W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
70,000 to ONE
Crusade against the God of Creation ?
The Advertiser, November 5, 2005
An Imaginary Angelic Conversation Resumed
Telling Stories about Stories and the Crystalline Fire
I think it is time, since we are assigned to earth, that we generated some sort of first names.
Suppose you become Peter and I Paul ?
Yes ... but someone might suppose this was some sort of extra-terrestrial discourse on the part of the two apostles, which could lead to problems, since it is not.
True, people are so quick to be slick. Let us make it then, Wing and Zing.
Yet others might think this appallingly ... well, you know, light.
We are angels of light.
I would have supposed such levity would not fit on your halo.
Very well then, but I have some reservations.
Ah! but angelic love cannot have that: let us make it then, Frank and Wing, then together we become frank wing, which could be thought of as a phrase signifying angels who speak out.
Did you see that article about the 70,000 who allegedly are as of one mind on the subject of anti-creationism.
Yes I did.
What did you think of it ?
Well, of course, I have not been involved in human affairs as long as you, Frank, but it is probably the most confused, illicit, inept and acutely misrepresenting document I have ever seen on this topic.
One can readily understand that response. After all, did you notice in the midst of the endeavours to make creationism, the clear choice of reason, and the necessary result of the logical use of scientific method*1, to be some kind of degeneracy disease of the mind, or myopic distress of the understanding, or even some kind of occult rubbish ?
See WHAT, in the midst of this propagandising manoeuvre ?
See that little reference to a little story ?
Oh that ? Yes, I did notice it. I suppose with his query mark after it, the guy who said it, or who was involved, meant to imply that the Genesis account of creation is some little story, and that is all the Bible has to say on it. Don't you think ?
I do think and I think so. It is so absurd that it is difficult to plumb the depths of such confusion.
We had better try, for angels are supposed to be helpful to the heirs of salvation, and so should know what they are dealing with.
One would almost think that
the account beginning, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth*2,
then proceeds to show the steps and the kinds He made,
and the heavenly bodies,
and the end product, man, made in His image
- which not being geometrical, since God is always said to be a Spirit, rather indicates a likeness sufficient for discourse together such as is shown shortly in the ensuing text in Genesis:
would be regarded as something more than some little story!
One would. After all, unless unbelief is the first requirement for exegesis, as if not believing Shakespeare could have existed were the first and necessary step in trying to understand any of his words in a play, it would seem that what indicates that God is, that He commenced the entirety of the arrival of the heavenly and earthly bodies, that He did it in stated steps, appointing objects with mutual purposes, and man with the central purpose, would be viewed rather differently than as a little story. To try to foist off the concept of some little story to cover the creation of the universe by the Spirit who is God, for the purposes which He states and in the style that matches, found in Genesis 1, is more ludicrous than saying that the Olympic Dam project to be wrought, DV, in South Australia, is some little dig.
It is in fact to be one kilometre deep, and several in lateral dimensions, one of the greatest open cuts in the world.
It would be entirely ridiculous to call it some little dig ?
It would be ridiculous to call it some dig!
How much more ridiculous is it to call the creation of the entire earth, and the heavens, where one kilometre is like one grain of sand relative to all the sand on all the beaches and in all the silicon deposits of this kind in the world, some little story.
Yes, but mortals do that, Wing. A man makes 5,000 billions of dollars and his neighbour, who is perhaps jealous, says one day to him, Hi Jack! I hear you have made some little cash recently ?
It is a method of degradation, unless intended to be comic, which is not the case in this ridiculing and irrational article about the 70,000 in The Advertiser. THIS much at least, I have learned.
Well done, you may be fit for your Doctor of Wing degree one day, soon!
Or imagine saying to Warne, the bowler, Hi man, I hear you can hurl down some little red cricket ball in a way which stirs things up a bit. Takes all types!
That would be close to a declaration of war, unless comic.
Comedy is what much of that article is, but I don't think the writer of it realised it, do you ?
Hard to know. It is certainly presented as if it were at least in part, meant to be taken seriously. After all, he is asking us to see that a whole lot of Ph.D. scientists are something that would be below the stage of twits, isn't he ?
You could put it that way, I suppose, since hundreds of them are creationists; though to me it seems he or she, or whoever is back of all this, is going rather further.
How do you mean - 'further' - isn't that enough ?
We'll come back to that. In the meantime, I want to pursue the 'little story' confusion. After all, the account presented as by the CEO of the largest company on earth, of how the vast works of his company were changing the entire economy of the earth, would not unless in comedy of some style or subtlety, be represented as some little story, would it ?
Hardly. If you meant to be believed at all, you might say that it was an account of earth-moving proportions, for which all the world would be the beneficiaries, or would be harmed, if you thought it was all a huge environmental mistake and did not want to consider any of the advantages; but you would never seriously say it was some little commercial shinty.
No, you wouldn't; and the creation of the heavens and the earth is no little story, but the account of the largest material action ever known, with ALL of mankind only ONE of the results.
Obviously, if you take it as something needing description, you could not unless propagandising call it even some large story. It would be a universal account of the creation of the universe, man and the spirit of man*2A by which he agrees or disagrees; for if his agreement were merely the reaction of something without meaning and knowledge, he could not meaningfully talk about it, but since this is assumed obviously not to be so, it is clear that he thinks his discourse is meaningful, and hence equipped with objective perception of the field of review. He is dealing with what has the criteria of spirit: that is, freedom from control by material devices, rendering it idle chatter through the teeth with the routine movement of the tongue avoiding being sliced by them, and equipment with conceptual ability to use verbal symbols in order to present reality*2B. It is much more but not less.
Frank, I can hardly understand humans. They create some idea of a system which CANNOT have meaning, since it CANNOT have truth since there is none, at the ultimate level, only reactions to what goes on, and then they TELL you what the meaning is, although their relativistic ploy would make it a meaningless term.
It is simply part of their confusion. They want God to go, and they CANNOT, simply can't avoid using His presence in all their disputations, since they are made that way; hence they engage in such anomalies of confusion and comic tragedies of expression as you find in this article.
But this story bit ? How on earth could they be so inaccurate, as to try to win a point in an argument by making a gross and apparently propagandising reference to the whole of the beginning of all things in which man has a part, other than God Himself, as a little story or a story, for that matter!
Oh, you see, they do not believe in the necessities that epistemology and metaphysics imposes (you know as shown in SMR Chs. 1, 3, and 10, and in TMR with REASON, REVELATION and the REDEEMER), because reason is not their modus operandi, whether or not they desire it to be. Antilogies are the rule for that; as soon as they come near the origin of things by means of adequate causation, things with their laws and procedures and integration of collateral considerations enabling myriad*3, massive and at the same time intimate correlation, they stall.
So they fall, but that hardly gives them the right to call the account of all creation, and of man's probation and fall, and of the entire consequences of this, so that the scourges and plagues, whether in heart, as in the al Qaeda types of human beings, or in the environment as in the radioactive type of slow cancer, or in the meteorological field, as in recurrent typhoons, or in the logical field, as here, some little story. Romans 5, 8, Genesis 1, 3, John 1, I Corinthians 15 are all harmoniously interwoven, like a brilliant and striking tartan, on these basics.
No, but it is revealing. If you can call this part of your opponent's position by such a hideous caricature of what it is, WHEN appealing to the impropriety imagined in taking too seriously such a thing, it is apparent that this is simply begging the question. IF he is wrong, he is wrong: how brilliant this is!
It is a defilement of logic, of truth and of objective argumentation, but that is the way it is, and having shown that, let's leave it, and consider what else is new. How vastly does the crystalline fire of the truth burn, in the midst of these pallid substitutes for reality!
Analysing Reality in a Report
There's more to that fire even than that, even in this preliminary feature. The entire history of man depends on who he is, how he was made, who made him and why it was done; and the entire welfare of man depends on facing his failures, realising his follies, repenting of his ruination of his equipment and seeking the Maker for review, repair and restoration. It is the same in life as one lives, for where is to be found, other than Christ, the man without sin ? Who has waited on his Maker since birth, and sought to keep His way, and DONE so at all times ?
How many have even tried ? How many have created false gods with false credentials, like that of naturalism, which has system come out of nowhere, the 'where' for somewhere to come from nothing, and means of proceeding from the first absent, the tests to show it without exception negative, since information has never been found to increase categorically without intelligence, the litter of failures never absent: while creationism has NO such problem at ANY point, and having many implications of this divine account in Genesis, meets every one of them triumphantly.
Yet they even dare to USE the word 'science' in the midst of this folly, abort scientific method, laugh at the only account ever to be testable and ignore the fact that its predictions, as well as its content in report, are always fulfilled, even when it is not only impossible for man to do such things, but ludicrous, since ONE error in ANY way or ANY place would throw out all the other gear and like a step in a mathematical proof, reduce the result to ruins. That's the ultimate test of prophecy: the heights it scales with the results it gets.
