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


Appendix V



The Political Offshoot

There follows, a composite of some of the papers and material presented to the SA Government, since its adventure into political papacy in 1988, when it became quite suddenly expert in theology, comparative religion to the point that it could find that no religion offered anything testable, verifiable, to be construed in a rational forum, and that whatever was done therefore in science and debate, was ... somehow other. Hence it invented a whole series of curricular activities as profound as Communism in its making the word of God apartheid to any factuality, and as useless and baseless.

This folly has been continued despite many approaches from hundreds, and continues as if we were here a police state, wedded to ignorance, as some men wed actresses of doubtful reputation; but this actress has none.

It is true that we have been permitted to see various government officials, including one  Minister or Shadow Minister who acknowledged in person that the religious aspect of the matter was not sound, and asked me to re-write their document on that topic. However, when this was sent, no reply was to be gained. It is also a fact that the current Premier appointed two senior consultants to see us from the Evangelical Presbyterian Alliance, and these were very pleasant and undertook to do various things and report back, which did not, once again, happen.

Movement signalled is not motion, and the commotion caused by this stonewalling builds nothing but a fairy edifice, founded on nothing and supported by governmental air.

As far as may be ascertained, materials presented at various times to the Governments concerned, closely resemble those given below, under the heading Government Composite. There are a number of issues closely joined together in this field, and the further introduction below sketches something of these. As some of these approaches have been made over decades, there will naturally be some measure of repetition as we seek to append these to each other; however it will normally constitute reformulation with slightly different emphases.


The SA Government produced a paper. the Circular to Principals of January 5, 1988, a prodigiously peremptory and oppressive document which required all religions to be downgraded to the subjective and a categorical distinction to be made between any claim by any one of them and verifiable fact, thus 'solving' the issue of man's origin, meaning and reality, in one accident of verbal folly which is difficult to match by the politics of any country, however fallen, except perhaps in the less astute and more vehement.

For this to occur where truth has been known and learning has had some occasion to exist, in a land where the UN Declaration on discrimination is law, is a mixture of comedy, tragedy and malaise so profound as almost to render this the State of Religious Paralysis. From this naturally, those who are Christians, grounded in the truth of the Bible, turn with horror as from a brown snake when it is met within the proximity of 6 inches from one's foot, and seek to take appropriate measures. Some, but only few, have acted. Below is an account of the situation, a signal for calamity, brash and baseless.

The text of this Circular, a mixture of shambles, shamelessly and art-form propaganda (Hitler showed how they can be mixed), appears in this site through the hyperlink bearing its name,  above.


Note that repeated challenge presented to the Government over many years, to open public debate and to remove the discriminatory and unsustained critique of religion, presented as a question-begging assumption without acknowledgement as such, is simply in written replies from that body ignored, and that repetitively. This therefore has become a chronic lapse and entry into discriminatory, depreciatory verbiage without the provision of anything approaching just, substantive reason. Such reason is however given, in terms of the objective truth of the Bible, throughout the 141 volumes of the work at our site,  http://webwitness.org.au, In Praise of Christ Jesus. In terms of testability and its consequences alone, there is not even any competition. Moreover, that is but one of the criteria of truth.

Assuredly we do not seek that the Government should do our job for us, and teach the Bible in its curriculum; yet no less do we seek that it should attack its fundamental position without reason provided, debate allowed either with itself by qualified exponents (such as have such profound success on University campuses worldwide in recent years), or within the Class rooms of its schools, on rational grounds. In Science the matter is excluded, including its applications, and in Social Studies or their equivalent, it is deemed ultra-rational, not permitting conclusion.

In this way, a spiritually subversive assault is mounted. It needs to be met, exposed and removed. We do not elect our governments surreptitiously to become a secular papacy, without restriction in its assaults on religion. Specifically, as Christians who believe the Bible, we see no reason why it should be treated in this implicitly dismissive way, as far as reason is concerned, when it is pre-eminent in rational status. What is needed is an open approach, where reason is neither excluded nor made a lackey of presumption.



