with symbolic results by command
integrated to produce the constructions from materiality which we use, or
W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
Chapter 5
LIVELY WORK IN CREATION, ITS
SURGES AND ITS DANGERS,
ITS VALUE AND ITS RESTRAINTS
SUCCEEDING IS ONLY A BEGINNING: IT MUST ALSO BE RIGHT
(cf. Possess Your Possessions Vol. 8, Ch. 2, esp. *1)
Failed materialist theories are merely application of the general logic solipsisms they possess (cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 9, Repent or Perish Ch. 7). Creationist approaches when using the intimacies of science, however, ensured of superiority as they are, because soundly logically based in principle, must be careful of some of their procedural assumptions, lest eventually, even in their own field, they should inadvertently curtail understanding and fail to combine elements of diverse aspects. Nevertheless they have much potential value.
It appears that according to recent theories, it is not only a matter of length, breadth and height, but space-time, with mass impactive on the same, and gravity an agent. Hartnett in his work, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, notes that "relativity has long taught us that space and time are not universal absolutes but depend on the circumstances of the observer. In any case, the rate at which time flows is not the same everywhere in the universe."
One of the many contradictions of the Big Bang hypothesis is this: that points in the universe separated, in theory, by billions of light years, are all at the same temperature; and the time for such equalisation is far greater than the Big Bang hypothesis allows (Starlight, Time and the New Physics pp. 23-24)...
The concept of vastly faster velocity of light is dismissed with the concept that the slowing down would expose huge blue shifts, and light from the stars not getting here till much later, the stars would become invisible. That of course assumes that the supernatural did not MAKE things happen and CREATE the things in view, using modes of institution vastly different from those of constitution. In any theory about creation, it is always not only plausible but necessary not to leave out the creative part: this, at that stage, contrary to the present phase, is what it IS. When you explicitly seek to find a model which reaches to some extent back into creation, then the 'miraculous' is the norm, in this, that the Supernatural Creator is DOING creation as theme.
Thus if you imagine a violinist creating music, and then apply the way he acts to that of the mere violinist 'interpreter' of the music, rules are broken in many directions. He does not follow the score; accepted principles are routinely violated; he does not allow for the obvious flow and so on. He is MAKING it, not playing it.
In fact, it is all subject to innovation, intervention and creation. Not so, and in nowhere like similar fashion, is the behaviour and liberty of the violinist as mere player of the music.
Similarly if God stopped the fast speed light, and thus occasioned a blue shift for the viewer at the time of the change, with whatever possible consequences after this, He can do it in any manner that is creatively attractive, appealing and revealing of what He wants to show. Creation is like that. Thus Hartnett on p. 175, Dismantling the Big Bang, notes that for the observer on earth relating the time of the slow-down, on his complex model, the blue shift could be noticed. The acceleration of expansion over, the shift might be seen. Then it is past.
This of course pre-supposes two things: firstly, that the shift was there to be seen by the observer in the concatenation of time events and observability, and secondly, that the Creator of the universe, in the very work of creation, was limited to laws of operation during their initial deposition and interchange with events. Even a surgeon may remove the attestations of the work he performed, in finishing it. Again, distance covered with primordial speed, or simple deposition, continued observability from the slower motion would simply occur as norm, unfolding events further on slowly appearing for any to see. WHAT would be seen, at the simply natural level, would depend on the point at which the slow-down occurred, if this were the method deployed.
Again, on the expanding universe concept, with SPACE itself what is expanding, there is a ready answer, as Hartnett with care seeks to show, for such temperature equalisation to have ample time, just as there is opportunity for starlight to reach the earth in good time to show those stars to man on this orb, since originally the universe on this model, was far less expanded, than it now is, space, in these terms, having extended so vastly and so fast. The space-velocity model of Hartnett allows for days on earth to equate to billions of years in fast, outward-moving space, so that time is no problem: the theoretical mathematics, it was these which required the labour!