Yet it flows and goes without error, jot and tittle, all that the Bible says. It culminates in Christ, whose history, response from His own nation, death date*3B, works and ways, the results of whose life are precisely as foretold among the Gentiles, whose specifications for the end of the Age are precisely as now*3C, whose Gospel as preached for two millenia was foretold by Isaiah centuries before He came*3D; and yet they talk of 'science' as if witless disregard of logic, empirical evidence in biology, archeology, current news and logic meant less than nothing, and continue with an engine of desire*3E which belches out smoke, and can continue only by ...
Wing, you're on fire.
After seeing that crystalline fire in the word of God, and standing near to the Lord in my service, I would be ashes if not alight. It is only by burning that I live. I am built to burn, and He makes His ministers a flame of fire ...
More fire to you! I could not agree more on this atrocity practised against science and children alike. I weep for both of them. No wonder Newton, perhaps the greatest with Einstein, of the scientists, was so utterly convinced on creation: no wonder his thoughts were well steeped in spiritual things, who could look with such expectation to physical ones, as deposits of divinity, the only adequate ground or attested basis ever proposed or found anywhere in any philosophy, science or religion.
Well, the idea of a TEST for man being dismissed with the rest of the creation of the universe, in this way, whereas since we objectively being tested repeatedly and sometimes many times in any one day, as supervisors readily opine concerning their wards, what is so strange about being tested by the Creator ?
If a teacher can test you, how much more the Creator. There is nothing odd or inconsistent in this, and in fact since it IS the case that such tests are being objectively made constantly, it is strange to buck the bronco at this little fact. It harmonises with all known reality. The Engineer is also the Judge, the eternal cause of our ceaseless round of induced causation, also surveys the effects, including that of liberty (you could see *7 in the notes, Wing). In the Bible, the entire compass is carefully explained, the conditions, the results, the remedy and the impelling power of truth, its steadfast resistance, and the fact that the Lord will not always strive with the spirit of man, since it would fail. You see it in Genesis 1-3, Romans 5:12ff.l, Romans 8:18ff., in Job, in Isaiah ...
The results too are obvious enough: what is the problem with such a harmonious explanation of the joint appearance of colossal good, as in aesthetics which insects could never begin to appreciate, and even the powers of man can scarcely rise to grasp in full, as likewise in abundant types of suitable and delicious food and the use of a design (if you call 'design' what has the qualities we noted in our last discourse) of the most exquisite sophistication even known in this world where matter plays a part - called the human body. With man's witless wanders - and how war in detail exemplifies the depth of them, there came also plague and poison ?*3F
Their faceless fairy tales are merely an augmentation to their comical misconstruction of the Genesis report*3G. They talk of one aspect in the laboratory of life, or in the dynamics of construction, as if it were apart, even while demeaning its sequential classical form and its movement from the stage to the players, from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2, as if the idea were in some small way difficult. The difficulty is that their unbelief appears to make the intense logic of the biblical presentation offensive at every step, like some divorcee who cannot STAND his former wife.
Here, however, it's more like their husband, their God, who does not flit because of their lack of faith, and misuse of reason.
True indeed. The movement in the entire scripture from this beginning, step by step, test, fall, provisions, results, remedy, steps in remedy and so on, makes of this desolatory misconception of Genesis and indeed the entire Bible, a howler. Scientists or anybody else NEED to know the topics they defame, inflame or whatever else. Otherwise, you get this sort of degraded denunciation, which as we shall see later, it really is.
On the other hand, to revert to facts: You get the actual realities of the sequential setting in Genesis and developments set out for you in places like Dayspring, the correlation with Christ and the New Testament and the entire structure of thought and cohesion of concept biblically in sites like The Biblical Workman Ch. 2 , turning to books like Romans. You'll find the coverage of the nature of such things as beginnings, what they are and the falsity of continuum assumptions as grounds for initialisation action, to be a common red herring, in Ch. 7 op. cit., as in biology. Here too is to be seen the tie-up of John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1, an ultimate in conceptual integration in the Bible.
To this, in Ch. 7, together with the Nature of Beginnings, you gain reference to some of the verificatory realities, with a look at ill-considered leaps which have been made in this constantly and inveterately failing aspect of knowledge falsely so-called, and certainly this branch of it, 'science', hijacked by some for such abuses, likewise falsely so-called. .
In addition, in terms of exposition, Bright Light Ch. 10 has Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 showing cumulative and culminative concepts, together with attention to the bindings of Isaiah 45. The Bible is not logically separable into bits, any more than a car is, if you want to understand it in terms of total purpose. The design is continual, constant, self-amplifying but not varying, cumulative and culminating in Christ, the Creator who acted for His creation, visiting them in person in a manner not calculated to be a pleasure!
They seem to ignore the findings of their own domain, science, in this respect in such inveterate and unsubstantiated ramblings, even to turn the facts on their heads, accuse where they lack and and attack what creationism has, frequently showing an appalling ignorance, not knowing what is there, as if E= MC2 might as well be E= MC3, if we would translate this into some other field ...
Yes, yes, Wing, but don't forget these are only some of the remarks made by some who are cited; we can assume that the others would be appalled and say something if these foozles were not acceptable, however ... have they protested ? and in fact such things are often said by just such persons.
Why then do any of them so proceed, alienated from both science and the Bible, misrepresenting both ...
They may not intend to do so, of course.
Should we then say, incorrectly representing both the Bible and the verificatory realities of science in this sphere ?
That is assuredly true, calamitously so, and from the Bible, predicted to be so, not only in the past, but with emphasis as our Age of the Gospel ends (II Peter 2:1ff., 3:3-5, II Timothy 3:1-5ff., Matthew 24, Jeremiah 23:30). They act very much like the false prophets of old, for you see, in this case they are telling us all about religion, and in this respect, they are in the same line of business as those false prophets, and like them, they are making claims certainly not substantiated, and ignoring evidential realities which are readily available.
Why then do they so misguidedly fulminate and seek to make the children take their prodigious errors by what is little other than force, making schools teach only error here ? Is it not like some sort of envy ? Down with what is better than I ? By what are they then motivated ?
Making a Substitute by Fairy Tales
Perhaps, Wing, by the fact that NOTHING else explains it. Nothing else can give meaning to truth presented in these areas AS truth; for without absolute truth being in existence, you could not consistently claim to be stating it; and so why deny it or affirm it, and above all, talk about it, unless desiring insanity as your certificate. Foiled, they try with incredible effrontery to foist their own deficiencies on those who lack them, and pass all tests with distinction, who follow the Creator in His deeds as in His words.
All their errors, moreover, seethe the more in the light of the truth, while it seems that from dark depths they spit out outraged reactions instead of accepting, at long last, the indisputable evidence of kind, non-continuity except in time, where kind continues*3H. It takes the form of propaganda device, really, which one might call the converse confusion. Attack what you dislike with your own deficiencies and that will perhaps give time for you to hide them, while the preposterous notion is rebutted!
It is as I perceive now more clearly, a confusion redoubled, because they act as if God were there, even while denying Him; and when they find the answer to the power, the incandescent brilliance in the matter of forging matter into such a design as this, which makes everything else which conceivably could bear the term 'design' look almost primary school stuff by comparison, and of making mind able to know it and spirit able to deny it if it has a bad day, or whatever else might incite it to war on truth: they do not like it. It is enough to send them into free fall, and 'little story-itis', such as you see in this newspaper article.
Do they not then fear God ?
Not at all. They use more and more knowledge about what happens IF, in the baser and more obvious phases of knowledge, as if this had any relevance whatsoever to the question, HOW did the realm where what happens IF come to be, so that something could happen and something else follow.
They want, I suppose, to own it all ?
Many do, and glory in the thought of all this superbly organised stuff, seeing it perhaps as ready for grabs.
I had heard that one American President, was it not one of the Roosevelts ... Theodore ? who said that the occupation and possession of American was the manifest destiny of the race of which he was part ?
He spoke very much to this effect, Wing.
Then, Frank, the idea now seems to be this: it is the manifest destiny of mankind to occupy and take possession of the universe.
Undoubtedly, and they imagine, if they think at all to the depths of the thing, that one day nothing made something, though there was no day in which to do it, since time is not nothing but something, which would be a clear contradiction in terms. Then, when that had been accomplished, something needed this and that, so nothing put it in for it, and then it said, Thanks! now I can do it for myself, and then the slavish bits of stuff managed to make intelligence, for which they would have needed to say 'thanks!' certainly, but that is only part of the story, not of its script; and then spirit is invented (*7), and so on.
It is like saying that my bank balance came from nowhere and after that I just placed it in better and better investments until I was rolling in money.
But it cannot come from nowhere, since it is money, and money MEANS something and is needed in a SYSTEM where those who cognise its features, utilise them and so on. Money, like commands and mathematical formulae, is valueless without understanding with which to make response to the conceptual symbols in the form of articulated commands, or to intuit them.
