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

Chapter 4

Naturalism:

The Marijuana of Philosophy,

and the Death of Science ...

The Unholy Hindrance of Humanity.

and its Cure

If China has many missiles pointing pointedly at Taiwan, it threatens in the first instance, mere physical obliteration for those chosen to receive this grace. 
There is however a more potent pugnacity, and it is not physical,
nor is it by any means limited to the Far East,
the Middle East or to the West.

Its name is naturalism, and its fancies are as erratic as that of any military machine, tied to the fingers of the mighty, while its results are international, like taipans on stage, dancing before moving out into the audience.

On one occasion, one asked for some select sections for impact, and so in this chapter, as we look at hindrances to man, these are provided, with occasional addition. They are like an anti-banquet, where one may conceive what the poison of such philosophy is like, and how ludicrous is any claim for its relationship to science. It is an invasion of the Isle of Truth by hostile forces, forever lusting for take over.

It is not our aim, however, merely to regard hindrances, and indeed what doctor or teacher or mother would be inclined to do this. With the disease, comes the cure; with the revolt, comes the remedy, with the problem arises the answer. We are concerned, as the title of this volume shows, to deal with HELPS as well as hindrances; and the first help is to remove the idol of naturalism, and the second is to show the true God and the necessity of doing business with Him, before He, the Lord, does business with you, if need be, in judgment.

From Stepping out for Christ Ch.  9

You were speaking of the synthetic whole, and all the components and syntheses of things. You seemed to be saying something like this: THEY HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED.

That IS the fact of life.

It is pleasant, isn't it ? I have an institution as maggie, and a facility as myself.

I find the combination wholly exhilarating, he chortled. I mean, I had nothing to do with the fixture, magpie, but have much to do with its deployment!

His eye gleamed, and he went on.

If I madly imagined
 

	myself or my kind to be the creator of the fixtures, or of the DNA orders, the synchronised commands and the correlated power to do them, in fact, to make construction sites plus workers plus equipment plus oversight, generative, governing, ordering, organisation, disposing, directing, protecting; or
	that the beach did it in-between doing what it is really good at, and shows itself good at, and built its own sand castles, mechanised them and gave them wings; or
	that the stars asserted themselves, or
	that it was brought to be and fashioned by something ludicrously in principle unequipped for it, while in practice deprived of it, that yet made hay while the sun did not shine, while the seeds were not there and there was no ground;
	that some non-mental practitioner operated, one not only dead but never seen or shown alive, some uncoded, unqualified, resource-denuded, systematically inadequate and artlessly ineffective alien to all such endeavour;
	that some inert and purposeless executive made purposes, or
	some minus made pluses, not merely in symbol but in substance:

then that would merely make for a ludicrous mis-swoop, and I’d sputter and flutter to the earth.
If I did that, I would suffer a dislocation of the mind, or have the eyes of thought picked out. I would generate worlds in my imagination, dreams in my trances, but folly in my life.

If, he continued with that alert eye I knew so well: If I did that, then reason would lose it beak, though get handy claws and make worlds without using them. The last of things would have mind for the best, even though it did not even lose its mind, never having had one; while minds that are now created, would imagine matter through causal evidence, and then make it a god, and dispensing with its cause, give it worlds for its play-pen, though all knowledge of its very existence depends on thought, and any reality it has for the man of the world, can be found only if mind is independently valid first. If it’s not, then what do reactors know ? If it is, then from what source did it gain this ? If inadequate, forget it, it is illusion. If adequate, then admit it, and find its other requirements in addition to logic.

This fantasy, he chuckled,  is a mouth without rationality, uttering great things - as in Daniel 7:20,25, and one day some man will doubtless put himself in the bottle, and declare himself the genie (II Thess. 2:2-3).

From Defining Drama Ch. 4

                           'He has no understanding' ?"

It is this which Paul expounds in I Corinthians 1.

The tedious irrationality of having matter make mind, and spirit, so that the programmatic becomes the personal, that which is incapable of error becomes what lives in it, its offspring; while the law-girt becomes the law-breaker, the meaningless deploys meaning, and what is set, and even commanded,  to its genes,  becomes the creative, in its spirit is a blurry monotone of a captive culture. Such ignominious substitute for thought is preached with reckless consistency, in books, in TV, on the Web, like an obsession.

Meanwhile,

	this mental chattel that is chosen for authoritative chatter,
	this breach of logic,
	this nothing that names nothing its source, which it thus signifies for its value,
	this irrationality which reasons for a truth which it then declines to have around, with this same reason:
	why has it become ? it is self-imprisoned in chains to culture and convention, thoughtless and hideous in its inconsistency, except in error, its king.

What is truth ? says Pilate. If there were no truth, then the ground for its dismissal could not exist, for then that would be true. Truth can never be evacuated by argument which dismisses it, nor avoided by irrationality which ignores the necessities not merely of creation, as if the system which never manages to create itself when viewed, or show its mode of doing so, mystically manages it anyway. It can not evade the blight when it seeks to validate itself in a system-model which lacks truth, and merely reacts, and reads reactions. What is not there, you cannot obtain. When you postulate its absence, you incriminate your procedure, and back out in the irrationality wagon, the self-contradiction unit, sent to despatch you. It is pointless really.

Its name, this proponent of intellectual dereliction, logical lapse and spiritual debauch ? It is man, secular man, vagrantly religious man, the pathological corruption of a wonderful creation, one acting as if to become god without credentials, dispensing with logic by logic, and sitting on the nugatory, the nubilous and the meaningless, in order to proclaim meaning from his very own self. (Cf. SMR Ch. 3, The Other News 19, Ancient Words, Modern Deeds Ch. 9, News 100, 152).