Many things might be seen on many hypotheses, depending on their nature and modes of interaction, but in the case in point, one would perhaps expect to see the light from stars already at the earth, proceeding now far more slowly, reaching one with information, not soon from the source, but from the light already nearly here as it began smoothly to release data at another rate, from its reservoir, as it were, on the stop (that is reduction) before earth. This stoppage could occur anywhere, as desired by deity.
In any case, the way in which astronomy changes its parameters makes so many 'impossible' things 'obvious' that it is hard to be too serious about it all. This is by no means to demean the enormous effort and research and the fastidiously careful endeavours to correlate various mathematical and astronomical ideas, nor does it reduce their value; it is merely to observe that in the nature of the case, today's obstacles not infrequently become tomorrow's impact statement, and today's obvious points, tomorrow's abhorrence.
That said, however, the work of such as Hartnett does solve problems which the materialist, naturally and necessarily cannot solve. How could he ? His theory is already impossible in a basic and systematic way, in terms of logical impasse, antilogy, antinomy, solecism, reductionist fallacies and the like that to apply it is merely a waste of MORE time (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7).
Thus, for the Big Bang model of the functional atheist, we find certain astronomical objects at certain sites to be too OLD for that theory, too near the supposed start, just as structures appear too elaborate too soon, too grouped, in the same way, not fitting the theoretically desired structural impositions in the system thus proposed. Scope for solution of such a problem of course exists in the Hartnett creationist model, with its time dilation relative to the earth. Such topics as these are dealt with in TMR Ch. 7; and this is merely to mention some of the problems resulting from trying to simplify to the point of the simplistic, and to ignore rational checking and grounds for existence, motion and not mere commotion, to the point of being scientistic.
In the darkness - rather than the light - of such monistic monoliths to anti-causation (cf. Causes, Predestination and Freewill Section IV, SMR Ch. 5), which use what they deny in logical procedure, and die when exposed to empirical fact, constantly inventing what Hartnett cacallslls 'fudge factors' such as dark energy and dark matter ad lib (cf. his Starlight, Time and the New Physics and Dismantling the Big Bang), it is excellent to find original and creative work being done by those who do not subscribe to such logical vacuities as foundational to their system.
Accordingly, when in any case of the development of information, law, structure, form, formatting, inter-relationship of language or other symbolic devices in a dictionary-specification, impact and result type manufacturing analogy, and this with phase within phase, inter-connections all but innumerable, and cohesion of programming with provisions for action, all in one synthetic whole, it is useless to have matter as it is, or might be, or is thought to have been, and so forth, doing the job. The cosmos of action is not of this kind, and whatever you want to call what does this sort of thing, matter is not it. You COULD call it a mental-conceptual, command-symbol-assigning, complexly-conglomerative-multi-penetration-dynamically-inventive-time-disposing-model of-integral-character-equipped-with-ideational-flow-and-ultimate-unity: type of action. But then, what of the agent who does this ?
He needs to have the facilities for which these functionalities are the appropriate, and not the contradictory, features.
Hence it is never going to be possible to build up living things, in their fastidious mathematics, the mathematics with its intricately-operationally-brilliant modes of system in the first place, in a material environment with serenely precise specifications for its minding its own business, amid astral things derived from some orderly things imported from nowhere, with torrents of energy arriving from the same nothing which envelops all, so that nothing may come from it, as logic dies. It is fatuous to use reason while reviling, or conniving in its demise.
Starting with orderly, organised, mathematically empowered entities enshrining operational powers imported from nowhere, just because some other things depart, as if death created life and nothing created what dies, is not really short of antinomy. If this is not mere antilogy, then call it philosophy (cf. Deity and Design ... Section 8); but every canon of logic is mere fodder to its chattering concepts, as if it were uncontrollably clashing its teeth, in a world where concept and law, more and more amazing, develop before our increasingly knowledgeable eyes as mankind, chews the materialist cud, which is distasteful, sour and coming ultimately from cows that are not there.