True, Wing. For ANYTHING to be ANYWHERE doing ANYTHING you need the requisites of the sort of something to be made. Otherwise, you are just imagining things in defiance of the laws of logic, of sufficient condition. You are becoming a magician.
Yes, you are wholly correct! Systems of interactive codes and conceptual apparatus implied in code, and serviceable components able to execute what code demands and hence able to read code do not come because of nothing, or magic for that matter (unless you want to go into the realm of ghosts and witches and magic and all that sort of thing, but I think this article is supposedly about science)!
Science? Frank, this is not science, this witlessness to wit scenario, this procedure by causeless magic, this chance to law ascent by aimlessness, this system to make chance meaningful to systems which first exclude it by thought3I, this casus belli on logic, this use of reason to deny it and deployment of imagination to extort reality from it, as it scuds on the clouds that are not there: for it is mysticism of the worst kind. It can correctly be called myth as you see in Delusive Drift ... Ch. 7. It is the insistence on using something causatively inadequate to 'explain' what does not follow. It is the abandonment of reason, and that is what all naturalism is*4.
True, but they are confused because, as Christ declared, He is the light of the world and without Him you are in darkness - John 812, 9:3-5. In fact, He declared that if the 'light' that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness! remember, Matthew 6:23, in the sermon on the Mount which has had such appeal to so many, Christian or not, such as Ghandi.
So Frank, they actually, these virulent anti-creationists, are trying to say that all that legal provisioning, codal command*4A and reciprocal code reading correlation in systematic form, by comparison, just happened ? Capacity and code implementing paraphernalia, making the most sophisticated factories mere child's play. Do they wish to travel to fairy tales or myths, to grand opera or to play-pens ? Invention of correlative systems integrated in myriads of ways*4B requires what it takes, and what it takes is the means for such manipulative, inventive, correlative, conceptually implemented aspects of multi-disciplinary devices and architectural creation.
Architecture is an innovative command over the artless or mini-artistic to render it first by symbol, then by action, a coverage of many criteria, with a spiritual supplement of oversight in terms of values and vision, so the result demands the cause, and the cause needs its stuff, like anything else outside the miasmas of myth and the erraticisms of esoteric gabble.
Principles do not change because some people who like the word 'science' and look at the way you get this from that, insist that the way you got the systems and the overarching totality was in precise contradiction of all that is found in logic, empirically and in tests of all kinds. All these things, they came ... They do not however at all come. How very scientific! Like a book in the writing, it was an episode, requiring what a book requires: but this, it is far more than a book! It is not very written all the time (verifiable), it was written (necessary), and the thing is done (it follows). That is the nature of creation, just as writing is, symbolic logic manipulative devices and cohesion of command, symbol, executive agents and directive capacity.
In frank rejection of the canons of science, to look where the events and causative agencies may best be found, and to approximate as well as one can, the observable with the actual case, with due respect to relevant laws, breaching all, the saga of pseudo-science now has a strange song.
They came from nowhere. That is how they got here. But of course nowhere doesn't exist, that is what the term means.
So they came from what does not exist. Like Topsy, they just grewed, or were divorcees from causation by special exemption, in the logical antilogy already noted. Science ? this is a maelstrom of deviation from every scientific canon.
Of course, that is the other option, alternative to God.
And this is anti-creationism, whether they realise it or not.
Yes, it is. It is like saying, Oh well, this potassium sulphate was just there, see, and this series of catalysts happened to be around, and there were a few facilitators and all of that stuff, pushing into place, and place was made to have it there to put things into, of course, and it all kind of got together and made itself, using architectural sublimity, intellectual infinity, design facility by any definition that can stand in other spheres, as to results. This it did with a kind of shrug of infinitude, which wasn't there, and so the whole thing made itself with all the needs that occur for this result, made ex-supplier*4C.
That is ridiculous: you need an interface for the action, a system for their being, a correlation of chemical capacities in a unitary interactive mesh, and to say it all 'arose' is child's talk, about 7 or 8 perhaps, though you know a lot of little children see things more clearly than that. In fact, there are almost endless aspects required as a mere preliminary for this cute thinking minus thought which simply grabs without acknowledgement a whole universe of conditions, imposes them, brings in laws, inserts cores of comprehensibility and executive response, layer and layer, invents rationality, makes it a conscious variety, calls to the clouds (themselves first composed in vast meteorological concourses in integral synthesis with many other systems), and brings in spiritual assessment and discernment and behold, with only an unacknowledged infinitude of givens, it gets without known method, the result.
It is rather like someone making a fortune by first being born with one, then having access to multiple engineering and academic finesse, then using it, then calling on whatever it takes in mathematical and substantial inventive capacities, and then, having got the due result of all these givens, noting that really, the entire project was integrated and co-ordinated by another firm which he had not yet identified, but which always worked.
Surely, this is the best example of begging the question, acquiring results for causes, and using them in oblivion of the comedy of errors which it constitutes, you could ever find. It then doesn't work when they test it on the assumption that it made and did itself all along, leaving no trace of having done so, and no sign of the dynamics which do it, and every sign that these are not operative; and after that, it says, Ah well, these things don't do it now; or they do, but you never see it. And that ?
It is not the IQ which leads to such things as this, the Bible indicates, but alienation from God.
And then that is why they get so upset when people mention the ONLY rational ground for all things that exist, where absolute truth, God, independent and all-knowing, basis of all and subject to none, makes claims to be talking meaningfully and not in mere self-contradiction, and where testable things at the LEVEL of the discourse about origins can be checked, by this or that proponent to be the explanation, so that if they work, well, and if they fail, not well; and they are removed. That, it is a test, and as always, the alien philosophy of evolutionism fails. As always, biblical creation prevails. Consistency and conformity with data alike, they proceed while evolutionism moves with the eccentricities of its philosophy, to one side. Like, however, a dancer not willing to release his partner, on request, he continues as if in a trance, alien to all truth.
You can certainly apply scientific method in that aspect (*1).
Why then don't they ?
Partly, I suppose because they were not sufficiently educated in this matter. Remember that article we mentioned last time, about the parents of the present generation having participated in an en masse - remember that phrase - departure from organised religion.
Yes, some sociologist or was it psychologist was sharing this in terms of the spiritually anorexic generation, as they or that one conceived the present youth to be.
That's right. There is little knowledge now, and increasingly they do not even know what they are talking about in biblical spheres, I mean, literally do not KNOW! There is a vacancy there, just as there is in the anti-creationist animus, against God, the Creator. Hence whatever the irrationality, the anti-empirical lostness, the substitute of religious hope, in the anti-God field, for reality, the payment is made and the removal is sought.
He CANNOT and MUST not be admitted, and the data are irrelevant even when they CONSISTENTLY show the truth of the biblical statements about creation (and other things for that matter, a most pertinent application of scientific method). Therefore, excluding God by anti-scientific prejudice, even when the organic evolutionary anti-religious mysticism fails in endless futility - for that is what it deserves to be called in view of its complete and ever augmenting failures in terms of verification, they founder on, instead of finding. Their pain even reaches anti-verification marvels, as we noted last time, to be seen for example in Wake Up World Ch. 6, and SMR Ch. 2. They even explain the opposite of what is there, giving sound ground to be saddened by these wilful theories, miscreants to scientific law and lore alike, foreign in methodology to science.
Hence if anyone talks of creation to children ?
He must be booted out, or shut up, or turned off, and children must follow the mystic urge to what is irrational and irrelevant, and meets no test criteria.
And then they talk of what is their own situation, which could be construed for many to be in the area of post-modernist*5, and try to apply this term to creationists who have been speaking thus for millenia. Once again, in this way they are merely misusing phraseology and making abuse out of their own deficiencies.
Oh yes, they act as if all the actual argument were past, which it is, since the grounds for God have won on all points and nothing ever manages successfully to contradict them without antilogies and anti-verifications, antinomies and various dives to avoid the very causation which is implicit even in meaningful speech. However they ignore this feature - you know it is everywhere almost in the 113 volumes in In Praise of Christ Jesus, tests of all kinds - and they proceed simply to lampoon creationists by making it seem they are some recent idiocy, when theirs are the most ancient of all contentions, which have been sustained by some of the greatest scientists of all time, such as Newton, who ...
Doesn't 'science' include scientists, and don't these include the greatest ?
This strange fire of materialistic mysticism that shoves aside
the attestation of classic creationist scientific founders
as if children, with the disregard of children!
Yes, I have been reading about Newton's Principia. He treats the thing systematically.
It was basic, as for Faraday, Maxwell, Boyle, Lord Kelvin, who argued absolutely about the folly of ignoring the facts and trying to make separated systems when all the major material systems have a coherence such as proceeds out of one mind, and it was he who brought out that whole concept of universal cohesion so clearly in the realm of modern science.