 

From STEPPING OUT FOR CHRIST, Ch. 9

Now we move down the scale in size, to wholly other dramas. The termite is not an ant, we learn, and is mostly blind, relying on taste and touch to build miles of interlocking, specialty tunnels for eggs, the queen, the neatly cut pieces of grass, taken at night, the disposal of waste, the nurseries and so on. Just as it is in space, so in time. The new campus is found by a mating pair, this time with eyes since they serve the purposes in hand, such as site selection. When all is ready, and reproduction occurs, the worker termites appear, and work. It is only much later when the civic situation allows such specialisation, that solider termites appear with new mandible construction to enable their ferocious if tiny work to be done, on any invading ants which, if not to be slain in droves, yet can be impeded, should they attack the mound or tunnel, enough for other termites to use the time so gained.

To do what ? Why, to seal off the broken tunnel, the invasion site, so that the ants can no longer get it and overpower the smaller termites. What happens to the solder termites who repel for a little time, the invading ants ? Why they die, surrounded and outnumbered, desperately saving by their own self-sacrifice, the hive from which they come, for which they fight.

But what of the sexless character of the workers ? How does the thing go on ? Like this: sexually equipped varieties arise when the time is ... right. THEN the workers in droves perform their next team play for which, unlike the magpie case, there is no obvious preparation. Instinct ? We shall look at that shortly. They prepare little launch ramps for the mating couples, equipped unlike themselves with reproductive capacity, to use their temporary and relatively feeble wings to fly from, being thus helped the more to go further from the original mound or tunnelling.

But efficient planning is here. When any couple that is not eaten on their honeymoon preparations, lives long enough to land and find the place for a city, they shrug off their wings, and attack the soil.

The odds against their living long enough for this are great; so the queen can live up to 100 years or more, popping out pills, or rather termite eggs in a profusion of thousands upon thousands, in a specialty piece of team work which is notable. When scarcity strikes, eggs from this fertile source are eaten for food; when times permit, they swell the multitude on maturity!

Eating their way through miles of tunnels with a strategic apportionment of places for tasks, workers for tasks and operation management worthy of the best hotels, they aerate the soil and prevent or rather inhibit occlusion from massed substances clogging it. Capable of blessing, they can also curse: thus eating even lead from wires, and destroying houses. It is the old story: there is an intelligent concourse of specialisation and plan, program and performance which meets needful specifications with acumen and thrust; there is provision for chastisement from the same source. As with water, it quenches thirst and floods domains.

Here however there is this difference. The features keep their type, kind, format, within a special identifiable version control. They are a kind. There is a full-stop finality about these touchingly deprived and admirably acute workers. That is what is found. Indeed, there is much that is found in the biological domain which is well to watch. Let us see what we have most obviously.

First there is FULL STOP FINALITY. The "kind" is spoken. It is useless to pretend that things "just happen", when our computing shows us so clearly and with such reason, that they JUST DON'T! Complex, controlled, sustained performance criteria require immense care and consideration to enable action to be in the right sequence, to be analysed so that their inter-relationships do not intrude, one into another through careless programming; and bugs are so common and can be such a near night-mare, that their removal can take almost unnumbered hours while the program is analysed and re-analysed, till there appears some apparently inconsequential oversight which did NOT allow for the fact that on certain occasions this and that can occur together, and an ambiguity was left which was not determined, so that the thing... WOULD NOT operate!

To teach a robot to walk, to drive a car is a work requiring near genius. ANY level of conceptual continuity, behavioural complexity, sequential performance of a specifiable purpose with a determinate integrated payload, leading to the next, assembly line if you will, with inputs and outputs which lead on to the throughput, and this to its integration with an allied and parallel performance which, with this, makes a pair in a near army of other such cases, all proceeding to one overall complex but simple conclusion, will need a mental agility and formulating capacity that is not easily discouraged, or dulled in perception. Likewise, it needs an oversight facility which is susceptible to conceiving the arena so sharply that a failure of composition is removable, when it evidences itself, by the apt incision into the framework of the necessary symbolical thought concerned.

And this ? It is correlative to what is SPOKEN. Symbolism implies thought and thought implies intelligence and intelligence requires a site and correlation with the practical performance criteria and assessive faculties, and mind is the name. But not of all of it! With mind there is a synthesis with a métier, a skilful facility to implement. They are not the same, as the absent-minded professor case shows so well. There is thought and there is its implementation. Some are good at one, some at another. Some have both gifts.

Nor is this all. There is the capacity to conserve what is implemented and to fashion its maintenance program - if indeed it is to be maintained. In the case in hand, it is, over enormous numbers of years, many thousands. THAT IS MAINTENANCE! Compare it with my Holden, a mere 29 years old! It does well. But it is not yet into the thousands, without a mechanic, to boot! No, it does not BEGIN TO COMPARE WITH THAT PERFORMANCE.

It is thus necessary to consider performance criteria in evaluating any construction. FULL STOP FINALITY is what we find. The things continue. They are not worked out in endlessly aborted missions; they do not leave countless miscarriages of endeavour on the tarmac. They come and their mode of continuance is this: it is as if they were addressed by the Sergeant Major: AS YOU WERE! That is the evidence which a huge series of finds of creations continuing unchanged for time immemorial.

That however is not all.