There is another path. Thus, for example, Hartnett is with some innovation and considerable success, developing further the concept of a five dimensional field for astronomy, pursuing elements of the work of Einstein and Carmeli. Thus, space-time, formed by adding the latter to the three-dimensional, to form a composite with its various rules, now has in addition to gravitational curving for complexity and precision of orientation and so operation, the increment of space-velocity (in some arenas) or replacement of space-time (in others*1), so that this is the element to be noted.
With this, using former work of Carmeli, and others, he is dispensing with the need for dark matter and negative energy, items which he deems fillers or fudge factors, never verified, inventions in massive amounts for materialistic conceptions, which assuming much, now assume more. In fact, in the end it is all assumption, since the moment you depart, as Paul Davies did, from nothing as the prevenient thing (though that of course is in itself a self-contradiction, and hence the change of that scholar on this point was a wise departure, to that extent), you merely import from nowhere (which of course, itself, is not by definition, there at all), what you want, as fillers for ideas, which given existence in this or that form and format, continue to evolve, dipping into the grab bag of innovation and marvel (one with no bottom and base, no cause and no meaning) for arisings to follow in the best, abhorrently condemned modes of school-boy non-science.
The scramble-gamble of evolutionism is continually trying to find NON-OBSERVABLE naturalistic basis for things imagined in the past; and this is neither science nor logic of any kind. If you are trapped, in defiance of causation (cf. Causes) in the present as the lesson-task-master for the past, it is like someone with a sports care, insisting on restricting the very field of enquiry of its origin, to what the thing now does, in trying to account for it, evidently moved by some obsessive overshoot of logic. Then, however, even if so circumscribed by erratic assumption, it would be at least some relaxation of the anti-scientific restriction of fields of enquiry, if you did at least follow what you FIND in your circumscribed field of imagination.
Failing on both counts makes this kind of approach farcical to the point that it is not possible to take it seriously, its logic contradicting the basis of logic, except to the extent one might try to rescue some from its mortal fibrillations and endlessly groping failures, in pursuing results of imports of much from nowhere. Some of these failures, Hartnett outlines in Dismantling the Big Bang.
Let us however return to what is at least concerned to be precisely in conformity with existing data and causal conception, and we find first the Einsteinian mathematics involving both simplicity and profundity, and then this Carmeli conception thrust, with its use of much of Einstein as a sub-set. As it is developed, it faces theoretically what practically is the whole phase of the observations in the empirical universe, sought out as far as may be, a spatial totality and time-co-ordinating system, inundated with conceptual manipulation, ideational coherence and operations in what could almost, justly be called a 'mathematical universe.' That of course is merely the structural side; but that is our present topic.
Hartnett extends the applications and applies the extension to solve the dark matter and 'dark', negatively pushing energy, and cosmological constant fudges - that is, assumptions without evidence, conceived because the procedures do not work without them! Whereas the Big Bang requires a negative pressure to keep the galaxies apart, a thing imagined, Carmeli, we learn, uses merely the normal pulling gravity, a non-exotic and known element in the affair. Types of things unfound, ad hoc importations for a failed theory, are not needed. What IS known is used instead, to meet other knowns, such as observational data!
While these more observation-based and tested theories are useful for observing how the logical flaw manifests itself in the application of the ideas of something-from-nothing (in quality, quantity, logic or any of the cosmoi *2), in the entirety of what the universe manifests and displays, yet it is well as noted re Humphreys, not too quickly to assume the absence of the direct action of the Creator, when tracing out the results of this or that construction-on-the-way.
It is ALWAYS in ALL creation, the option of the creative artist or writer or dramatist to make introductions into the productions, themselves the direct results of the will and power and INTENTION, of the maker. In some cases, it is imperative NOT to incorporate the modes of entry or removal into the visible result, this being the object of the imagination-into-reality parade; while in others it is important that one does so. It depends on the CONCEPTION, to be created, the IMPACT and the purpose of the impact. Nevertheless, the progress in application and resolution through such theories as creationists are developing - answering and meeting serially the categorical problems of the naturalists, already guaranteed unsolvable because they reject prevenient, correlatively causal necessity - is useful.