Close to those sent



¨    Excerpt Summary:  

adapted for this purpose,  
with some added references and data,  
from “The Shadow of a Mighty Rock"  (SMR -


taken from pp. 149-151


which should be read in context of SMR Chs. 1-2.

Unspecified page references herein are to SMR
and may be obtained at the site at /smr/bookmap.html

For convenience this document is available with hyperlink ease at http://webwitness.org.au/govsmr149.html



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 see That Magnificent Rock Ch. 1 as marked, and

Wake Up World! ... Ch. 5 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.

¨  viii) more monumentally the more microbiology reveals the human body as the design paragon (The Defining Drama cf.  Ch. 10, as marked.

¨  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 Prevails.

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, for mere reconstruction, as of unpredictable unimaginable developments not even relevant to foreseeable competitive success (op. cit. pp. 196, 238), 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 A Spiritual Potpourri Ch. 4, and   A Spiritual Potpourri and Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Chs.    5,     6. For gradualism, says Gould, Burgess is the “worst-case nightmare” (op. cit. p. 233), scarcely a scientific basis, so to dream!

   Gould vigorously remonstrates that Cambrian designs far exceed current ones (op.cit. pp. 226-227, 46-47,49), the concept of theory being inverted relative to the finding of fact (op. cit. p. 233). Inversion is not a good conversion rate from theory to fact; 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 or refined, since its cover is factual. 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. It meets its own criteria, which are exceptionally strict beyond those of any competition.

¨  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 in this State, 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 children were made aware of their options, and educated fairly in this realm.



Further material presented is largely as follows.



The purpose of this approach to Government is

1.  To have removed defamatory material in a Circular to Principals*, relative to religion, since the Circular  is declared to be still operative and ‘enforced’.

2. To exclude rash generalisation about religion from the same.

3. To require an academic and sustainable basis for the approach to teaching creation or evolution in schools

4. To use scientific method in selecting a science approach to this topic in schools.

5. To adapt to the fact that just as there are various mutually uncongenial approaches to this area within the evolutionary field, so not all who hold to creation start with a religious basis, since it is a scientific option.

6. To end violation of anti-discrimination law in the way indicated within.







and in the following file (/remodelling2.html) which completes the chapter,
and to which hyperlink points








*CIRCULAR TO PRINCIPALS  January 5 1988, entitled


The presentation in view is found in


That Magnificent Rock (publ. 1996-1997),


Chapter 8, and below is an excerpt adapted for this occasion,
which may be
seen in its context as the point here marked.



The result of the survey and comparison
( PARTS I and II preceding this excerpt) is this:


There appears, in the Circular, to be a profoundly peremptory and wholly inadequately reasoned presentation of a viewpoint which is so thrust upon School Principals that not merely is their professional integrity subjected to stress or duress, but also that of their Staff ­ relative to freedom of thought and of speech. It is also seen that misuse is made of the notion of scientific method to a degree that appears quite spectacular: whatever else MIGHT have been appealed to, this is one point which is wholly CONTRARY in method, to what is so compulsively required.


Failure to educate effectively in SCIENTIFIC METHOD, if this is any just sample of what is being offered in Government Schools, would appear merely buttressed by any reference to this hypothesis of organic evolution, in terms of it.


Why ? It is because that hypothesis neither presents itself in ways warranted by the observations, conformable to accepted law, or suitable for prediction, nor predicts, nor authoritatively retrodicts; nor does it have the happiness to be verified in the scope of its claims.


In short, it neither states a law apt for prediction, nor formulates the matter in a way which would permit this, nor explains in intellectually defensible terms what it affirms; nor confirms itself at its own level; nor is there agreement on the very basics of the theory by the most eminent authority. It appears a tussle, a fight and a fiasco, almost like an uproarious party of drunken and dithering kind, a theory without scientific heart, now in a fibrillation so profound, that only the most intensive care is keeping it in this world.