That's what Encyclopedia Britannica notes.
Where is that found ?
You could look him up, but there is some reference to this fact in TMR Ch. 1.
Oh say at TMR Ch. 1 at opposite ?
Newton was an ardent creationist, and like the other great scientists mentioned above, and there are scores of them, he was a leader in original thought ?
But of course: to be godly is to be sensitive to His ways. It helps, since the ultimate irrationality of secular science ... , it makes order a negative stimulus for many?
What do you mean by that phrase ?
Secular means 'of this world' not heavenly, and secular science tends to mean, well, what is limited to a worldly concept, ignoring the necessary question of HOW it came and WHERE it has its origin conceptually and legally and in formulation, and in information; or else just denying it as in the article.
How does that relate to what I think I have seen ... the term materialism ?
Oh that is shown in its hopeless and self-contradictory irrationality in Repent or Perish Ch. 7, and of course in many other spots amid the 113.
Is this then not what is the background to the sense of surprised surmise in the article about the 70,000.
It looks like it. They CANNOT consider what is not bound to the philosophic apron-strings of materialism, it seems, and want to use derogatory terminology INSTEAD of what we have to do, reason, in talking about it. It is EXCLUDED, though it INTIMATELY explains all things, the inter-faces between them, and the interface between derivative, delimited things such as this material universe has, and the causative power to MAKE them so. They refuse the only answer, and they perhaps more or less FEEL thrust into this game of miscuing and using their own faults in talking about creationists, you know, like little children.
In fact, they are the mystics ? materialist mystics many of them ?
Necessarily so. If you abandon causation, even your talk is impossible except as gibberish in the presence of madmen, or worse. If you use causation, you cannot have results with codified consequences, to which they MUST submit, and imagine you can escape a causal adequacy for the constraints imposed.
If they impose themselves, HOW and by WHAT ? They are THERE, not indulging in imposition. If they don't, you need what does. What does is not what is imposed on, since that is already excluded. You need what has what it takes to take what is there and make it be what it is to become; or else magic.
Causation does not stop anywhere. And it is logically impossible to remove it as well as empirically a feeble foozle, removing all accounts of all things, including why they are or are not accountable, and all validity in all argumentation concerning origins as a commencement! It is capitulation in discussion, irrelevance in rationality and abortion of debate. It is automatic failure even to present a viewpoint, an impasse for those who follow this species of irrationalism. Causation continues immovable, the sub-structure of reason, condition of discourse (*6).
When you find its satiation in God, it comes as the ONLY POSSIBLE answer, since He is NOT causatively conditioned, but the condition of causality, basis for its inveteracy and the scope of its imprimatur. Inventor of this world, cause of its controls, only alternative to magic which in any case merely involves inscrutable and imaginary concepts less than what is necessary, He declares that NOTHING is too hard for Him, and He does what He pleases, for basis for all, He is beyond all, condition for all.
Reason finds no other rest, the material world no other explanation for its delimitations and indeed existence; a void is to be avoided as irrational and self-contradictory, and an inadequacy as ludicrous and mere articulation of antilogy.
Moreover, He says so, that nothing limits Him, none can impose on Him, and declares for verification the nature of His words, and the correlation of history which, being tested, is as He says, even for millenia, even in tiny details as in massive scope alike (cf. SMR Chs. 8-9).
This supremacy and sovereignty not only is, but must necessarily be so if you consider Him logically at all, as seen in SMR 1, 3 and 10. There is no mystery for what is FREE and AUTONOMOUS and NOT REQUIRED to be or do anything, always being there: and yet on the other hand, without a basis other than nothing, you always have nothing! which is not the case! It therefore has no intrinsic problem such as an imagined absence imposes, and what He is removes at once and at last, both, the impasse of causative oblivion as an escape route and the ignoring of verification as the route of realism.
Thus what is adequate always HAD to be there, since eternal nothing will stay that way; and what is adequate to impart constraint has to be adequate to do it. God always was and matter is impossible without Him, unless you rule by magic, apply to mysticism and make yourself a bondman of myth.
Where is that given some more attention ?
Oh, say in SMR pp. 7ff., in the beginning, and then on throughout the first Chapter and in Let God be God Ch. 4 and so on. All HE says is verified over thousands of years, and what He says on creation is verified as organic evolution, with a sort of passionate divorce from facts, is not*1.
Actually, you could proceed if you wanted to, like this. You see, if characteristics are omitted, there is nothing to talk about; and if they are not, then there is an assignment of order and form and consistency and coherence; and then it is being implied that such things retain their structure or form or whatever else may be needed to make them stay put long enough to be describable in meaningful terminology. That is, you are then talking about them in a way that is more than talking about talk, but is in fact about them.
I see. You mean then that not flux but character is to be described, and that even flux is not total flux or the term would not be applicable, for it requires characteristics to be testably applicable; and that if the composition of characteristics is then to be taken, then what is its basis is implied, namely what is logically assessable and expressible! When you reach logic, you reach causation, since in its absence, the opposite of what is found is assumed, and the reason for reason is interred, and so made irrelevant: this means a submission as defeated in debate about reason, since reason is even dismissed!
In all things, if you do not deal with what is causatively adequate both to produce, and to reduce what is before you, as the case may be, then logic is excluded. It is then not so much a field without boundary, as a boundary without a field, void of content, a form for viewing, but holding nothing to view.
FANCY IS NOTHING FANCY WHEN IT IS FANCIFUL,
WHERE FACTS LINGER AND TRUTH IS TO BE FOUND
Hell has a place for
prejudice but Science does not:
Squatters merely Spoil its Name
Fancy prevails, testability is irrelevant and tests are ignored. If causative actualities were denied, then characteristics would go, or magic would come - a void option. Instead, you move with what implies that there is for that very system you have to face, in which there works what is able to require results, an actuality of causation, even for its causative quality. Then and then only it is not a matter of merely visiting nothings and calling them meaningless names, even though, being nothings, they are not there at all.
Deny logic and you remove causality, and by this you remove rationality from character. Employ it and characteristics have a basis and a condition, and a scientifically investigable nature. Language minus logic is simple denial of reality - it lives by it; logic without causation is a contradiction in terms*6, since it has nothing to apply to, and nothing could be urged as a ground for anything else; but its whole purpose is the exact opposite of this. To 'account' for it, is to use it to abuse it, and the effort falls to the ground. For one to defend any view concerning it, it must first of all be valid. Causality never CAN be made to go, and it always prevails; ignoring it is like imagining you are a ghost, until your little finger hurts.
Talk in mystic irrationalism with the naturalists ? There talk is a miscreant, denied by your assumptions, and grounds for anything being removed, science becomes ridiculous, an excrescence of self-contradictory philosophy, daring to occupy the chair of rationality which it has simply tipped over.
You mean that language without logic is a self-contradiction, and causality from man is an impossible divorcee, another of that clan, while talk thus implies logic, causation and consequence; and it is about time people ceased looking where there is ANTI-evidence and ANTI-relevance for given results, and returned to scientific method by seeking what is RELEVANT and indicated across the entire spectrum of experience and testable thought, as apposite ?
Much more than that, but not less.
However, moving now from mysticism, myth and self-contradiction, you find the necessity of the Creator, including the critical condition of the creation of causality in nature, and from that you move to check His words and works, mutually, and find all is coherent, verified where testable, which is in much, harmonious in logic, sustained in expression. Nothing else is. You find emphasis on this especially in CELESTIAL HARMONY FOR THE TERRESTRIAL HOST, SMR Chs. 1, 5 and 10. There is a vast array of correlative conditions fulfilled here only, and as is the case with the crystalline fire that light evokes in such beauties, so the luminosity, the explanatory zeal, the revealing of reality continues on every side, self-attesting without limit, something it is the work of Celestial Harmony ... to show.
So it is not a matter of a little story, is it, but a grand exposition of the whole gamut of creation, and it includes not merely this, but the historical structure which follows from it and the meaning of history which is inherent in it, and the application of that meaning consistently over thousands of years; and without this, you fall into antilogies and anti-verifications.
Yes, and then a whole army of operatives would like to exclude creation from science, presumably as the very least that can be done, if anyone hates the Creator and wants to seek vengeance on those who, being rationally forced to declare Him, do so in triumphant uniqueness in terms of the uninhibited demands of reason, scientific method, verifiability and coherence. Nor is the force undesired, for when the eyes are opened, and resistance to reality fades as a bad dream, love is as natural as that for the new-born child; but this, it is not one's child, but one's Father that one finds, and not a dependency but actuality to which one returns with relish, bounty and blessing where stood but a barred door and confused alienation, vague dissociation or meaningless meander, the pride of false hope or the fall of graceless attributions, as if reality were the child of thought and thought the nudging of vapour, and meaning arose by miracle, when there was none to provide.