It is rather like the case where one smells an horrific odour. It is apparent then that something is vastly out of order. As one traces the interstices of the exploding factory, or other cause, one finds more and more rational grounds for the appalling result, and eventually solves it. This however does not come through excluding in advance, any purposive action, or insisting on spontaneous combustion.
As in any competently conceived, coherent and unitary construction, when you check it, test it, understand it, you see the concept-method-means-coherence combinations in both the realms of the practical and the theoretical, perhaps even discerning the modes of transition from the one to the other. Where the powers involved are categorically beyond you, then interviewing those responsible is apt. Testing what they say is then scientific. It is not scientific to exclude them, and the results of relevant interviews, duly tested in their claims, are not scientifically excluded but included. It IS scientific to consider the consequences of their assertions, the coherence of evidence with these, and with the nature and direction of the purpose. A match is decisive. A resolution of problems has the same effect. Both together leave what a priori excludes the fit, the equivalent of a lock-out, worked against rationality, managing superbly oblivious, in contrary assumptions that do not work.
In fact, as to these concoctions, coherences, concept-performance combinations as discernible in finding and applying rigorously precise laws, they involve highly specialised combinations of correlatives, both logical and operational. These practical realities are not merely the opposite of chance (a term applicable to a given system in its own interstices, by itself, relative to the absence of interfering purpose), but within the cosmos of conception-construction.
The mathematics of the construction met by the mind of man, in the world outside, and that in the mind of man, cohering like brothers, there is a vast land of opportunity to discover with what made the mind of man logical, the logic in the field of enquiry, namely the universe; for the one fits into the other, like a high-grade and specialised spanner, thrust in the right manner and place, into a most neatly contrived, specialist car.
They are, quite simply, functional correlatives, and the base is logic, together with the empirical discoveries of principle, innovation, data formatting and information to BE formatted, set in a domain of conceptual contriving power and creative intelligence, information deposition, maintenance and application and the substances necessary for the commands given, to be performed. These are all delivering the composites for the operation of the creations themselves (like cars running BECAUSE made for running), in time and on time, with facilitators, like enzymes for proteins, in place, as the ground-plans in the DNA order it about and the mini-motors also specified, located and made operative in the apt manner, help to build them.
It is a field of operation with the unique criteria of the overarching, logical constraint summoning derivatives into existence through what the Bible calls the LOGOS, the cause, order, word, the instituting, effectuating, conceiving, controlling Creator. Moving into the field from the eternity of Godhead, this Logos, the Lord, provides the induction of matter and the transience of matter to be formatted as a format for mind and the whole as a receptacle for the spirit of man, who tries to operate all according to his own will, or the will of God who made him.
These, then, are the operational cosmoi, the conceptual cosmoi, the command cosmoi, the integrative cosmoi of dynamic reality. They are not something else. It is utterly vain to try to find vocabulary for items which have a specific, specialised entity-action observability, which does not connote what is denoted.
In man, it has almost always to appear, this yearning within him for explanation, correlation, rationality, systematisation; for in him is the system in operative though derived form, of what runs in the universe and the two like twins, like being together, as the match is productive of understanding and functional facility for man, and the Maker, having imparter, moves to impart still further, from origination to maintenance, from this to introduction and communication, and from this to the creative solution to the self-induced plight of man.
Logic and its constraints, the empirical and its constructions, the laws and their elucidative operations, in man and in his field of observation, they match as do what is created by the same originative LOGOS which makes of logic a servant, its instruments caused, its constructions contained, the imagination back of it implemented.
This creative imagination in man, in logical constraint for meaning and facility, indeed utility itself, is something to which matter is neither heir nor subject. It is an impacted butt for impartation, not a subject for consideration. It acts. Mans seeks.