This misnamed method of intrusion into religion ­ which it in fact is ­ ought then to be rejected on the ground of irrationalism, discrimination and denial of what the U.N. might call 'child rights', but we call child integrity, yes and teacher and Principal integrity, improperly here invaded. Free speech and thought ought to be re­introduced. People of whatever rank, with superior arguments ought to be free to deploy them; and authority ought not perilously to intrude, with unsustainable ground, either into religion (where it is effectively and ludicrously posing as expert!), or into science, the real science of verification and formulation, in this way.


As a result, it would be better for those responsible for this continuing outrage, to remove it expeditiously, before more harm is done to this State, than that already wrought. Although it is not possible for us to know the motives for this kind of thing, it is not difficult to see its results.


One FURTHER result, whatever may be made of it, should be noted: Numbers of parents, at least partly because of these and such errors, decline to use what could intellectually be deemed hijacked school premises; and so are required to pay for others (through their taxes) as well as for their own children's education. This undoubtedly appears ONE MORE FORM OF DISCRIMINATION, intolerance of social justice, for those interested in it.


Once again, the motive for so misusing schools is not known; its results however are brought to your attention.




  • Now let us ponder an early presentation selected, from those given to Government in this State, as a ground for change of the academic duress to academic liberty.



. .

A REPORT ON THE PROGRESS AND CONCERNS OF A PETITION FROM HUNDREDS OF PROTESTANTS: The Ministers or Pastors of various churches have participated. Two Premiers have been challenged, the current one by several Church leaders, including the aboriginal President of an Australia-wide denomination. Like the writer, that Pastor had no desire for Western dream-time injections into young aboriginal people, in the form of the metaphysical abstraction of organic evolution.

Interestingly, he provided a fascinating document from the history of New South Wales, in which appeared a published account of extensive observations on the beliefs of aborigines at that time (last century) as recorded by eyewitnesses. Much of it involved a clear belief in creation in the rather early days *1 of N.S.W. settlement.

Alas, the State's intrusive crusade for its preferred philosophy, and indeed, in no small measure as we have shown, its own metaphysics of religion, despite its numerous antinomies in logic, and rebuffs in observation, shows little restraint. The State bull crashes where it will, and shows here little regard for niceties, but especially that pleasantness known as freedom.

In an article in The Advertiser, which came when the Government was being actively confronted on this area, Simon Davies questioned whether Australia might not be in the very vanguard of the world in one respect: a certain desolation of privacy, the limitation of freedom relative to State control. Here it is not guns, not tanks, but information and surveillance that concerns him.

There are other Caesars who specialise in that.

There is however one area that he did not mention: that of religion. Recently, hundreds of people, some of them Ministers, presented their protest to the Premier concerning the notorious Circular to Principals of the Education Department, run out in 1988. They protested the misuse of the powers of education, administered by this State, to forward unscientific and religiously intrusive doctrine in Schools, even to the point of formal counsel to Principals, coming from 'higher authority'.

This protest is that this 'Circular to Principals' prevents due answer in schools to certain propaganda presented to children in Science Classes, and excludes free, rational debate in other Classes.

The field is the evidence of creation, versus the 'faith' (as eminent Professor Karl Popper quite evidently regarded it) of the laws of evolution. The fact is that the exclusion of proper, logical debate and fair­minded evidential review in the face of the considerable variety of approaches represents an assault on democracy, on the free rein for ideas and the facility for what stands logically, to do this openly.

It has something of the assault impact formerly associated with Russian indoctrination; and as we will see later, the activities of a distinguished Russian scientist, earlier enabled to visit Adelaide, led to a startling reflection in this area.

The Petitioners have this to say:




Merely one of many elements of the presumption in this doctrinaire Circular comes by comparing its tone with that of the famous Symposium of the Wistar Institute, relating to mathematical and biological sciences. At this meeting, outstanding world scientists, evolutionists, acknowledged that the theories of evolution they considered simply did not have a working means of formulation, a way to be put which would bridge the gap between rational thought and theory entertained *2. Honesty constrained them to admit this. An account of the debate is to be found in the Adelaide University Library. (See Moorhead and Kaplan, in Bibliography, SMR.)