You know, Frank, since reason is intransigent that He is, that He is eternally complete and competent, it also requires anyone to declare Him the Creator at the same time, though by faith it is to be received so that the vision is clear and the application is found personally: and thus, it must be upsetting for those whose cupboard is bare. However, do you think it is only for hostile jealousy that they seek to exclude this living God and creationism with Him, from the school curriculum ?
It seems that the thrust is to be found not merely in such realms as that, however potent they may often be. There is also a kind of blindness which is just as marvellous for the sighted, to behold, as is the conduct of a car when driven by a drunkard, for a rational observer. It does not add up, and jealousy, hostility, blind hate, internal rage, spiritual alienation, a whole brood of vipers may be operative in producing this result, this phrase-making parody of reason and this abortion and abomination of misapplication of scientific method apparent in the organic evolutionary caravanserie, almost as if they had never heard of it (*1).
The route seems to be this, verified often enough in the words of some: The CREATOR cannot be since we refuse to look in any domain except the one our own prejudice prejudges must contain all. Their song, subliminally or not, seems to go like that, as if there were some route with the wrong sign or signal, and many followed it. It reminds you of the words of Christ about the narrow way, in Matthew 7:15 and on, and the broad one, where many go. Now there seems to be some sort of exaltation of numbers, truth by statistics.
Many in society, in law and commerce, would happily make new laws like that! This is what the many do, so let's legitimise it!
It is ludicrous, it is anti-scientific, it is a gross abuse of science and a scandal for knowledge. The 70,000, if there are so many ready to follow such a lead as proposed in the newspaper article we have met, these meet but One. It is 70,000 to 1, the One who made them! He is more than sufficient, being infinite in power, inevitable in rightness, untossable in conflict, lordly in predicting their foolishness*6A and declaring its field, scope and result, wise in power and dominant in the end, despite His lordly donation of freedom*7. His exemplars of science are in nearly every major field, innovators, researchers, discoverers, monuments to rationality and religion alike, whose testimony is integral, that of the creation and the Creator: not fumbling in mummified non-conformist non-verifications, but parading the facts of unique conformity of all God says, including that in creation, with what is found (not imagined)*1.
But how COULD many scientists be forever, by the thousand, imagining that what does not come, must come, and because it must, it has come, so that what they say is testable and found not wanting, even though its crash is heard throughout the universe ? How can they assert any relevance to science when scientific method simply exposes endless hope, constant failure, and for creationism's implication, NOT ONE LOSS. The fiasco of DIMINISHING designs being accounted for by a non-operational and irrational method of getting more is merely the end of the line, like a carefully worked out reductio ad absurdum, a way of showing the folly of a false move! Yet this is precisely the case (cf. Wake Up World! ... Ch. 6).
How then do they act in public press in the face of endless loss, constant anti-verification, even comic repudiation by test, over a whole century and more, and speak of creationism as the thin end of the wedge, when evolutionism is the thick end of a black-jack, apparently aimed at integrity of method and reality of result! They speak of creationism as a test-case, and it is, for it is simple fact that it passes and evolutionism quaintly fails, still clung to like a doll in a dying man's hand*4.
How can they ? It is by that quaint method of wishful thinking.
But how could wishes so dominate their thoughts ?
It is perhaps like a husband fervently wishing his wife had not committed adultery, and always looking for something to come which will show that she has not done so, when the facts in every case, show that she has. It is a calamity for science, a scandal for knowledge and a horror camp which they are providing by this infamous aversion, for the children.
They ? Are they all involved ?
Oh no, of course not. But it is a leaven, a swelling dynamic, and it works now here, now there, now in this way, not in that; but its working has stricken innumerable colleges and schools, like a typhoon, destructive, disorganised and disintegrative for whatever is not well-grounded.
They talk of a thousand lateral issues which concern them, realise correctly that creation is a test case, while tending, at times as if by spasm, to ignore the read-outs, make hope, always dashed, their anchor, and truth irrelevant. So do they sink in the swirling waters of inveterate prejudice, unable to face the realities:
that man is not self-made, and
matter is not either, and
that law is not a byproduct of
that all has a cause, and causality
in matter is equipped with the same, and
that nothing on earth has the power to do what is done, or even to approach it, even by little ratchet movements which require implicitly the things that the ratchet can hang onto, the intellectual and the aesthetic, the symbolic logic and the entrepreneurial power, the synthetic ability to dispose of a thousand, a billion parts in one integral reality, and make it work as one - as in man.
They seem to resemble people wounded, pointing out a thousand wounds, but too proud to call on the doctor, or even the medicines of intelligence, lost in the maelstrom of irrationality, materialism and other philosophical oddities, without basis, without answer, hit by the endless waves of contradiction*8, paleontological, logical, psychological, ontological, moral, biological, metaphysical, epistemological, archeological, aetiological, and stripped to nakedness intoning as they drown, And yet I will never admit my Maker! It reminds me a little of a piece in SMR, around pp.211-214, part of which I recall, and find in my notes:
Wilder Smith in his Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (1975) on p. 20 similarly provides scalpel-like words, this time from Dr Erwin Chargaff of Columbia University in The Origin of Life on Earth (Oparin, pp. 288-289).
Dr Chargaff considers: "Our time is probably the first in which mythology has penetrated to the molecular level."
Chargaff for his part, cites a 'distinguished biologist' who desired to avoid God in His creation, and so proposed a 'macromolecule'... but what is this but fixation on a phrase instead of a finding of the cause; and patriarchal molecules lack what patriarchs themselves cannot use to create matter. Commenting, Chargaff notes that for this man, it has come down to this concept of 'macromolecule' and asks what has been gained in that word...
If poetry has suffered, precision has not gained. For we may ask ourselves whether a model that merely provides for one cell constituent continually to make itself, can teach us much about life and its origins. We may also ask whether the postulation of a hierarchy of cellular constituents, in which the nucleic acids are elevated to a patriarchal role in the creation of living matter, is justified.
The 'poetry' that is involved, is that of logic; and the truth is set forth sublimely: but this modern madness is rightly castigated by this genteel enquiry. When words are said, let the things signified be contemplated in all their smuggled pseudo- glory.
Here then we see the magic of 'patriarchal' molecules fraught with engendering potentials, literally out of this world. All these things... patriarchal, striving, providing, a need-meeting 'nature' going about 'her' business, 'finding a way' and the like are a brilliant testimony to the imagination of man, and to his circumvention of the implications of personality and intelligence, rationality and power.
Even if literature is not so studied by so many so well as once it was, at least the aspiring 'scientist' can use it as a cover for illegitimate use of what is not acknowledged, replacing the God who is with the words which 'use' Him, without acknowledgement ... a sort of figure of speech that figures all too well with self-deception.
Why it is too simple: personify matter and then have it work as a Person; and give it imagination, purpose and power, while merely avoiding the use of the word 'God'. These things are merely an illustration of the smuggler's cove approach by which intelligent creativity is presupposed but not acknowledged: planted in caves and coves on the beaches of thought, and activated under the darkness of meeting the dilemma. How else live with the wealth of material that is there, than steal it by night, with dark designs, claiming the while - Who me ? I know nothing of it at all!
Aw (p. 168), in this context interestingly, notes D.H. Kenyon's use of the concept of 'looking aheadness' in Nature (p. 207 of the work: The Origin of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry -1974).
Thus we often hear of 'Nature's' striving or meeting a need as if this personification, through its terms, conferred its power on the realities - a matter of a verbal 'slip' useful for creating illusion on the one hand, and revelatory of the workings in darkness of the unbelieving mind, on the other. (Cf. p. 845 infra.)
Aw (p. 150) also quotes from Ponnamperuma, Origins of Life, p. 102, where there is provided a beautifully apt under-statement re imaginary construction activities happily working away, though never seen, validated or defined so as to allow prediction, and contrary to all that is known of Nature's laws. Speaking of cell- construction, he says:
the leap from morphology to function is fraught with danger especially when we consider entities of several billion years ago.
The 'leap' to 'several billion years ago' itself is 'fraught with danger' (a point made most clear by Professor E.W. Andrews, as noted in our Dating Extension - see his Chapter 6 et al..)
If only our humour could stretch a little further, we might learn to relish these 'blithe spirit' concessions in constructing an imaginary time for an imaginary activity according to imaginary powers with imaginary processes which actually men cannot really define, duplicate or activate by intelligent effort, no, not with with the most advanced method and time-subduing repetitive equipment, even though this would break the conditions imagined to be in view!
The Bible says the fool has forgotten God: it is time the world learned to 'quit fooling' if it wishes to continue at all. Illusion, whether with drugs, mirages in the desert, or irrational rioting is no sound basis for anything that wishes to endure. Reality can seem quite unkind to chronic fooling, after its season is over... (Cf. Ecclesiastes 11:9-10- and this can occur with a nation as well as with a youth.)