  With
1) FULL STOP FINALITY, comes

2) FUGAL FACILITY. The species have a fixed relationship to the "kind" theme, like musical composition, strict laws governing the display this way and that, of the inventive genius, and these are  enshrined in the original. There is an arrangement which makes an inter-relation, and there is a theme towards which the inter-relation exhibits itself. The unity is a delight, the variation a rapture in some cases; the interaction is sheer delight. It is ordered; it is governed; that is why there IS the unity, which otherwise would irrationally intrude. It is flexible in detail, governed in kind, developmental in aspect, but only on the original theme, with the criteria for conformity mixed with those for relationship. The sheer exuberance of life, as Jay Gould^*1 rightly noted in his Wonderful Life, is almost overpowering. It is sudden, it is vast, it is however thematically conserved. It can adapt within its specifications, like new fugal forms; but its adaptations are kept in theme, like the varieties which fascinate because the more they differ, the more they are the same.

Indeed, as with much of art, you can see the same DEVICE used over and over, with perhaps some modification, in diverse places; and you see it in speeches; and indeed in the New Testament you see adaptations of formulations to situations from the mouth of Jesus. There are the criteria, the characteristics of mind: there is NOT a slavish mentality, as if it could only be that once an idea was worked one way for one decided purpose, it could not be adapted skilfully to a related one; mechanics as well as musicians are aware of such intelligent adaptations. Yet it is an adaptation, and the purpose of creation allows the performance criteria met in one way, to be met in a way which meets variant criteria, through penetrating analysis. This we covered in SMR pp. 252Lff., under the heading of DELIBERATIVE DESIGN.

3) We find also what one might call WATERFALL WISDOM.

Vast complexity with a feeling of freedom, is impressed into the way the myriad steps in instincts and scenarios for individual and group life performance. The steps can even less be isolated and re-drafted, like separate atoms, than can the drops associated with the beautiful splendour of a waterfall be caught in a bucket, and then re-composed into the original form. They have a coherence significance. Their meaning is in their production situation, with the meanings inherent in each of these elements, up to the rain, down to the rocks, with all the greeneries and currents in the intervals. To set their individual place and size and reproduce it, together with the exact composition of the air, is irrelevant. For one thing, that changes in terms of its total relationship to the whole, its sources and resources. But as it changes, it is that thing: the waterfall in its setting.

Even if it were possible to gain EVERY nuance by simple copying, THAT is a mere recording facility. The point is their production which gives you something to record. In the same way, a photograph can 'capture' what it is quite powerless to institute; for the reproduction of a scene varies from its production, just as its mode can come indirectly from its natural setting or be made by the furious contrivings of engineers, by artificial intelligence, a mere substitute of great limitations.

In the waterfall, the site and ingredients are all structured, so that the results flow with amassed controls, changing constantly, but with a thematic constancy which allows mere aping efforts to reproduce without the scene in its totality, to appear merely comic.

Much more is this consideration relevant in life. Here it is an integration which is minute, modulated, assessable in visible controls, which is at work. It is provided for not in the meteorological vastnesses, but in the atomic minuteness, coded into composition and controlled into performance. The supervention of conception and control over the raw materials which allow for but do not possess it (like tin-openers, mere ordered matter, but capable of 'higher' uses by intelligence), enables instinct. Beyond that, comes reason and spirit, will and the power to abort reason.

Even, however, at the level of instinct, with it there is commonly the amazing collation of consciousness which, USING the facilities which are available and organised and in working condition, can adapt them with some measure of perceptive (as distinct from conceptual) intelligence, to meet obvious needs which press, and to which the instinctive procedure can be made to relate. Whether in termites or magpies it is there; in magpies, it is there with aplomb, panache and distinction, as if it were a victorious tribute to efficiency, a verve with zest, a seeming delight in using with facility and manoeuvre, the flight and strategy considerations in a happy blend and mix. The distinction as we move beyond that in understanding, comes to the operational difference between practical analysis with intelligence and its mere use, and selective disposition of many layered capacities and the understanding of their nature.

This then is the dynamic whole, and it relates not least to the integral relationships between faculties and facilities, instincts and challenges, intelligence and the product of intelligence which intelligence deploys: made, it acts; fashioned, it works, and working, it individualises its applications with conscious involvement.

4) There is TESSELLATED STABILITY.

As outcomes are contained, so their inter-relationships are maintained. Structure, like action, has its own symphonies. It is not only one of time, it is one of place: it gives place meaning and time place.

The termite  that "develops" sex in some cases, when the community is stable, in co-ordinated, specialised work, makes flight ramps for the occasion, to allow mating flights to overcome multiple mission failures, with singular success; that provides for auto-detachment of wings before mating and so on, is a tessellated mutual fixing that needs total presence of each working part in the series, for the play, the ploy, the program of disposition to work.

This is maintained over ages. It is never found in process. It is not that kind of thing. To change the image: the first Boeing 737 wheel is no use in a preceding tiger moth aircraft. The assemblage is total or nothing; it is sui generis overall, and its overall reality is as much part of it as its atom-by-atom substructures.

To revert to our imagery: the floor is wedged together in a perfect fit, like tessellation, with the parts also operative in time-series in the biological reality, rather than mere spatial outline, as in the image of tessellation. Even at comparatively lowly levels, there is not only coherence, cohesion and sequence; there is maintenance of the same, order and symbolic citation to secure this in the DNA, external formulation to secure internal performance, a 'world' of understanding to secure a world of performance, an oversight of knowledge and data formulated with the penetration of the impresario, the developmental STABILITY of the scenario, which co-exists with and FORCES the outline of the performance.

As seen and shown in Repent or Perish 7, Excursions 1-3 (cf. also SMR pp. 140ff., 315Aff.,
A Spiritual Potpourri Ch.6, in all of which places, it is put more formally),

§ there are worlds upon worlds,
§ principles and penetrations one on another, like living strata in rock,
§ all operative, operative in myriad and in singularity,
§ words in worlds and worlds in words,
§ mind and matter,
§ intelligence’s acute ingenuity with its material cohorts,
§ those neither capable of nor susceptible to the elaboration of symbols, or
§ the concatenation of the same with executor staff.