We do not object to a proper review of the evolution of evolutionary theory at a suitable level in schools: it would be refreshing and an eye­opener to the history of desperation in thought and it has very humorous aspects ­ like that of Professor Nilsson in his vast tome of thousands of pages on evolution.

After a life­time at it, heartily sick of trying to pretend that what was taught was what the evidence provided, he ended with the view that orchids arrived... all at once. It is marvellous how like creationists the more realistic evolutionists can sound, when desperate Evidence confronts them. The deficiencies were excellently reviewed by the learned Professor Thompson in his introduction to the Everyman's edition of ORIGIN OF SPECIES, at its centenary. If he was ruthless with Darwin's brainstorm, at least he was factual and realistic. It lay, as increasingly it is seen to do when factually and conceptually regarded, at the hand of scholar after scholar, in abysmal ruins.

No, the fact is that informed historical review of the writhings and twistings of this unhappy theory would be in order, if the matter is to be treated in government schools at all. It is not to this we would object ; but to what appears the dictatorial intrusion into rational debate, pre­judging by a mere wave of the educational hand: it is this which is our concern. No nation is wise that lets culture rule, no democracy which lets its name become a shroud, while a corpse lies within. Error must be exposed, the better to fall; and truth has no fear from freedom.

By this method of the Circular, education is cheapened, appearing very hard to distinguish from oily propaganda; and those of us who have lived long enough to retain memories of the reek of dictatorship which was so evident in Germany in World War II, do not savour this.

This challenge to the government's abuse of power, in so controlling this area, is multi-denominational; nor is it limited to the Petitioners. Certainly we conceive the Bible, being truth, has no trouble standing by its claim that all things in their 'kinds' were created. It is indeed frequently stated: for example in Colossians 1, in Ephesians 3:10, throughout Isaiah, in Revelation 4:11, while Matthew 19 finds Christ applying Moses' teaching here to a topic in view.

Accordingly we note with no surprise the evidential fact that there appears a SUDDEN AND MASSIVE advent of many kinds of varied life, swarming and highly differentiated and developed, in the so­called CAMBRIAN AGE. This however is the very one supposed, as a representative layer, to be near... to the beginning...

Famed scientist, Stephen Jay Gould has quite recently published a book, WONDERFUL LIFE: THE BURGESS SHALE, in which he stands in awe at the very prodigy of life found in this supposed first, or near to first step in earthly life; indeed, he alleges that though it is well known, the earlier examination of these deposits (the ones he investigates personally are in Canada) has involved an element of slanting, doing less than justice to the sheer wonder of what he finds the evidence on the field to be.

(For further on this, see Ch.1 above, Lectures on Creation, Section 2, The Crux of Things: Point 7.)

This is scarcely verification of the GRADUALISTIC ideas; and with the famed Professor Hoyle of Cambridge vehemently criticising the mathematics of gradual evolution, one is scarcely impressed with what amounts to 'creation on the spot' evolutionists ­ still without God !

People like Agassiz, Cuvier, Nilsson, Goldschmidt, with Drs Morris and Gish and Professors Slusher and Wilder Smith, have in effect long provided a witness or a warning, as have - dealing this way or that - Professors Eden (cf.SMR pp.136ff., 156ff., dealing with elemental, ineluctable, factual realities in language), Weisskopf and Schützenberger. It is one that conflicts with the inflated claims of covert religionists who intrude their philosophies, their views with an arbitrary authority that is void, into the field of science. This might not be quite so terrible if only they noted, or were at least aware of the switch to a spurious 'religious' button, a sort of existential leap without logic. This is as non­scientific as it is non­scriptural.