That yearning and aspiration in man, in turn, is a resultant of the correlativity objectively discernible in the mind of man and its modes, as a creative force, and found in the productions of what made Him, as a mode of action. What is in man in his derived mind-spirit capacities appears in the rest of the creation as environmental ground for discovery. (Human) MIND as made by (instituting) mind thus investigates MATTER as made by (instituting) MIND, and finds for its own mental operations that it can be very mindful of the matter, since its internal and subjective parameters and powers virtually mirror the rationality in the modes inherent for such work.
It is on display in creation, and its laws. It is found, the structural gift of the internal operational dynamic in man which issues, when rightly applied, in mini-creations of his own, always subject to whatever constraints of law and logic have been made operative in the systems to which he looks, in observing the universe outside, and himself, in the inner domain. .
Theories, then, which take account of this, and move where the total presentation of the model takes account of all these things, have enormous facility not only because they meet the areas of observation by description, but because the LOGOS being the basis, they can progressively find verification, for what logic in causative power made, logic searches out, as well it may, since man is statedly in the Bible, in the image of God. This correlation is verification.
This is quite the opposite where such is ignored or disdained. Trouble arises as if a terrorist militant, n the information-science surge, with its laws, as in the astronomical impasses reached by the materialists, apparent long before they are applied in unworkable theories, where, quite simply, in this way or that, at this level or the other, what is missing in the causal efflux, is ASSUMED. Since this becomes constitutionally, a illogical question-begging, an exclusion of cause and an inclusion of result at will, as the work of caprice proceeds, it exists operationally as a smuggling operation, bringing in the powers of the Creator without acknowledgement (cf. SMR pp. 422Eff.). How ludicrous this can become, is illustrated well by Hartnett (Dismantling the Big Bang) when he notes that two of the outstanding minds in their fields in ancient Universities have clearly failed fundamentally to meet the requirements in their alleged cover!
Thus on p. 59, relative to Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, we read that "a few sentences after Professor Hawking claimed that his big-bang theory had explained all the evidence, that scholar admitted that among a few remaining unanswered questions was the origin of stars and galaxies." In other words, to explain the universe, you engage in an operation which leaves out most of its macro-structure! He notes how Professor Carl Sagan of Cornell University, says of Hawking's book, that this leaves the Creator nothing to do.
He could have said, then, rather that all that was left to do in the universe, on this model, was for God to make the stars and galaxies. It seems rather like saying that you have now explained how a car makes itself, with all its mathematical parameters, with no mathematics required. How ? Why, you assume it done, and then note it needs no doing. Causatively this is catastrophic, a mortal wound! (cf. Causes and SMR Ch. 5)
By studying cars, you find out about their whole causal basis: here is a work available not only for untrained mechanics, but for those of no intelligence whatever, morons being permitted to apply as supernumerary, but for their own happiness, to do the thing (since matter has less intelligence than that, when you move ex-intelligence, a chief point at issue). You can explain how the car is thus made, and need nothing, nothing at all, but certain laws and other non-chance items, to have it done without any skill at all! Marvellous! In a Degree course, you have shown how to fill in the application papers, and all that is left to do is ... the Degree, the substantive work.
Again, the way the thing starts, that little matter, this is left out, a 'mystery'. So far from these things, however, as many like to declare, being matters of presuppositions, or prejudice, take your pick, they are matters of integral necessity, based on an irremovable causality as noted before, and this pre-selects if you are to use reason at all (cf. SMR Ch. 3). It is merely then a matter of following reason to what it dauntlessly requires and verifying empirically what results, as shown in some detail, in sequence, in SMR. The status of the whole is unique and comprehensive as exhibited in the work,
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.