The outcomes in terms of purpose are as clear as the lack of frustrated semi-outcomes from inadequate formulations. The synthesis is as clear as the analysis of matter can show, thorough its lack in mere matter. It is all there; and it is there to be accounted for, rather than - with reductionist passion, ignored like some girl friend who has dumped you, or boyfriend, depending on the case. The theme is similar for either. It is better in science to face the facts, rather than practice hurrumph!

It could almost seem, however, that the concept of matching the fact with the words is "novel" in some parts, for much of a whole a generation of biologists, as in some ways noted earlier, Løvtrup has also lamented. This seems to happen, in fact, just as soon as their secular passions are aroused. They WILL not lay down their grudge against vital realities, and the need for accounting for material, mental and vital, not to say spiritual power and performance, it might in many cases seem, UNLESS it is GUARANTEED to lead to NOTHING and to NO ONE who could CONCEIVABLY give ORDERS on how to live! THAT! that we who are "free" should be like ants, governed by codes, it is unthinkable! Does it not remove our whole dignity, they storm, our very existential nobility and so forth! (The 'so forth' is mine, not theirs! The thoughts are theirs, not mine.)

No, not really. If they do not want the God of their creation, the mind of their origination, the Spirit of their origination, who made derivative matter as a conformist and them as possible non-conformists, so be it. It is nothing to do with science. THAT little lad should keep to his job, and not wallow in superstitious Nature worship, against logical constraint and observation insert, alike.

Many doubtless prefer hell with liberty, to the Lord with truth; and many more, just react without realising the severity of their entanglement against the truth. It becomes, perhaps for some, a nice little habit, like marijuana ('it can't hurt you' comes the delusive cry). However, justice to the realm of the forbidden, despite that cultural cult of the forbidden (SMR pp. 85, 150ff.): justice which with certitude asserts itself against "nature" by all evidence, as by the necessities of logic, and realism towards the Creator, this demands otherwise. The 'teen-ager does not remove Dad from the house by ignoring him (cf. Psalm 50:21ff.), though it is assuredly true that he may with some inadvertent 'stick' of some smoking material, remove the house. That little caper is proceeding quite to order and plan; and while he will not quite manage that, he will go far towards it. When the house goes, it is the day of God, and its time has come (II Peter 3, Isaiah 51:6, Revelation 21:1).

From Defining Drama Ch. 10

Indeed, Michael Denton adds not only this, “nor is there the slightest hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth” (cf. SMR p. 120), which are of an ingenious intricacy, but that in the DNA and RNA record, now becoming available in microbiology, there is shown both an “extraordinary mathematical  exactness in the degree of isolation” and a disjunction from any concept of evolutionary sequence for the various classes of living things.

For example amphibians, supposedly close,  “are in molecular terms as far from fish as any group of reptiles or mammals!” (p. 285, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis). After survey, he concludes that “molecules, like fossils have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology.” Moreover,  their arrangements and character show mathematical precision, definitive design unlike gradational concepts, and no convenient continuity. In fact, he concludes from empirical studies that “The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature” (op. cit. p. 353).

	Fossils,
	micro-molecular data,
	cells’ structure,
	none support what is the most unscientific theory ever produced by man, that of organic evolution.
	Logic laughs at it,
	equipment is void of its necessities and
	delusive insistence replaces theoretical collaboration with the evidence.
	Scientific method is here in cardiac arrest.

Thus of Gould’s reference to imagination itself not breaching the gulfs between major kinds, we can affirm this. It would indeed need to be operative, even to formulate the folly, for nothing else does: nothing empirical is ever found of this kind, not to be unkind, namely the type that makes without intelligence new and discrete, brilliant and diverse designs in kind. Nothing cannot do it; what is merely a design-designate does not do it, for the quality needed is creativity. Man DOES not do it in life-designs, merely snipping and pasting, excising or touching here and there, what God has made. The designs themselves only God can make - find someone else or something else doing it ? Let us be practical when it comes to major forms and formats of life.

Even if man ever managing to do some copying, in his own relatively clumsy fashion (SMR pp. 119ff.), there is merely that combination of the difference in man, that he is made with designing skill, in the image of God, as the Bible depicts it so precisely. It is God Himself who is there from the first having nowhere to come from if not; without whom, you have man the visible highest creator, still in swaddling clothes compared with the works of which he is one, himself endowed and endued with a creativity far beyond his very modus operandi of thought (cf. It Bubbles... Ch. 9, Little Things Ch. 5).

One must recall a little logic at times:  with nothing ever, at any time, phase or situation, all that was (and of course it would not BE in the sense of constituting anything, since its name is 'nothing'), nothing would come ever, since from nothing comes nothing; and if it did, nothing would be a false use of the term.

Yet nothing ever coming to be, as would be the non-product of such a start ? this is simply contrary to fact.  We, reader, you and I, we are here.

There  has never been 'nothing'. That is because there is something. These two are antithetical. Nor has there been anything altogether which is incapable to the last of producing what has been produced, however it be construed; or quite simply the results would be less than they are. Indeed, if you envisage some system augmenting itself with skill and knowledge, then it needs the potential to be able so to develop and grow, and this is not nothing, but a creation in itself, like any other, and it needs that from WHICH the augmentation is to be gained!

From Delusive Drift ... Ch.  4

Organic evolution, or naturalistic fantasy, consider it.