Unfortunately, in the Circular here, the authority which seems to push Principals towards this style of thing constitutes, if analysed, a sort of partial religious establishment. It would be quite easy to distil out of the Circular a series of assumptions, and to make a CREED of it and this, in a 'free' country! No, this establishment of thought needs very quickly to be removed.

That such religious bents should be so indulged with such educational adventurism, as the Circular appears to provide, and be so propagandised with such monopoly on teachers, is objectively reminiscent of Hitler youth days, and reminds one of Mao. In Germany, equally disastrous theories were put forward (the studies in eugenics, how to make the best, mot 'evolved' race, on behalf of the 'superior' race, were no mere chatter), as has also been the case in Russia. Darwinian intoxication, harmful to the brain, is not limited to theoreticians; nor are theoreticians limited to harmless ones, in terms of physical action.

Now however, to an amazing extent, the Bible is received back with no little acclaim in Russia. While the Chief Executive has shown a face far from Communism in the matter of his own religious beliefs, the phenomenon of a Russian parliament of deputies stopping proceedings in order to claim Bibles in the foyer is remarkable reading.

A noted Russian scientist, Dr Dmitri Kouznetsov visited Australia in 1991 and on September 6 addressed a meeting at Adelaide University. His cry was for freedom, openness in education, not indoctrination in the proclivities of a State or other philosophy. Science should have the dignity of freedom, not the drabness of direction. After all, one might add, this gives undue and perilous scope for politicians, many of whom blatantly and patently, but some covertly, tend towards absolutism, paternal or tyrannical. They may thus program things for their pet philosophies, philosophers - as Lysenko illustrates with Stalin; and throw weight behind the views of cliques or coteries, political, scientific or manipulative.

In all this, freedom has great possibilities for therapeutic merit.

Dr Koutnetsov himself had been converted to creationism by the evidence before becoming a Christian. As winner of the prestigious Lenin Science Award, and holder while in his thirties, of 3 earned bio-science doctorates, he symbolised what he declared. And that, to our point? It was not only the conviction that the Creation Model far better fitted the facts, without twisting, torture or torment, but that there was more freedom with the scientific treatment of the concept of creation in Russia than is the case in the U.S..

That freedom of ideas should take plant again in Russia better than in our vaunted soil - and not unsoundly at that, for in two world wars much blood has been shed for it - is an expression of the notorious decline in our land, in so much like the U.S.. It is to he hoped that the Australian trend towards independence will not so readily be thwarted as in our present CULTURAL DOMINION OF THE STATE, biting at the heels of the people of this land, like a dog with rabies.

It is to be noted that our State, S.A., has not only put a half-nelson on the children with its distasteful and arrogant force rather than education in this matter, it has also mischaracterised the Bible in its crass generalisations on the topic of religion. It is one thing to defend a thesis on a field; it is quite another to act as if a pseudo-divine wisdom required neither research nor justification. THAT is where vilification begins, and freedom ends. Is this fever to infect this people? Epidemics can have ravaging consequences, and often, to prevent them, what is needed first is cleanliness, not the pollutions of intemperate thought.

This however is not all. It is not merely an unscholarly assault on religion via rash generalisation, it is an attack on academic traditions of great value, a usurpation of the freedom of debate in the field of PROVOKED controversy, to aggravate it: it is also discriminatory and a gratuitous attack on the Biblical basis, which many keep on the wholly defensible grounds not only of faith, but of reason, uniquely indicating it. Such things need freedom of access, not petty dictation by what is woefully taken to be: THE CULTURAL DOMINION OF THE STATE. In fact, it is not human culture which is the topic, but what underlies man. Those who, being informed and able, so suffer the State to arrogate such dominion, may well deserve such domination.

It is far better that these things be taken freely; conviction may be aided by liberty, and those who love scientific method may well prefer the liberty to check these things out for themselves, as Dr Kouznetsov wisely urged, without discrimination or merely authoritarian direction as to results... Perhaps when one has suffered, as millions have done for so long in Russia, from the pigheaded princelings who dominated in such power and often in such luxury for so long, one begins the better to appreciate the purpose and calling of liberty.