Aw also quotes Bonner (1972, Exobiology, Ponnamperuma C. (ed.), Amsterdam, London, p. 170) on p. 102 of his work, as follows: The origins of optical activity# present problems to the hypothesis of chemical evolution that are at present insoluble. One is reminded of the prodigal son (Luke 15) who somewhat similarly found sharing fodder with pigs to present insoluble problems. How intense may be the affinity of the 'fool' with the words of the Miltonic Satan whose view is held with implacable resolve:
...What though the field be lost ?
All is not lost - the unconquerable will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield...
That glory never shall His wrath or might
Extort from me...
that proud being seeking
Whatever reinforcements we may gain from hope,
If not, what resolution from despair...
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven (Paradise Lost, Book 1)...
yet the irresolvable facts refuse to yield.
They are not yielding the evidences of creative law and creative mind, discreetly operative in the form of mindless, law-obeying fragments. God is no more found in His creation, as a mere part, than am I in this work, as a full stop. Efforts to make it appear that I would, lack... a certain discretion.
Would one then expect it ? A smuggler might, but it is time men stopped smuggling God and calling it matter, equipped with latent systematic powers of upward propulsion into intensive design, subordinating itself the while to the work of originating laws with a freedom its own conformity does not exhibit.
When it is all over, it is where it first began: God as the source of these intertwining, synthetically co-operative, conflicting and cavorting creations of which man, touched with the Creator's fire, is the most rationally conscious, fiery and ireful.
It is sad that such logical antitheses as perplex the endlessly inventive and constantly snubbed brows of the anti-God clinic, are not seen as the impulsion to use logic and eyes aright, and study the evidence and find the harmony which mind, spirit and heart alike, can find only in the grandeur of the Rock that is higher than we, our Maker. Here reason rests in validity*9, evidence constantly empirically confirms, explanation is sublime and cavorts in joy, not frustration. This holy harmony is found in Him who has known our shortcomings, our faults and our lapses, cultural, academic and personal; and it is in Him no less, the responsible Creator, and in the redemption, that reaches as low as we are - evolutionism being only one phase of its prodigious depths of abysmal fraud - that realism can find the peace which demands and finds an answer to all things.
Nor is it reason alone, for this merely points to His word of truth; it is there that one finds the personal requirements of His mind; for man is spiritual as well as physical, mental as well as motivational. As to that truth which God chooses to speak, just as He has spoken the DNA, a cogitatively manipulative device to constrain matter for purposes it does not possess and cannot command. The latter enables the physical format, astonishingly directing it into existence in each baby before our eyes, evoking an awareness of power over the visible, by expression, step by step on a fixed pattern which varies about a norm, as in Psalm 139.
As to His personal word to the persons He has formed, in that synthesis without compromise to either, of spirit, mind and body in a designed form and formulation called man: this is as unique as the One from whom it came.
What then do we find in this word ? It is, not surprising that in method, though this is staggeringly liberal in sacrifice, we must depend on Him. In His own formulation of salvation, it is in Him that our rest remains, the rest in the best, the end of the quest. He has come as He foretold abundantly, and come on time*10 as target and truth, leaving an order for the Gospel to embrace the earth (Matthew 24:12,28ff.). It goes out like vast saving nets in the sea, spread out for those who are prepared to jump the cultural ship, the ship of vulture's appetite, and return to the home from which they proceeded.
In the mercy of God, Frank, I would that I could wing my way down and just grasp their poor sinful, swaggering or staggering souls, whatever the case, and bring them home. Liberty was not made for that however, and licence is needed, and Christ has already come, and will return.
Tears are often my lot as I survey the sheer squalor of the situation to which they bind themselves as if all depended on their 'insights', dependent on nothing, produced by nothing, meaning nothing, allaying nothing, band-aids on deep wounds, and I remember with new insights, Christ weeping over Jerusalem (as in Luke 19:42ff.). WHO would not weep for their folly...
But Wing, there are always those who do not despair and do not despise the nets, and who in the full measure of divine grace are willing to be taken on board the vessel they tried to doom, the one they rejected, scoffed at, warred against, or despised; there are those who flee for refuge to the unsinkable, who laughed at death and dashed life with the light which belongs to it, like a torch shining forever.
Repentance is not so popular, Frank.
But God is not mocked, He knows His own, and having a desire for all, never intrudes as if to smash the image of God in man, and never abstracts, as if man did not need His intervention. He knows how to honour the reality of man, and overcome the sin, simultaneously*11.
It is only because I trust in the Lord and in His love and in His truth and in His word that I do not stagger in sorrow, like Jeremiah first of all in Ch. 9 and then, when the axe fell, as at last it had to do, in Lamentations. How many are lost, and how much one would love to see them awaken from obfuscatory confusion and return to the Lord!
Suppose we send this conversation abroad ...
Satan would probably try to burn it, but then, have a go!
SEE the EPILOGUE to this Chapter, here.
Reading on this could include, Wing, a collection called ...
SCIENTIFIC METHOD, SATANIC METHOD
AND THE MODEL OF SALVATION
I suggest you begin with SMR pp. 140-151. Ensure you study Earth Spasm ... Ch. 7 and Wake Up World! ... Ch.2 which last deals not least with the meaning of words, commands and consequences, and that this implies.
*2 See the volume The Bright Light and the Uncomprehending Darkness, Ch. 10, esp. here for what this verse declares.
I thought, Wing, that you might like to think some more about this, and one place to do so, or three actually, would be here ...
Cascade of Truth Ch. 9, Little Things Ch. 5, It Bubbles, It Howls, He Calls Ch. 9. What goes with it, in the level of meaning, is Deliverance from Disorientation Ch. 8.
Frank, I've done some reading myself, and although I expect you know all about these things, it may help for my angelic exams if I give you some references I found for these well-known facts. There in this 3 section for your convenience.
News 82, esp. note 3 covers this area in some depth. So does Defining Drama ... Ch. 3, End-note 1A in particular, where the necessary correlation of symbol and substance and creation is presented as it is likewise in SMR. Deliverance from Disorientation Ch. 1 also points to this area.
*3 The Myriadfold Marvels of the Massif of Creation, Man,
are not made of Papier Mâché or Parented by Oblivion :
Since those things don’t do
Just as Thistles do not Produce Orchids
The intricacy of the intellection implicated and inserted in life is a fascinating exhibit of brilliance past all of man's ability, layer on layer, concept on concept, concatenation on concatenation, prior ingredient for later, correlative for its mate, in ascending order of comprehensiveness in a given man, with collection of means for rule, oversight and re-institution, cell for cell, life for life: all with its rationale, the whole with its rationality. This is what is to be found within the frame of that self-same unit, man, functional with a unitary result. Evident relative to man's life, as structurally prior to it and a feature in its ontology, a kindred power is at work and operates in man in a derivative fashion, of which all ingredients of creation are other testimony. In the functionalities of man, there is a cognate power, but far less of it; it operates within means, not to constitute them; and he is constructed by this greater power of which he is the lesser recipient and testimonial.
Power being the capacity for work in a given time, and the work being of this character, the relevant power is the relational one, equipped with the features and foci which man can comprehend, but merely distantly copy. It is rational power, architectural power, creative power to instal ontological units at all, geometrical power to co-ordinate neatly, analytical power to understand what on earth or out of it, it is doing, leaving nothing of mere experiment in the whole array of testimony from paleontology. It is power which expresses itself, in life, in ONE language, with co-ordinated means and arrangements in gradable formats.
Such a power is a purposeful power, an imaginative one, for these qualities are necessary for those, and they depend on their ability to be exercised; it is a decisive power, not merely experimenting but depositing in startling arrays of splendid magnitude, of miniscule miniaturisation, at will; and it has left us with kinds of creatures, magnificently versatile by varied means, but stably entertained. It has written and it has spoken and it has done; and it has stopped.
This is the logical cadence of creation. It is normal to term such a power a Creator in any other sphere. It would be unthinkable to do otherwise. Anyone who invented the first pencil-sharpener would be deemed its inventor, and conceived relative to it, qua creator. In this case, it is the sheer spectacular and over-riding magnitude of the efforts displayed, of which man is but one, though a key performer at the level where the material is given a place, and the dumb devices of muzzled philosophy, which have together tended to blind people. Sin has also been a magnificent partner in the deception, for in man it so acts that he tends frankly not to like the One against whose constructions, himself, his race or his environment, he mis-ministers his opportunities. Man even tries to invent a cause for causation, forgetful that causation would have had to operate in order for it to be susceptible to his causing it; so that you cannot escape it, try as you - or Kant - will (cf. Predestination and Freewill, Section 4).