It is ideationally evacuative,

procedurally vacuous,

sphere fudging (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7),

dysfunctional (littered with  the inoperative baggage with which its exponents weigh the partially constructed for countless generations),

anti-evidential (the Cambrian 'Age' more plenteous than the present in design, according to Gould),

contra-clinical (it is not evoked in experiment, however vast the  intelligence resources that seek to stimulate)

unit-obsessive (cf. Stepping Out for Christ Ch. 9, Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 13),

synthetically inept,

chronologically-calamitous as noted above for the Cambrian,

information-intrusive (assuming what is contrary to the law on information increment),

magically-extrusive (you get from a model which lacks a relevant sphere and region of action, its results),

reductionistically-compulsive, never satisfied with man as he is, only the frenzy and fizz,

ultra-labour, imagining that imagination will do the works which power must accomplish,

sub-constructional, letting buildings build themselves, as if it were the most natural thing in the world,

supra-conceptual, allowing conceptions to come from non-conceptual premises,

sub-rational, using reason to abort it,

anti-verificatory, on all sides contrary to experimental results, or implications,

ultra-extrapolative, allowing variations in the command provisions to do service as command creators,

pseudo-systematic, assuming systematic consequences where system is the thing to create,

technically-trivialising, as if the whole of technology can be produced without technician's art or head, mind or method,

scientifically spurious, arising not from facts noted but contrary to evidence attested,

methodologically obfuscatory, forcing theory on fact, not funding theory through fact by imagination,

interface-obliterative, allowing absenteeism in the ranks of progressive, processive interchange to be by imagination only, never by known, noted or even logically grounded means,

logically illiterate, wanting something continually from nothing, at the first absolutely, then procedurally,

simplistically substituting fiasco for functionality,

magic for toil,

the unattested for the invested,

the vacuous for the virtuous,

dreams for dynamic,

constituting in its vagueness,

a dearth of detail,

fulfulling the definition of myth, and

the signature of the spurious,

the by-pass of procedure and

the inversion of method,

engineering the rampagings of the flood of the irrelevant as if this were the builders of the beautiful,

substituting lore for law,

gore for imagination,

as if cruelty constructs,

and collation for command, as if nearness necessitates,

or juxta-position propositionalises.

 

Hoyle and Gould arise

Pall-bearers: for

Darwin is dead,

and all attempts to do it differently

can find no womb, nor body,

neither flesh nor function, to carry them:

for all is aborted, and the child is gone
(cf. Wake Up World! ... Ch. 6).

 

Syntactically spurious, it is

organisationally oblivious,

labour-obliterative,

mind-masking misuse of mind:

it composes itself,

an anti-science anti-logism,

defective in detail,

a code for the codeless,

implanting surreptiously

an invisible chip

in the forehead of nature,

which for that matter lacks one,

making it the more intrusive.

Witless, it is conveying knowledge to the amorphous,

function to the meaningless,

unity to the chaotic,

direction to the undirected,

dynamic to the undesigned,

lordliness to the unenlightened and unenlightenable,

light to the darkness,

even the light of mind to the profusion of events,

of will to the dirge of the undirected,

invention to the uninventive, and

progress to the regressive.

  

So spurious is this fury of fantasy, that some come seeking

extra-terrestrial agents in its defeat

excluded middles that machinate

instead of propelled progressives

that yet lie inert,

or chambers of cogitation that are are sub-moronic,

that arise with the products of mind incandescent,

to charter the course, in eloquent dumbness,

worse than dead, never alive:

no, now we have from some,

 spectres that beckon,

intelligence for intellectual results,

as if mind had returned to the theorist,

but not reason,

for all things delimited are systematic components,

requiring the source of their composition,

its synthetic organiser, its law-maker and its life,

so that it might be, and being, act.

 

More alive than its respondents,

the perpetual question lies unanswered in shame,

the Maker of it all, sub-system and producer,

arrow and quiver,

in whatever progressivist splash of cognition,

to make it be and work, and work together,

with the language of life,

the command of construction and

the advantage of existence:

but this avoided, the theories pulse

in profound confusion,

in impure contusion,

bruised battering rams attacking

an immovable wall of intransigeant truth.

 

Their common feature is

a corpulent corpse of confusion and incoherence,

that infects academia like SARS,

except that it then confuses the order to

ASRS,

anti-science reverse syndrome,

insisting on inscrutable causes,

without ground, without evidence,

without adequacy, without self-attestation

for the mightiest work

without hands or with them,

that ever wrought engineering consequences

on this earth,

which alike, calls as result, for its thrust

of glorious intricacy into the void

that knew nothing, not even the term.

 

This is what it is, this organic evolution.

Creation, on the other hand, by its very nature,

has no preliminary but the mind and might of the Creator,

which is precisely the evidence,

exactly the attestation.

 

A sandal on the beach, alike,

before being present,

has but void, no name, no power,

no transition;

but once mind and might have played in their production,

there it is, crafted only when it is done,

and the impulse of power sated,

it leaves no thought of waves of air or sea,

leaving the manufacturer's mark of relevance,

relationship, total facility and specialised construction:

for sandals to not construct their straps by the sea,

while wind and wave rot the material,

while features are defeated and

craft is silent.

If they did,

then a new universe,

where craft was potted and spotted,

and moved its discourse into action

by being prepared and implanted,

would be this one:

but this one it is not,

for as with writing this book,

it is not there,

and I act,

and it is there,

and though chapters succeed one another,

none helps the next,

for it merely fits the theme chosen,

and leaves no vapour trail,

vapid or otherwise

of its coming to be.

 

But what of this evolutionary despotism,

this insistence without attestation,

this theory without channels of input,

this self-aggrandisement of creation,

this self-conscious chapter of man's thought,

which making itself

imagines it has made the rest ?