It is not the holding of views, but THIS METHOD of implementing them, to which we object.

In sum, then, we request the removal of this invidious DECS document, the opening of free debate (if the area is to continue at all, at this school level), and the use of appropriate terms in teaching regarding scientific method and the theoretical standing of this theory.

We seek a position where students may freely reason and debate rationally, maintain positions, if they so desire, and this not without reasonable encouragement, and be free amongst well supplied evidence of all types: being unrewarded for mere conformity, and not presented with examinations based in their very structure, on mere presupposition. This we conceive to be or readily to become... demeaning, devitalising and immoral.

We seek the end of this undiscriminating discrimination, and of the State's vile intrusion into an area in which it appears as both barren and arrogant, as if being elected conferred on its rulers, untempered wisdom, serene knowledge and the end of human affairs in law, rule and dogma. Does it not even occur to such rulers that it is for them to open doors to rational endeavour, rather than announce what lies behind them; and provided presentation be not personally vicious, directed to the hurt of people as its aim, but intended well and defended ably, there is no room for State deification, apotheosis, blending with the mind of the Almighty per se, whether in adjudicating for Him, or assaulting Him or putting Him, as done in the Circular, very definitely if bucolically, "in place".

As for the Circular, never let it be said that protest after protest has not been made, on radio, in the press, in the Education Department, now DECS, to the Opposition but more particularly to the government in power. We are not here reviewing the government's intentions: but its performance, whatever the intention. Better results than these are urgently needed.

Unless these things be soon changed, this government may soon - while claiming concern about discrimination - with full knowledge, become the greatest perpetrator of discrimination in the State.

It is hard to believe that in one High School in this State, there was felt - very possibly because of the Circular - to be no freedom for a Christian group (often attended by a sympathetic Deputy Principal) to have at LUNCH- TIME, a film on Creation... After one has read the Circular, however, the effort required is significantly reduced.

Before presenting the SUMMARY OF ISSUES, we shall consider a comparison, in this field, with the once much-vaunted French MAGINOT LINE, directed against German invasion, with the utmost confidence; one which, being so long well-received by the French, was cavalierly treated by the Germans, who ... put it to the test.




Below is the noted Circular. Its point by point refutation is to be found in That Magnificent Rock, Ch. 8, throughout, and in particular at these   particular  locations.



5 January 1988



From time to time principals of schools are expected to deal with the issue  of creationism as it impinges on the school curriculum.

In certain instances schools are sought as venues for public meetings on creationism. In others, permission is sought for creationist- literature to be retained on school premises or for students to be addressed by a visiting speaker on the topic of creationism. Officers within the Education Department, including principals, are urged on various occasions to provide equal time for the teaching of creationist  theory alongside evolutionary theory.

The attached statement represents the Education Department's position on the place of creationism in schools. It provides guidance to principals on how to act in various situations which can arise.

The statement comprises six major sections:

A. Evolution, Creationism, and Education

B. The Place of Creationism in the Curriculum of SA Government Schools.

C. Creationism and the Teaching of Science.

D. Creationism and the Teaching of Religion Studies and social Studies,

E . Creationism and the Treatment of Contentious Issues.

F. The Entry into Schools of Creationist Information.

The major points of advice can be summarised as follows:

o    creationism is not to be taught as a valid scientific alternative to the theory of evolution in science or biology subjects and classes;

o    various religious views and beliefs regarding the origins of  the planet and its variety of living things may be discussed, but not taught or imposed as fact in order to make students conform to one belief;

       o creationism and evolutionary theory should not be considered alongside each other because of the danger of students feeling forced to make a decision between one and the other;

       o any student exposure to creationism in the school environment, whether through the agency  of  the teacher or visiting speakers or literature, must be integral to the learning process, not divorced from it or superimposed on it.

I suggest you familiarise staff with the document and retain it for future  reference and guidance.