What then ? Assume this and that, INCLUDING that it starts, and you will do fine, if you import all the laws and procedures and make the results out of the usual grab-bag of nothing, filled with the choices of works of intellectual calibre, which stick around somehow, as byproducts of nothing, even though it CAN have nothing to do with it. Invent the situation while you are at it, and the laws of causation so that you can trace things as they progress, while ignoring these in having the things to begin at all. Why not just right a fairy story; why bother with factual requirements and empirical reality at all!
The beginning ? A given. What begins ? A given. What is achieved ? Omit nearly all. Why it is achieved ? use a phrase, but don't indicate the phasing-dynamics. It is simply a mode of inventing things that a given imagined start, together with addition of the power to proceed (like baking soda in a recipe), and the spheres and correlative conceptual cosmoi which must operate in their own domains, all brought from nowhere at the right time, and then you can, without actually explaining ANY of it, only showing results if this and that be GIVEN, reach the point where the whole universe lies open before your mystic mentality. With Hawking, at that, you might elect to be leaving out stars and galaxies of course, and man's mind naturally (don't probe!), and his imaginative, willing spirit (don't move into reality, keep it simple). Assume in bits, arrivals, contrivances, conceptualised marvels, researchable and identifiable as such, place all in a vitamiser of imagination and find orderly froth working like a robot in much, as a result. But why bother! You get what you assume, but assumption does not make anything.
It becomes in all gravity, a parallel to writing children's stories, with the addition that instead of having, for example Peter Pan FLY in (how, why ?), you have systems come in.
You can then indulge imagination, gloriously free of factual BASES as of the structural constraints of logic, and rather like cross-word enthusiasts, find out what WOULD happen, if you take the lead of the clue and fill it in within the bounds. You satisfy your puzzle, after first writing it down. Congratulations.
Now having said this, one must nevertheless face the fact that brilliant and helpful as some of these developing theories are, notably expanding from the work of Christians who are scientists, and showing capacity for explaining major and continually unresolved problems for the nothing base, as they are, there is both a reason for this, and a caution. The reason ? It is because of their in-principle realism and conceptual integration, that they prevail; for in any such realm of work, the leaving out of the characterisable operative cause MUST leave mere assumptions and presumptions and antilogies sprinkled about like powder in an actress's dressing room (that is, the result of directed action).
Once elegant hypothesis is formed by the enquirer, relating with structural care to evidence in the way scientific method is justly famous for prescribing, rather than his seeking to force non-related theories onto intimately comprehensible series, situations and compressions of information; and once such a species of hypothesis as this, is rationally and realistically set to work, the payload being intelligently examined, at least we are in the path of science, not specious scientism. Accordingly, when this sort of work is done, the comparison of the theories and their resolving power is pathetic: Hartnett for example in the two works cited, extensively indicates the flaws multiple and mounting, in what seeks to avoid the basis of it all.
The one meets the needs with some care, the other leaves it with an intensive disregard for the norms of the method. One examines with logic, the logical array, the other rejects whole domains out of hand, and has irreparable antinomies resulting. When you go into detail, the principles behind, merely show themselves in impasses, such for example as Harnett notes in Dismantling the Big Bang, pp. 112ff.. The resolution of chronic problems such as these, and the fudge factors of dark matter as a large fraction of the universe, and dark energy, never observed, is one of the results of his presentation, using concepts both from Einstein and Carmeli, on a Christian base, and in his Starlight, Time and the New Physics, he explores in some depth, the concepts involved, and compares their performance with ostensible options.
This presents one of the more developed creationist scenarios, and has a very considerable plausibility; though of course, the work of Humphreys awaits further development, and the possibilities of creative enterprise being unintentionally excluded at any point remains a considerable caution.
Meanwhile, there remains the stark necessity of creation from what is eternal and unconstrained by nature, the rational option that scorns 'nothing', creation indeed whether
|
|
of matter with its
laws and intricate bundling and constraints, or |
|
|
of life with its
composed information with symbolic results by command integrated to produce the constructions from materiality which we use, or |
|
|
of information
with its refusal to be created by material fiddling*3,
or |
|
|
of a structural basis for those very different functions, mentality and spirituality: |
this is pursued in its various domains with consistent verificatory joy
(cf. Design or Deity ... Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ).
