forbidden.

What however is the 'cult of the forbidden' ? It is that cultural negativity, fear or subtlety (depending on motive) whereby certain matters are (ostensibly) ruled in advance of all evidence, 'out of court' - the court of culture. Whether it be deemed to be politics, religion or other field, the result is a mental crimping that too readily becomes downright dishonesty if not, indeed, hypocrisy. Certain things are out of cultural bounds, being inconsistent with desire, ethos, illusion or delusion; irrespective of their truth.

With religion, it may involve the detestable folly of pretending that evidential procedures are irrelevant, and, worse still, that it is illegal to be logical and alert with evidence and reason, lest emotions be roused. This subordinates truth to convenience and not for long may one justifiably expect the continuance of such folly, or of any society where it distinctively rules.

Reality is a dangerous enemy with whom to trifle by such policy and contempt. By this means, irrelevant irrationalities and absurdities - such as is organic evolution in terms of scientific method - may be 'allowed', in that by a mythical oversight, their merely mythical powers are ignored; whereas the more scientifically oriented view of creation is 'excluded' as 'religious'. (Cf. pp. 211-222, 226-234, 330-334 infra.) Christianity with open heart and incisive mind is quite freely availab1e for 'inspection' - and meets any intelligently administered critical test with overwhelming results, that are as unified as they are unique; and it alone systematically meets logical requirements of consistency and rationality (Refer Chapters 1, 3 and 10).

Thus this cult of the forbidden has become an anti-logical discriminatory device, protective of irrationalisms and, in educational circles, often excluding the only logical answer even from consideration!

Freedom, The Internat and the Nextg Generation