As to man, he is not merely a design, a manufacturing assembly line, a book, an executive branch, an organic city of co-operating mansions of function, a collation of comprehensible cognitions, but a site for spirit and will, and a scenario for history. Postulating material powers for his construction, which never operate in the upgrading of design without the operation of intelligence, imagining devices in matter which are patently outside its domain and which it never uses, while omitting their display as well, entertaining magical powers that rave away in the background in unsensed, unsensored and profound ways, and never leave a trace since the book of man was written: this is romance of the sci-fi type, nothing more.
The evidential realities are that man is a visible unit with invisible domains in his grasp, involving logic, aesthetical thought, moral realisation (as in News 19) and decision making concerning invisible elements such as the desire for peace or war, understanding or revolt. Visible domains display no power to construct him or anything similar, even if vastly more simple; man displays powers to construct things on these lines, but far less superb and remarkable, excluding such details as the universe, space, time and the like. His own causative actions by invisible propensities create; but they do not create the conjoined cosmoi, merely act in them, he using the provisions there, and ... his own imagination. Imagination is always a crucial part of any creation. It is specifically NOT hide-bound. Man is in the image or in the domain of the One whose immaterial powers - being necessary but not of this order - have made him.
That incidentally is precisely what the Bible said. It is not wrong! It has not erred in the nearly 3500 years since it was constructed; and if you allow for earlier records which seem to have been used, longer than that.
See SMR Chs. 1, 3, 5, and TMR Chs. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, Divine Agenda Ch. 4, Spiritual Refreshings Chs. 13, 16.
It is often found that many will happily discuss life without apparently being able even to define what it is. In LIFE, WHAT IS IT ? the definition that covers the phenomena and their relationships is provided, and this makes the task of considering its nature, a proper prelude to considering its beginning. In considering the arrival of a sky-scraper, you do not consider how many bricks can rub each other this way and that, and the co-efficient of heat or the specific gravity of each element, and wonder if they could make movements to do strange and unheard of things: and so it comes to pass that the building 'arises'. Causation is not otherwise in life; it is not magical, merely astoundingly constructed. Laws do not fail because life acts; indeed, life is able to act because laws prevail, for example concerning the conservation of kind, so that one can be on this earth, and live.
What then ? You rather consider the extent of the imagination and intelligence needed to bring it about, and if you saw it happening all over the place, before your very eyes, to take a building, you would of course conclude that strange and apparently invisible powers were at work. In fact, whether in the realm of thought or material construction, this is not what happens. We do not have anything of this type at all to explain. Things do not move in that way; nor do they do it gradually, so that despite erosion and wind, corrosion and degradation, a building marvellously ... arises! Life ? Yes, it arises, but as the third law so well informs us, only from life. Man cannot even make it with all the ingredients present; merely fiddles about with the machinery, and pro-creates according to the programmatics installed.
More life buildings of different and more advanced kinds ? No, not really, but plenty depart, having been of magnificent design, but no more with us, so that in vast quantities, kinds of biota have decreased; designs also have diminished as displayed in the normal definition of that term (cf. SMR p. 211). You see something of that in SMR pp. 252Hff., 109ff., and TMR Ch. 1, at this location. We do not see them 'arise', and indeed fascinated would be the many, if they did; but neither in concrete nor in kinds of new DNA advanced design, do they formulate themselves, and ... arise, come to be.
It is its absence relative to creation before our very eyes, which is as significant as would be a situation with non-architects all, looking at a building of the most glorious artistry and sophistication of cognition displayed. In such a case, we would look for him or his tomb.
In this case, however, the buildings are continued by the pattern-making ingredients and the collation of powers and co-operative devices, according to the book, the DNA and its partners in programming. We look for the architect, not as an option, but as a necessity. When we find the book which has the same capacity to program history as was shown in the capacities of the creation to proceed programmatically, we do not wonder what has happened. We simply learn - so He did it. This is how, and He knows since He was there at the time. Science tests and finds the outcome precisely as stated, and the imagination that it is otherwise is just that, as shown in TMR Ch. 1, SMR Ch. 2.
Then we come to the point of seeking to know Him - all artists of prodigious intellectual and imaginative, not to say aesthetic power, combined, people who are like Leonardo da Vinci, tend to be most fascinating; but when you come to Leonardo as the product, the Producer becomes a most intriguingly wonderful One to know.
When you find from His book - attested in similar directed dynamic to that in the body and mind and spirit of man, but far greater in the scope of its proven powers - how to know Him, what then ? Then you find it is necessary to repent of the sin which prevented you hitherto from knowing Him, and of the price it was necessary for Him in love and truth to pay, as His word instructs us; and falling before Him, seek mercy. Moved by compassion, He has provided the ransom for sin, the remedy for ruin, the oblation for obstinacy and the path for peace. In the Messiah, Jesus the Christ, we there learn, He has provided the sacrifice for which in justice and judgment, sin brings need (Romans 3:23ff.).
It is precisely sin, though more original in its form and formula at the first (Romans 5:1ff., 5:12ff., 8:1ff.), which occasioned the curse, and required the restorative means for life in man, even redemption by sin-bearing, and life affirmation by resurrection from the dead. As to that, none could stop what for a millenium He had said He would do; and He merely continued His immutable power, past the final signature of sin, and signed the pardon document for all who receive Him., breaching death as He had done for those whom He had earlier raised, like Lazarus, and defeating the ultimate sickness, the more horrid, since a sentence lay within!
In this is that crystalline fire of the faith, which is more bracing than any ocean breeze, when the ship is sailing in the high seas, more magnificent in mercy than any pardon ever made from man to man, more intelligible than any philosophy, more secure than any word or argument. This continues as given, and proceeded as predicted (cf. SMR pp. 755ff.), its power exerted according to the promise.
Thus is the parallel to the code-written words which make our physical bodies arise, like little Empire State Buildings being spawned before our eyes, and requiring not less but more power since they are vastly superior and far more cohesively integrated.
Thus do we find the written words, not this time executively equipped, but equipped by the Executor of the Salvation for man, and provided for him. After all, this man, this model of ultra-genius in his formulation and information equipment from the first, he is in the domain of this invisible, as well as in the visible, and he is treated not as machinery, a site to dump words merely; no, not at all, but rather is he a site for a citation, for the remedy of sin or for its ruinous fulmination.
As his body is programmed into existence, so his mind is penetrated by the word of the Maker of the body, and his spirit is confronted by the Spirit of the Maker, while the Word which made him, becomes now for him, the One who either saves or judges him.
As his very earth begins to heat beneath his feet, and the torrents and tornadoes fling themselves into the mêlée man has made with his furores, furies and scintillatingly frivolous philosophies which have led to the vitiation of much in his life, man is reminded. Of what is he reminded ? It is of this: that the programmatic is continuing, even to the fulfilment of the words concerning the end of the Age of grace. That, we have seen in Answers to Questions Ch. 5, in great detail.
With God, the detail is always right; but then, so is the perspective in which it fits; just as organs fit in the body, and the brain is co-ordinated with all, and is susceptible to the unprogrammatic loves, hatreds and analyses of man's spirit.
Design ? that is only a small part of what is before us. It is creation; and as to that, it is logically inevitable, just as are its physical, spiritual and destination results. Failure to follow what is written by the God of creation, in the book of this same Lord, the Bible, uniquely self-attesting, just as is man as a creation, is nothing less than a divorce between what you are and what you must be.
That means desecration, and all that this portends. The opposite is called new creation, a consummation including pardon, peace and relevant power for the man God made. It completes the picture, while restoring it.
You could see SMR Chs. 8 - 9, The Pitter-Patter ... Ch. 4, Let God be God Ch. 4, indexes on Archeology - what could you NOT see!
That's shown in Highway of Holiness Ch. 4 - comes in Daniel 9.
See Answers to Questions Ch. 5 with SMR Ch. 8.
See SMR pp. 755ff. for the extended overview in sequence, and 763ff. for more detail on the culmination in Christ. Isaiah, in this respect, is given more attention in Dastardly Dynamics Ch. 3.
Some copy on this is to be found in Beauty for Ashes Ch. 3, Earth Spasm ... Chs. 7 and 1, Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Chs. 1 and 7, Answers to Questions Ch. 5 at this section, and generally in The gods of naturalism have no go! Choice relics of their ruins are noted in Wake Up World! ... Chs. 4, 5, and 6. Their endless changing 'views' fibrillate like a heart which cannot pump.
Beyond the Curse gives some overview of this, while TRIALS, TESTS and TRIUMPHS in TEMPTATION together with Pain, Suffering and Evil, expose this concept of TEST as a nerve centre for creation, just as sin is the virus that is worse than any bird 'flu could ever be. With liberty is answerability, and with opportunity, responsibility, with test, results, by grace, goodness freely, for God is not in any need, and has no budget to meet.
As Proverbs puts it, The Curse CAUSELESS does not come! Careful self-insulation, or formalism in faith may indeed seem no cause for anything; but they are no less so that it would be if the arm held to a formalism in function, and an isolation in mode.