When you find the actual basis (the name is 'God' and his identity is as shown, in the Bible), test it, the revelation and the reason, and match it all, then on such a procedure, finding the base, and the basis, and then the results and testing these against both the structure stated and the results discernible, there is facility and especially consistent, concerted rationality and applicability in all things, on a highly testable basis. In particular, we find that this leads to and exhibits additional and confirmatory attestations, as in this field of astronomy.
This obviously gives to consequential hypothesis a profound advantage, since the impossible is hard to describe, and the anti-causal dressed in the language of causality for its very statement, is impossible to render coherent: mere antinomy. In other words, start with rationality and end with it; but scamp the necessities of your procedure and naturally your mathematics will fail, your hypotheses erode, your calamitous consequences will rise, and psychologically, the passion for omitting the truth may become volcanic. Such is man without God, with his Cult of the Forbidden*4, when he seeks to exclude any domain from his view, in seeking answers.
As a result, such methods are leaving those who want special circumstances with no base for their information, their products quite dead in the starry universe of their imaginations, while these mental scintillations are controlling their thoughts and inserting their needs, as if data were dead together with logic as twins in mini-coffins. On the other hand, fine predictions are being made and verified. In the case of Dr Humphreys, for example, a quite amazing prediction based on a creationist, scientific model, gave in a specific case, magnetic results for enormously more accurate*5 than any from materialism's lairs.
Accordingly, Hartnett at this stage has found a way of making an illusory seeming dark matter and negative energy, distinct demands of the Big Bang, never verified, far less occasioning the hypothesis, to become simply unnecessary. By this means, his approach currently removes an embarrassment by having a basis which does not require unevidenced and unattested ingredients, but finds scope in what IS found, for explanation. As so often, when strict adherence to logical principle and evidence were used with some constraint, to develop the idea, it is found as it develops, to fit with considerable aplomb into the field to which it is directed. That of course is another of the features sought in terms of scientific method.
Now for the caution! While then, such theories are of vast value, and even if they eventually develop in this way or that, they act as controlled, inventive, innovative endeavours to match empirical facts and logical principles as more and more data become available about the information on which this universe with its laws has come to operate, and further, they represent scientific thrusts at the top level: yet they must not move too confidently. Thus, in terms of blue shift, consider the creative possibilities. ONCE your model is creation (as logic requires cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!). then instead of its being mal apropos to bring in the Creator, it becomes more so to omit His activities. Whether with man (on small scale and with limited scope) or with God (with no limits, but highly expressive in logical formats), the case is this. Creation involves creativity, and not mere conformity to what the created thing is (literally) disposed to do, once it is created. There are liberties above the laws to be instituted, for the moulding of situations which do not depend on the limitations of what HAS BEEN created.
Hence, if you are moving steel girders about on an upper floor of a building site's construction, you do not WANT the sway and vibration to be part of the system. It merely is a nuisance or constraint. If you have the power, you would tend to annul these oddities which might be applicable were you not present in creative mode. The INTERFERENCE with the 'natural', that is the mode of the final product, is as natural to creation, as it is unnatural or better, unusual, at the merely material level, without it.
Hence with the blue shift, God might well, as in the girder analogy, decide that He did not want this or that natural resultant of moving this or that feature, velocity or radioactivity, since this was irrelevant to His ideas of construction, and perhaps contrary to the best mode of construction. He would, to pursue the analogy, 'still' the vibration, just as a skilled engineer might stop waggling by this or that device, except that God has an option of using a device, or acting direct, as in the creation itself. That is His affair.