 

 INFATUATION IS NOT CONCATENATION

It is infatuated with reductionism so profound

that form fashions itself

thought creates itself without ground

thought indeed makes thought irrelevant,

reason and rationality superfluous,

concept fashioning irrevocable commands

from a smuggled-in God,

nameless, necessary but deprived of majesty,

murdered in thought,

mocked in mind,

made as if to slave without acknowledgement,

salve as if no Saviour,

to signify without assignment,

to instal progress without purpose,

cohesion without command,

while commands litter the littoral of the cell,

like intractable evidence,

unaligned with desire,

mirroring the commands of Genesis

with the commandments of DNA.

 

In its impotent perversity,

this inept and contra-evidential theory

installs effectual  brilliance while brightness is crucified,

its blood discolouring

the obfuscatory extravaganzas

of the mentors of confusion,

the masters of illusion,

who, starting with nothing,

want everything,

or beginning with everything,

want to snip off the tags.

 

Here truth is fallen in the street (Isaiah 59:14);

Equity lies broken in its blood,

while magic competes with myth,

children's stories bearing the mantle of knowledge;

and the rank abandon

that makes of dreams an escape,

settles with all the aplomb

of the pedant

into the bombed-out

sanctuary of the savant,

who has not yet noticed

that his tower is rubble.

From TMR, Ch. 8

In science, as here, it can scarcely amuse. It perhaps time to remind ourselves of what was pointed out in SMR, pp. 330ff., and an excerpt follows for convenience of reference.

·       As Professor Thomas Barnes of El Paso University (famed physics researcher) put it in Scientific Studies in Special Creation, Ed. Lammerts, pp. 330 ff.:

·       "No laws of science are more firmly established than these three laws ...''

Which? He referred to:

"the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Biogenesis and the Second law of Thermodynamics'' - p. 331.

The first (`"also known as the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy''), implies that despite different forms (`"including mass''), "total energy remains constant.''

The second means that in a self-contained system, processes have "an irreversible tendency ... to go toward lower order'' - to degrade - decay and disorder increasing. The third "states that life comes from life.''

The third makes a law of the fact that we never find non-life producing life.

·       Obviously a static lump of energy-mass (1), a life for life procedure - not non-life for life (3), and a decay liability (2), these are the observable material or visible facts to be expected, if creation happened, and stopped. That is virtually an identity statement. It is this which is observable, and that is a creation verification with which evolution cannot for its part compete.

·       We are in the maintenance phase. The thing to be maintained is in the finished phase. What is maintained, miracles like the bodily resurrection apart, tends to wear out. This is scientific and also a matter of common observation. That is distinctive, detailed verification of the Bible.

·       Why then, in the full scope of the evidence and the concepts already seen, is creationism not taken as the only 'theory' which can currently be considered scientifically, rather than the only one that cannot! (See SMR pp. 129, 135-144, 149-151, 158-159, 202-203, 208-209, 213, 252A-C, 284-290, 315C-316A; cf. Ch. 2 Supplement, 332E-G, 421ff..) The rules are broken in this, that it is not so received.

·       There is a metaphysical paralysis of thought which has made the many consider this: that if PROCESS be not ASSUMED to be the author of process... in the sense that the CURRENT is not the father of what is current; or if PRESENTLY OBSERVABLE THINGS or a CURRENT CONTEMPORARY REGIMEN are not the source of living things, then this is unscientific.

·       THAT however has nothing to do with science.

·       To LIMIT and REDUCE the scope of hypothesis to some preferred sanctum,
some sanctuary hidden free from reality:
this is precisely what science is not,
what scientific method forbids.

It is what begs the question a priori, and sets mere philosophy in state
at the head of science,
with prejudice for its queen by its side.

From this its place, it mocks science. (Cf. SMR pp. 252I supra, and 332E-G infra.)

·       The source however should be conceived especially in terms of its product, the hypothesis should be esteemed in accord with its power to cover the data, the case - to work to meet specifications of test in neutral and fair play. WHATEVER theory works, which is uniquely verified, is relatable well to other effective theories, the one suffering no loss to any test for verification: THIS in science has superiority. What fails verification in adequate test, even one, is already excluded; what knows no verification is not included.

·       Thus to refuse a `theory' on the basis of its source... is like academic racism; "Give us an answer from an `accepted' source, or its merit will be entirely disregarded!" - so goes the philosophy of alienated prejudice (which, as we have seen - is also the metaphysics of irresolvable antinomy in this case, cf. references above). This is the `word' of this discriminatory metaphysics masquerading as science.

Let it! it has nothing to do with science. When it also 'accepts' what tests of verification in fact exclude, it is merely comedy.

• What the Bible states however - finished creation which is wearing out (e.g. Isaiah 51:6, 49:26, 45:12, 48:12-13, Colossians 1 - the first declaring: "The earth will grow old as a garment''), and what is basic scientific law are in entire and absolute agreement.
   
• What disagrees is undisciplined imagination *7! evacuated of verification, parachuting bathetic follies of irrational creeds, evolutionism, dispelled by logic, is humbling science by force-feeding it with these deceptive and hallucinatory dreams. Now what is there? ... the wonder of creation, and the folly of such delusive dissertation, doctrine, decrees - and in that ? you have bathos to perfection."
   
• That is bathetic; but what is pathetic in the original sense is this: that the Schools are subjected to this undisciplined licence with reality, and government in education has provided no remedy. Indeed, to this point it has not even, when the body in power, provided an interview to the Petitioners who for years have protested, attested and sought to activate reform. It is not nice to see children in chains.

Doubtless then the Education Department had reasons for NOT accepting the challenge to debate of bioscientist debater, Dr Gish. After all, his record in winning creation ­ evolution debates in universities throughout the world, is formidable. What is of the light, comes into it. What shrinks, can never validate itself.