See also on plague, Member Contribution 1, comparing our time with that of Israel, during the so famous plagues then enforced. Principles are thereby illustrated, with day by day divine commentary.
On this, see TMR Appendix, SMR pp. 179ff., 195ff., 560ff., 482ff., Trappings for Potpourri, A Spiritual Potpourri 5, 8, 9, The Other News 16, Biblical Blessings Ch. 7, News 82. (On the pastoral aspects of unbiblical misconstructions, in general and in this field, see SMR 560-569.)
Attempts at hybridisation, trying to subordinate God to the anti-empirical idea of evolution, merely add insult to unbelief. At least the atheist, though horribly exposed for his irrationality (cf. SMR Ch. 10), is not directly insulting the Spirit of Grace, the very nature of the Deity, of His sacrificial -and not tempestuously selfish - Being. Just how real the insult is may not appear to those drugged by these illicit and unscientific devices, but it must be faced as in SMR pp. 179ff., 195ff., above. The term 'organic evolution' is used in these environs to mean one which does not attempt to subordinate God to the woeful pangs of a cursed creation, as though punishment were creation! It rather indicates one who seeks to elude Him, elide Him or remove Him. See on this Beyond the Curse, and News 74.
The term 'theistic evolution', often used for the attempt to hybridise a fallen and never verified theory of some scientists, bringing about a mating with the Bible, is in the direst contradiction of it. See not only those references above, but also Answers to Questions Ch. 5 at this section, Calibrating Myths ... Ch. 1, with TMR Chs. 1 and 8, together with Appendix, A Spiritual Potpourri 1 -9. Endeavour to deal with what has been a capitulation to a corpse or its undertakers, and a cession to secession is not warranted. This theistic evolutionary position contradicts both science and the Bible, and gains nothing from evidence in either direction! It is necessary to keep to what happens, both in 'nature' and in the scripture, if you seek warrant from the revealed God of creation, and His creation: not to fail both!
See on this Defining Drama Ch. 10, and 3G above.
Consult here SMR pp. 412-420 with Ancient Words, Modern Deeds Chs. 9, 13,
CAUSES 1, SMR Ch. 5, Secular Myths, Sacred Truth Ch. 7, SMR 5, Predestination and Freewill Section 4.
Neither can unreason produce reason, unreality invent reality, nothing make something, or form and reason escape their basis by mantra-style chanting about formlessness and irrationality in a setting that is not there. As soon as anything is there, it must be adequate for what is to be, and if it is not, what you seek to explain will not be. If it is adequate, it must have all it takes. Investigating by the assumed absence of what you use as a basis for investigation, in what you investigate, in fairy-style approaches, where realism is the last consideration, is like trying to break a bank vault with a fairy of your imagination. The imagination is there all right, but the fairy isn't. Rational penetration of the assumed irrational is a contradiction in terms: what you use is what is not there, WHILE yet being assumed to be in operation in what you investigate at that level. Ascribing causes in the assumed absence of the same is a vain and irrelevant exercise, and avoiding causes is as impossible as ascribing reasons for their arising, where reason has no place, and validity no thought.
As to causes, deduce their ‘arising’ and you use them; use them and you already have them: the best example of begging the question one can imagine. Yet this too, it is by definition irrational, illogical, a mere basis for the examiner’s red pencil and failure. Worse, this is mere symbol for the actuality which is as absent as the sun in blackness, oceans in the desert or life in necrosis.
Where causality flourishes, reason already is present for the concatenation and correlation of characteristics and conditions, input and output, definition and co-ordination with function, a structured, delimited system requiring its basis, ground and … reason. SMR Chapter 1 traces the result in detail.
Reason, as there shown, leads inexorably to that sole, divinely authorised, written revelation to mankind, the BIBLE, its unique validity and exhaustive verification attested throughout SMR, TMR and other members of that Library of 114 volumes, In Praise of Christ Jesus.
This Bible in turn, requires repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, the definitive declaration of God, the living Word of God to man, sole Saviour by the deposit of eternal life with those who deposit by faith their sins and lives with Him (John 5:39-40, 14:6, Acts 4:11-12) whose word rules (Matthew 5:17ff., John 14:26, Luke 6:46), and who is the Prince of life (Acts 3:14-15). Here is the result required by God, in the One sent from His being who wrought in love and power, as prescribed from millennia before, at the time depicted in Daniel (Highway of Holiness Ch. 4), with the result shown in Isaiah 7, 9, 22, 32, 49-55, and attested in that meek Lamb of history (John 1:29), itself that chronological expansion which has no show when it comes to doing anything other than what God has prescribed in that book of the Lord, that same Bible, setting forth the exclusive salvation in that same sent Christ (John 14:6, Galatians 1:6-9, Luke 2:36, II Corinthians 11).
Man may subvert Himself, but never can he subvert His Maker, His wisdom, His truth or His ways.
Man talks. God has spoken and done. God has created, man has desecrated; God has provided the remedy, the ransom in Jesus Christ, the Just One whom history could not hold, death could not subdue, who broke its bonds and cancelled its necessity for those who receive Him (Romans 3:23ff.), God having declared that He Himself would be the ransom (Hosea 13:14): wrought in Him who was given from the glory of His eternity, born in Bethlehem (MIcah 5:1-3), and though eternal, given by grace, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God (II Peter 3:18).
It is He who gives strength to the weary (Isaiah 40:26ff.), grace to the lowly, power to the puny (Ephesians 1:19) and the answer of the lips for His service (Luke 21:15), who dwells in illimitable light, works with illustrious might and whose compassion is focussed in Christ, that door to eternity (John 10:9,27-28) without whom there is but rebellion, a guilt preserved by wilfulness and a breach of life (John 3:19,36). His praise is free, abounding and eternal (Psalm 145,148-150).
*4 That is, Wing, the idea that Nature has no cause, or made itself or other magics. It is a form of materialism normally, or various kinds of inchoate longings where words do not convey any logic at all.
Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Ch. 3 shows to what acrid depths this sort of imagination will go, reminiscent of the ancient idolaters of Israel, to use the biblical terminology, 'shrieking' for their calf, the implement of provocation to the God of creation at that time; and how piercingly Jeremiah exposes just the same sort of anti-scientific, anti-spiritual animus of his day in Jeremiah 2:27, which ought to be read in the entire chapter, which is in part a prolonged denunciation of blindness, unhistorical imagination and forgetfulness of the living God.
*4A There SHOULD be an adjective for code and I am going to make one. It isn't a word ? It IS now! Mode, modal, code, codal, let's go! English is the additive language par excellence, so let's add. It will do it good.
See Repent or Perish Ch. 7, especially Endnotes 2 and 4. Stepping out for Christ ... Ch. 9 also deals with some of the further features which are wanded in. SMR pp. 332G also provides some more organised insight into the realities aborted by such wishful thinking as appears to hold sway in this negation furore.
You could see The gods of naturalism
have no go! Ch. 6 here, to get the feel of the
discourse when it is still dressed up, and not stripped to its logical
essentials! The chemical and physical and indeed biochemical realities are like
a nightmare for the magic flute opera of do it yourself creation. See also
Dayspring *2. On
information per se, see the Epilogue following
this Chapter, with Little Things
Ch. 3 (esp. *3), Beauty of Holiness Ch. 4, Dancers, Prancers, Lancers and Answers Chs. 3, 5
The prejudicial impertinence in the old sense of the word, of the exclusion of the only source of the book of life, the Author, is what SMR deems 'the cult of the forbidden', making science a club for the boys, not a research endeavour. On this cult, see TMR 8, * 7, ASP 4, SMR pp. 150ff..
*5 On this, Wing, you could see Let God be God... Ch. 4. Actually, some of the litter from this lordly ignoring of evidence and logic alike, and ceaseless, meaningless and ignorant assault on the Bible, not watching the facts in either sphere accurately, apparently from the strength of the animus, the desire, or whatever it is that is driving, there is an appalling correlative, which might be called post-naturalism. On this, see Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Ch. 3
See Causes. Many seem to need large glasses for this!
See It Bubbles ... Ch. 9, Little Things ... Ch. 5, Predestination and Freewill, Section 1, SMR pp. 348 ff., for example. In News 74 you see an ample treatment in one fascinating phase: it is all like a many-faceted jewel, sent in 66 books, read as one, harmonious as hand in hand, thought with thought in skilled mind, a joy to read, an experience to ponder, filled with inexpressible light, which gives to our own illumination both a standard and a stimulus, thrust into being with a magnificent liberality.
See Divine Agenda Ch. 4, Answers to Questions Ch. 5, in this section with SMR Chs. 2, 5, 10, TMR Chs. 1, 5, 8.
See TMR Ch. 5, Barbs ... 6 -7, and REASON, REVELATION and the REDEEMER.
See Highway of Holiness Ch. 4.
See SMR p. 476, Great Execrations ... Greater Grace Chs. 7 and 9.