Making it simple
We see therefore, putting it slightly differently:
Organic evolution fails:
i) to be based on relevant observation (cf. pp. 161, 234, 251-252G infra).
ii) in having no citable law available for normal scientific testing.
iii) in not being verified in terms of prediction from a scientific law.
iv) to provide sound agreement, even in retrodiction for its purveyors.
v) to agree with current observation of what does happen, even in broadest terms.
In this, Stephen J. Gould (see below) is eloquent in his explication of the exact OPPOSITE
being found to what is envisaged by gradualism, while his own conceptions
fail to provide the activating force, being minus the Darwinian mechanism and
with no visible thrust of their own (cf. SMR pp. 315Aff., Wake Up World Chs. 5-6,
and Gould’s Wonderful Life pp. 233, 239, 260, 226, 257).
vi) as contrary in tenor to known scientific law, such as entropy, equally to common sense
(on which seehttp://webwitness.org.au/thatmagrock/creation#opposite.html and http://webwitness.org.au/wake5.html for example)
vii) to have the discipline of science, either in past imaginings or present happenings,
proceedings moving from imagination to hope rather than from observation to hypothesis to potentially lethal test.
viiii) more monumentally the more microbiology reveals the human body as the design paragon (cf. /definingdrama10.html#kind).
ix) in confronting the intricate patterns of a profound and single language as a contribution from chaos (the language of life, which is one, in cells) ...
Professor Murray Eden (q.v.) relates here.
x) in having two systems (genetic and behavioural-surviving and so on),
not systematically related, yet expected to construct what is here (Schützenberger).
CREATION, LIKE EVOLUTION, IS NOT A STANDARD SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT.
JUST AS IS THE CASE WITH EVOLUTION, IT IS NOT BASED ON HUMAN OBSERVATION OF EVENTS HAPPENING. BROADER TREATMENT OF BOTH IS THUS NEEDED. HOWEVER, UNLIKE THE CASE WITH EVOLUTION, WHEN THIS IS DONE, CREATION DOES MEET ALL THE LOGICAL CRITERIA (cf. p. 116 infra).
i) It does not claim that the process is continuing. In this, it is confirmed
by all available means. That is verification.ii) It is susceptible to disproof ( in its Biblical formulation) by simply showing
that the process from which creatures have come in fact is continuing. In this,
it is verified, for this is not seen. Nor would current information theory lead one
to expect that it would be. Cohesion of theory and fact is thus multiple.iii) It does provide logical ground for the language of life, for the one language of life,
for its operative efficiency and its relationship to the concept of language such as we use.iv) It avoids the non-systematic relationship of two systems as a ground.
iv) Its clear cut retrodiction is not met with contradiction, and it could have been.
This too is verification.v) It is in precise accord with known scientific law, such as the second law
of thermodynamics; and entropy is another formulation of what the Bible SAYS,
( e.g. Isaiah 51:6), and implies ( Romans 8:20-22 ) in that area of formulation!
(on which see That Magnificent Rock, Ch. 1 as here detailed
and Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Ch. 5 for example).vi) The nature of mutation verifies it - variation but not transmutation (kinds).
See Gould, op. cit. p. 230, SMR pp. 208ff., 236, 252H, 106, 226, 236, 214-220,
Wake Up World! … Ch. 6.vii) The numerous evolutionary theories (provided to meet even distant facts)
by their disagreement, the one with the other, and by their incredible character -
creation arriving incognito as in 'quantum' evolution, or the so-called 'hopeful monster'
concept - are in a predictable situation.
These unsatisfactory theories show what one would expect: multiplication of
empirically unfounded hypotheses without solution., and consequent radically
diverse concepts with camp-style warfare within evolutionism
(cf. SMR pp. 226ff., 315Aff., 252Aff.).
A good illustration is found in the writings if not writhings of. S.J. Gould Wonderful Life pp. 227ff., 234-239, 260, 310 where he uses the fascinating phrase, of gradualistic Darwinian devices, as 'literally incomprehensible', moving to rather another realm altogether on pp. 100ff., in his variable ideas of what was operative in the Burgess Cambrian splash, leading there to the concept of a brilliant genius, of "rare and precious skills" which he could never emulate, while in his Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 103, he has the reflection on the gradualistic mode of coming to be, that 'miracles would become the rule'. On such things, see /trappingsforpotpourri, and /wake 5, 6 (from A Spiritual Potpourri and Wake Up World! ... respectively). .
Gould remonstrates that Cambrian designs far exceed current ones (op.cit. pp.
226-227, 46-47), the concept of theory being inverted relative to the finding of
fact. Inversion is not a good conversion rate from theory to fact (p. 233 op.cit);
and it would be far better to begin with fact, and then to fashion theory.
This intense variability in evolutionism, flying where it never can land and
exposed from within, with endless ideological wars, is further
verification of the creation concept, Biblically invariant, and by contrast
neither needing to be changed in its perspective or declarations nor admitting
any such alteration, thus meeting its own criteria and
exceeding those of secular science.