The Department has been bold in propaganda, in defamation of Christianity ^*8 and of creationism, neither showing ONE valid ground for the view, nor being WILLING to debate with an expert in the field. The boldness stops at challenge; and the students are forbidden to challenge factually, on the simple pretence that creation is equivalent to religion, and religion to non­factuality.

If this were so, why did not the blaspheming Circular pushers, the irrational fantasy fabricators SHOW the world in general, and South Australia in particular how right they were and by sheer intellectual, scientific muscle PROVE the point, once for all. They had the opportunity. Instead, the Department jibbed ingloriously at the test.

From  Repent or Perish Ch. 7

CRUCIFIXION OF LOGIC

These realities may be helpfully introduced with so bleak and yet presaging a picture as this, and in our CD-ROM version, we place also an organ improvisation on 'Puer natus est' - a boy is born. It is so easy to forget both that we ARE human and that the correlation with the Creator is intense, though the chasm between both because of sin and of creatureliness can be catastrophic. As we shall see, as is the case in mountain climbing, chasms are not insuperable if you have the right equipment. The equipment for dealing with this with the Infinite and Eternal one is however sufficient only when provided by and from Him ... in a child in whom was planted the divine reality, so that God was His unique Father, and HE ? He, the eternal Word of God, came from above, to which He has returned, and from which He shall make all things clear, both in mercy and in judgment. As to the mercy, it is in the Gospel. But of all these things, we shall find the logical impetus as we proceed.

 

It is strange how logic is crucified, since the LOGOS is Christ. True, this word has far more meaning than mere logic; but not less. It involves the "word" and all that goes with that, logic and expression and meaning, and declaration and presentation and demonstration and application. Let us now consider the theme in a brief conspectus - much amplified elsewhere - with 3 EXTENSIONS, available at the end in order to prevent the pith from being diffused as you read the initial coverage.

1. It is crucified by the assumption that meaningless units in a meaningless universe can discern the meaning of it: viz. That it is meaningless.

2. It is crucified by the assumption that without absolute truth so much as existing, views on the topic of truth can be made, are meaningful, and not nonsensical. In fact, of course, for anyone to have access to absolute truth, it first must exist, for what is not absolute cannot create what is, any more than what is relative can create what is not. Fairy talk is useful at bed-time for children, at times, but for adults at noon.

3. It is crucified by the concept that series constitute a) reality and b) a way to know it and c) a substance or stand which is beyond occurrence, which assesses occurrence, for what it really is.

4. It is crucified by the concept that what keeps laws makes them, that what observes commands, issues them: that matter is mind and will, despite its refusal to yield evidence of such powers. Materialism is dependent on the prior concept of mental validity, which is not material, to exist.

5. It is crucified by the idea that what is descriptive, is prescriptive, as if there were some logical mandate for preferring some one thing among the multitude of events, and hence having any form of intellectual or vital morality: or having any valid view on anything mental or other, at the moral level, such as the rights and wrongs of teaching this and that, this way or that.

6. It is crucified by any concept of beauty as the artless derivative of meaningless series. Beauty then becomes a subjective reaction of no value, and its urge would be pleasure only, and not differentiable in value from eating an ice-cream: that is, it would be a reactionary occurrence, and nothing more.

7. It is crucified by the notion that will is a derivative of non-will. Not merely does the concept operate without interface, in the manner of science, but without cause. All ideas of "happening to happen" do not constitute scientific or logical grounds for anything, but constitute simply a verbal ploy, or confused noise, choose what you ... will, to avoid the fact that the cause is being sought by reason, and words are being used instead of an admitted failure to account for these things.

8. It is crucified by the nostrum that a man's spirit, his power to project in imagination whether to architecture or love, to religion or morals, to culture or to systems, is "the result" of its absence. The criticism is precisely the same as above, but yet more incongruous with reason, if possible.

9. It is crucified by the whole negligent concept of whole worlds of being - such as the above touches and such as are dealt with in more detail in SMR Chs. 3-4, esp. pp. 305ff, with 332Eff. - arising from their absence; and anything arising from nothing, a mere contradiction in terms.

10. It is equally crucified by empirical claims that evolutionary progress occurs, has occurred or should occur; since empirically this is not the case.

11. It is crucified by the idea that gradual occurrences give ground and reason for rising edifices of construction contained in no part or premiss of the original. Gradually becoming intelligent is a mere misnomer, in terms of creation of the facility. It is mere exercise of its deposit which is available. Gradual production of anything presupposes the entire capacity of what constructs to do so. "Give me time!" is reasonably relevant only when capacity is present.

12. Suddenly becoming intelligent, or possessing parallel properties, is no improvement on the gradual acquisition, causally, since a cause sufficient is required if one is to become proficient, and so efficient (cf. SMR pp. 210-211, 134ff., 252Eff.).. The artful avoidance of all that is required is the artless abandonment of reason. Irrationality however proves nothing but the incapacity of the debater who descends to it. That he is able so to descend attests spirit; that he does so, attests loss. Nothing may be argued on behalf of that which forsakes reason systematically in advance, and since language and logic are intermixed in rationality and coherence, thought and language alike are thereby dissociated from much of their basis, and so rendered inoperable. This is effectual un-creation, a sort of parody of hell, but no more than does hell, does it avoid its creator.

13. The crowd at the crucifixion includes those who break the empirical, intellectual, logical, moral, aesthetic, epistemological, aetiological, ontological, heuristic, analytical and volitional attestations in order to avoid God. One way is to murder the man, who presents it, Jesus Christ: this has been done already, thwarted by the resurrection. The other is to murder the truth in thought. In murdering it, however, you lose the power to appeal to it. Reason jettisoned is debate lost.
 