J.R. Steinle







 For the purpose of this statement, creatlonism is characterised by a belief in the divine creation of living things; a belief that plant and animal species as we know them were created de novo rather then evolving from simpler species. While not of itself a religion, the creation movement has its roots in religious beliefs, in particular in the belief that the description of the origins of life on earth contained in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible is literally true.

 For years there has been contention between this view of the origin of species and the theory of evolution. While the two views are in competition, they are in a sense not alternatives In that rational debate between the merits of each is unable to be conducted on common ground - one being a scientific theory and the other based on belief.

Almost as contentious as the issue of which Is "right" is the Issue of the place of creationism in the school curriculum. On the one hand, creationism is given by law, equal time to that given to teaching of evolution in certain schools in the United States of America. On the other, the Sydney Catholic Education office has notified its teachers of the reasons why creationism should not be taught in Catholic schools. The New South Wales Department of Education has issued a memorandum to principals entitled "Evolution and Creationism in the Teaching of Science". In short, it directs its schools not to teach creationism as a scientific theory in science subjects or courses.



 Individuals in our society are free to hold their own religious beliefs. Teachers therefore have a responsibility to be as objective as possible, to avoid distortion of discussion and to respect the rights of students and parents to hold particular religious beliefs. Accordingly, teachers should not attempt to prescribe student beliefs; nor should they consciously, create Irreconcilable conflict between the curriculum and student beliefs.

Nevertheless an educated society, in Its search for truth, tends to value knowledge gained through accepted and tested methods and procedures more highly then unquestioning belief. Teachers would wish to reflect that value in their classroom practice.

These two principles have guided the development of the following position that schools are asked to adopt with regard to the place of creationism in the school curriculum.



Creationism. should not be taught as a scientific theory In our schools, either as a replacement for the theory of evolution or an alternative to it. 



o   Creationism is riot accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community as a credible scientific theory for the following reasons:

o   Creationism's basic postulate that plant and animal species were created by an act of divine intervention is untestable. Furthermore, the methods of creationism involve a selective search for evidence predisposed towards a fixed, unalterable conclusion.  Creationism therefore fails to qualify as a scientific theory in terms of both its basic postulate and its methods:

 o  The scientific evidence cited for creationism is not generally accepted as reliable by scientists;

o Creationist explanations of events and observations related to the age of the earth and the origin of species are viewed by scientists in general as flawed and invalid.

Science teachers may, where appropriate, refer to literal creationism as one of the views held by some people about the origins and development of life. They may also consider the differences between creationism and evolution from the point of view of what constitutes scientific method and the differences between religious beliefs and scientific theories. Such considerations may help to clarify students' understandings of the nature of scientific enquiry.

Where the topic of evolutionary theory is included within the school's science curriculum, eg SSABSA's Year 12 PES Biology syllabus, science teachers have a duty to treat it, and indeed other scientific theories, as theories, and not as immutable or unsubstantiated fact. {sic}

Science teachers should not be made to feel, nor should they create the impression in students, that evolutionary theory is of itself atheistic, rejecting the existence of a divinity. Science teachers are at liberty to provide the view, during any discussion of knowledge structures e.g. science, and belief structures, e.g. religion, that appreciation and acceptance of evolutionary theory does not immediately plunge one into fundamental and irreparable conflict with certain belief structures. Acceptance of evolutionary theory is independent of, and therefore reconcilable with, belief in either the existence or non-existence of God. Evolutionary theory does not deny the existence of a divinity; it does, however, deny the existence of creationism as an alternative credible scientific theory of the origins of the earth and its plant and animal life.



 The guidelines, for teaching about religion in South Australian schools, whether in integrated approaches or as a separate study, include the following principles:

o  The school may discuss all religious views with students but may not impose any particular view;

 o  The school should seek to inform students about various beliefs, but should not seek to make them conform to any one belief;



o The school's approach to religion must open up the Issues, not close down the discussion.