That is, it is unchanging because it is Biblically defined, the word of the unchanging God there revealed; as also because what is Biblically defined, does not need to be confined orrightness given. This case simply verifies that. That is what it had to be; that is what it is. It meets its own criteria, which are exceptionally strict beyond those of any competition. refined, since its cover is factual. It stays in the form, function and
viii) In the Biblical formulation, this situation is also explained psychologically,
and indeed spiritually. There it is declared that man is alienated
from the life of God and is systematically dimensionally ignorant (Ephesians 4:18-19).
Romans 1 even traces the process. This ability to account for the activity of the
evolutionary thrust, personally, is also verification. The more acceptable hypotheses,
in scientific method, are those which not only cover the empirical case,
are harmonious with relevant and well-established LAWS, but cover further fields
with robust consistency, each mutually reinforcing the other, as here is the case.ix) What contains in its ambit most areas, covers them most categorically and elegantly
is deemed the desideratum: this is verification at its acme. In general, the more
broadly a presentation covers all known facts, explains all relevant data and
the more readily it does so, the more it is deemed to confirm itself.
On the contrary, even one anti-verification, failure to meet due test is fatal,
and fatality is the situation for organic evolutionism. (Cf. Earth Spasm ... Ch. 7,
Wake Up World! ... Ch. 6, News 57.)
On all these matters, see
the trilogy, The gods of naturalism have no go!
This excursion into scientific theory and its nature, scientific method and its formulation, and current controversy and its analysis is presented to stimulate you into thought. Culture is not a sufficient condition for thought and acute analysis is always in order. It is what can make certain responses more incisive, sharp, clear and arresting. It helps remove confusion. Further, discoveries can the more readily be made when the cult of the forbidden is not followed, which pre-determines arbitrarily of what dimensions the hypothesis must be composed, a merely philosophic intrusion. In scientific method, evidence must be pondered and conclusions subjected to the discipline of reality in all spheres, without prejudice.
The wrong-headed trend to reject culturally, as at one tertiary institution at which the author taught, because it is not convenient, and not because it is wrong, without indeed giving it due rational interaction with those who present it, is in essence a form of cult. Is not what is culturally dictated in the dereliction of duty towards reason and evidence, a cult ? And in how many universities does one find evidence from Staff or students, of this deplorable cultic phenomenon: creation, or the grand issues of reality are forbidden a priori.
What however is the 'cult of the forbidden' ? It is that cultural negativity, fear or subtlety (depending on motive) whereby certain matters are (ostensibly) ruled in advance of all evidence, 'out of court' - the court of culture. Whether it be deemed to be politics, religion or other field, the result is a mental crimping that too readily becomes downright dishonesty if not, indeed, hypocrisy, in which dimension the noted scientist Løvtrup is most (justly) critical - cf. SMR pp. 202, as seen in his work, Darwinism, The Refutation of a Myth. In this parody of scientific method, certain things are out of cultural bounds, being inconsistent with desire, ethos, illusion or delusion; irrespective of their truth. Even research as Løvtrup notes, can be compromised in this way.
In its opposition to creationism in religion, it may involve the detestable folly of pretending that evidential procedures are irrelevant, and, worse still, that it is illegal to be logical and alert with evidence and reason, lest emotions be roused. This subordinates truth to convenience and not for long may one justifiably expect the continuance of such folly, or of any society where it distinctively rules.
Reality is a dangerous enemy with whom to trifle by such policy and contempt. By this means, irrelevant irrationalities and absurdities - such as is organic evolution in terms of scientific method - may be 'allowed', in that by a mythical or even at times mystical oversight, their merely mythical powers are ignored; whereas the more scientifically oriented view of creation is 'excluded' as 'religious'. (Cf. pp. 211-222, 226-234, 330-334 infra.) Myth, the attribution of executive power to what gives no attestation of its very existence, is not to be desired in any rational pursuit.
On the contrary, coherent, confirmed rationally sustainable presentation as in creation, short-circuits nothing by mere human fiat, for does it need to; for creationism acknowledges the just result of free verificatory procedures on this basis, compared with those of other and alien kinds.
Thus, Christianity unlike this organic evolutionary degradation, with open heart and incisive mind is quite freely availab1e for 'inspection' - and meets any intelligently administered critical test with overwhelming results, that are as unified as they are unique; and it alone systematically meets logical requirements of consistency and rationality. (Refer SMR Chapters 1, 3 and 10). This becomes relevant for biblical creationism, as one particular variety of it, which has no humanly imposed limits to its field or its testability, no arbitrary exclusivism, but speaks by its works.
Contrary to this and to this openness, this cult of the forbidden has become an anti-logical discriminatory device, protective of irrationalisms and, in educational circles, often excluding the only logically sustainable answer even from consideration! Endless ragings between competing theories, with this excluded, is a PREDICTABLE as it is an ACTUAL result. It is also verification. If you refuse that 2 plus 2 equals 4, there is sure to be strife among the exclusivists!
It is time students were made aware of their options, and educated fairly in this realm.