 

2. CONFUSION OF THE CRUCIFIERS

This crucifixion was not the beginning. In a vital sense, it is the end.

For centuries man had defied the truth, relied on God, used Him, abused His name; though many believers had indeed adorned the earth amidst this superficial fantasising without sincerity.

From SMR pp. 149ff.

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.

v) to agree with current observation of what does happen, even in broadest terms.

vi) as contrary in tenor to known scientific law, such as entropy, equally to common sense.

vii) to have the discipline of science, either in past imaginings or present happenings.

viii) more monumentally the more microbiology reveals the human body as the design paragon.

ix) in confronting the intricate patterns of a profound language as a contribution from chaos (the language of life, which is one, in cells) ... Professor Murray Eden 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 Prevails.

CREATION, LIKE EVOLUTION, IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT. AS WITH EVOLUTION, IT IS NOT BASED ON 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. 161 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.


iii) It does provide logical ground for the language of life.

iv) It avoids the non-systematic relationship of two systems as a ground.

v) Its clear cut retrodiction is not met with contradiction, and it could have been. This too is verification.

vi) 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!

vii) The nature of mutation verifies it - variation but not transmutation (kinds).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  From A Spiritual Potpourri Ch. 8

With significant addition
 

THE ORGAN OF SIGHT
AND THE ORIGIN OF EYES

The Spectacle and the Spectacular
 

PART I

The Eyes Have it

MULTIPLIED MIRACLES

It does not matter how many miracles are posited -

to change

• non-sight to light-sensitive areas,
• light sensitive areas to conducting areas,
• equipped to transmit their 'findings' to a receptor area,
• with further equipment to receive this, integrate and correlate it,
• and further again, to reflect the findings of the review to the bodily apparatus

that responds in terms of action;

• and then to render all of this, again and again, in multitudes of design stages,
• each one working so that the poor upgrade is not left to fall into the slough of dysfunctional failure,
• each one synthetically in step in all the changing features noted above, for each sub-system:

multiply miracles if you will. It does not make the constructions easier, but harder. You ineptly introduce a smattering of farces to explain, in addition to the totally design-definition conforming fact of sight through eyes. (See SMR pp. 210-211, 116-117, 112-113, 252E-G.)

The imagined pre-vision equipment, not too helpful, you see, but employing and deploying whatever it took, like any other design, yet not bothering to leave any evidence of itself amongst the millions of fossils, was, came to be - we are led to believe by these dilettante reconstructionists. These magical machinations of what was not there, they did the job just as we never see it done; and just as we never find any way for it so to invent the various worlds which, on this basis, simply were not there; and to do it, without inventive capacity.

Alas, in practice, this naturalistic maestro, this exuberant phenomenon never bothers to make itself happen now, for the very good reason that the visible world does not contain the means, just as it did not then. Indeed, even with the intelligent minds that would like to reproduce 'unintelligent nature' by using their own mentalities to make such an experiment work, the 'arising' of an eye, it does not happen! If anything ever did not work, this does not. (See SMR pp.311-313 - End-Note 16, down slightly.) It is an exercise in futility founded on anti-natural views of nature, attested by missing evidence, verified by endless absence, and proven by total contradiction of all known law. Negative? It proceeds by assumptions, in other words, at each and every point contrary to logic, law, and evidence, both past and present. THAT! It is a theory? Not al all. It is a dream.

This having been said, however, let us enjoy the situation on the one hand, and see the wonder of the creation of God, on the other, by a more detailed consideration of the realities in view.
 

 

INTERWOVEN AND INTERACTIVE TECHNIQUES

EVERY time you have VISION of ANY kind in a LIVING creature, you need a vast array of interwoven and interactive techniques and symbols. First of all of course is the enormous complexity of ANY cell - when evidence is in view (cf. SMR pp. 114ff., 120, 128ff.). That is the evidence. Cells appear only in ultimate, sophisticated form, not being KNOWN AT ALL in any other form, whether from things aged or modern.

Then, you will need

a) a total information reservoir to provide an integrated circuit constraint
 

b) correct geometrical tissues in place (for the symbolic logic back of it all in code, in terms of ALL biological evidence, has to have a base, and a base in life, not in a vacuum)
 

c) correct direction for geometrical changes as the eye is reach any given stage or phase of imagined operation over time
 

d) correct 3-D contouring for lens work and the entire fitting together of any well defined and utilisable organ

e) correct synthetic correlation for

i) time sequence of each phase of construction

ii) each phase of operation of what has been constructed when it arrives

iii) transmission procedures for operational data received from the eye

iv) each inter-related and co-operative component of the whole, in every sub-unit, sub-stage.
 

f) symbolic code, equipped to provide commands, fitted with components able to interpret and perform them, transmitting conceptual high-order specifications, interpreted in logical format with one coherent language, the systems base, protecting itself from alteration, just as it was protected so that it could arrive.
 

g) A schema for systems and inter-systems work, to specify and require the arrangements in code, so that they would be created in the particular way all life works.
 

In proceeding from non-life to life, you need all of this, and you need it simultaneously, and you need command and interpretation, schema and utilisation, specification and servants, all at one and at once.

Now let us look, instead of gazing at starry-eyed rationalistic but irrational absurdities, that philosophy constructs contrary to logic, scientific method and normal usage, in the interests of religious desire, at the fact.

Dr Werner Gitt from Germany's Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, has made a flat statement which for years has gone unanswered. This fact was noted in Creation, Sept.-Nov. 2001. It was made in 1997, in his work, In the beginning was information. It is this:

"