At all times, therefore, one must not use extant modes to 'control' one's model of nascent modes, inchoate activities in the formation phase. This applies to relativity, Einsteinian or that of the expanded mode of Carmeli. With this constraint, however, not to go too far, and not simply to guess what the Lord did, whether by using Occam's razor or any other close shave with reality, there is vast scope for empirically constrained theories, and resultant verification on a competitive basis as is normal to scientific method.
While, as Hartnett in detail shows, the Big Bang has so many problems, that obviously it should have been dumped long ago, pending something that does not abundantly contradict its own premises, in favour of newer theories, such as those more recently made more popular, of which Arp has been an empirical source, whatever his constructions, and Carmeli a mathematical entrepreneur, Humphreys a surging source of imaginative concept and prediction, and Hartnett a strong worker in mathematical and astronomical development in a coherent sort of way: we must beware of too much assumption in the field of creative action IN creation.
Thus the laws are applicable to the thing when made, and not in the making. Coherence there may be with concepts and purposes and this is sound; but the extent to which laws made manifest IN the created sphere operate DURING its creation, where obviously the situation is not yet complete: this is the divine and not the human option to determine. When therefore, status quo parameters are used in working backwards, it is always very possible to go too far in importing backwards what now is to the way in which it is imagined it came to be.
Although the vast resolving power found in new creationists approaches as they develop, may become admirable, as we come nearer and nearer to something rational, realistic, empirically commanded and subjectible to test, OUR concepts of Occam's razor being based on our ideas of point and purpose at any level, such knowledge is not given to man in his current estate. The word of God has shown what He will, and His works what they do; but the modes of His deployment during creation are his alone.
Often, even in our own little creative works, it is not the simplest, most direct manner or method that is chosen, as for example, when a father is showing a son how to mow the lawn. Mow it ? a purpose ? but of course! But may you not mow like that when you mow ? asks the son, being playful or inventive or seeking to find options. Of course not! says the father, who has a vry specific purpose in view. Again, he may mow in a given way in order to teach the child either a practical or a moral lesson, to apply at some other time. There may be a SUBSIDIARY purpose in this case, to make of it a teaching lesson for the child. Being creative is a role of its own. Being God is an infinite grandeur, and His majesty is to be sought out, and His desires discovered. In the Bible, it is the great delight that what is needed is given, and what is to be discovered is left to test the mind of man, and delight it; and what is wrong is given the mode of putting it right, and what is foul is given the focus of the Cross of Christ, to give it a light which takes no time at all to arrive in the soul of the saved sinner.
Indeed, all of these arenas of thought and work and observation, information, revelation, rationality and discovery, they provide a basis for a lively fellowship both with the Lord and with each other; and for many, this has become a stringent test.
NOTES
See Starlight, Time and the New Physics p. 65.
See for example:
The Desire of the Nations Ch. 2, Epilogue,
Little Things Ch. 3 (esp. *3),
Beauty of Holiness Ch. 4,
Dancers ... and Answers Chs. 3, 5,
Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed ... Ch. 4, and see Gitt,
Thy Word is Wonderful Ch. 5.
Strength of the Planets’ Magnetic Fields
There is evidence that every planet and large moon in our solar system, including earth, has—or once had—a magnetic field surrounding it. And since the earth’s creation, its field has been steadily decaying (losing strength), for which Horace Lamb created a model over 100 years ago. More recently (1984), creationist physicist D. Russell Humphreys developed a theory to explain the strength of the magnetic fields of the earth and the other planets.
Test Result: Voyager 2’s Measurements
If the earth were even 20,000 years old, its magnetic field would have been so strong as to make life impossible, based on the present rate of decay. The theories of Humphreys and Lamb can be used to determine how much the magnetic field of an astronomical object should decay after 6,000 years at the present decay rate. The numbers that resulted from Humphreys’ theory not only matched the strengths of the known magnetic fields at the time but also successfully anticipated Voyager 2’s measurements of the magnetic field of Uranus (in 1986) and Neptune (in 1990). These results not only confirmed a creationist theory but also helped confirm that the solar system really is as young as the Bible claims.