These guidelines clearly fit the discussion of religious beliefs about the origins of the planet and the variety of living things.

Students should be helped to distinguish between the language of science, which in used in investigation of the material world and the language of religion. Religious language is used to seek to explore meanings and purposes behind the material world; it is thus in some ways akin to the language of poetry, and makes rich use of metaphor and imagery.

In different cultures rich and powerful "meaning stories" have been developed to help explore the religious significance of the world. For instance, the original Australians have the story of the "Rainbow Serpent*'. Students exploring this story in a class can be helped to appreciate the importance of the land in Aboriginal religion and to develop an empathy for the spiritual nature of Aboriginal appreciation of life.

Similarly, students should be helped to appreciate the reverence of Australian Christians, both for the Genesis stories about creation and for the one whom they worship as the creative presence. They should also be aware of the varieties of interpretation that difference Christians, bring to these meaning stories of creation, and that some interpret them more literally than others."


As a result of such studies, students should be helped to develop both a greater reverence for the interconnected web of species on the planet, and a greater understanding of the power of religious belief to motivate people.


Section 58 of the Administrative Instructions and Guidelines, Discussion of Contentious Issues in Schools, provides broad guidelines on the teaching of such issues in schools.

Within any classroom treatment of creationism, the topic of evolution and evolutionary theory will almost automatically arise. Discussion of the two side by side, however, creates problems, viz:

o  The two are not directly comparable. one being based on scientific language and pre-suppositions, the other on religious language and pre-suppositions;

o  Students may perceive themselves as being forced to consider which of the two is "better" or to make a decision between them. Placed in this situation. students may well be faced with a dilemma - that of being unable to reconcile an acceptance of evolutionary theory with a belief in God. This situation is eminently possible despite the fact that many successfully reconcile a belief in God the creator of the universe and life with acceptance of evolution as the mechanism whereby life as we know it today developed. It is quite wrong for students to feel forced into a decision-making situation;



o  Given the time constraints of a normal curriculum, students could not possibly gain sufficient information to wage in-depth debate on the issue. let alone arrive at a decisive conclusion.

For these reasons teachers are advised against dealing with the two side by side arid would be expected to discuss creationism as a contentious issue, if at all, with caution and sensitivity.



From time to time those holding creationist beliefs may seek entry to schools for purposes such as talking with school management, talking to students or holding public meetings. Alternatively, they may wish to supply the school with creationist literature. While some may be representing certain religious groups which hold creationism as one of their tenets. others may represent one of the creationist societies or the creation movement.

As principal of the school it is your decision whether or not to accept such overtures and, if so, in what way.  In exercising judgement in such matters you will need to ascertain the motives behind the use of school premises for public meetings on creationism or offers to provide creationist literature to schools. Whatever the case you will need to appreciate fully the Departmental stance on the issue of creationism in schools as portrayed in this statement. Common sense dictates that teachers should not Invite or accept approaches from creationists to speak to meetings of students without your approval.

The prime consideration must be the curriculum needs of the students and not the chance availability of visiting speakers. Any student exposure to creationism must be integral to the learning process, not divorced from it or superimposed on It.

Creationist literature and/or curriculum materials are sensibly retained in your office.





  • The article is reproduced from The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday, November 4, 1882. It reported on the monthly meeting of the Royal Society of New South Wales. A paper was read entitled, "NOTES ON THE ABORIGINES OF NEW HOLLAND". It dealt with the period from 1844 of which the speaker reported this: "I had the privilege of taking some interesting notes from the blacks of this colony on the subject of their religious belief. These notes were necessarily and mainly taken from the most intelligent of those natives... No missionaries ever come to the southern district at any time, and it was not until many years later that the missionaries landed in Sydney on their way to Moreston Bay..."
  • He proceeds: "the notes which I took later on upon the religious belief of the whole of the aborigines of this continent are perfectly true and consistent with their own traditions." He notes that he has met with fresh confirmations in general belief in a Supreme Being in all parts of New South Wales.
  • Later in his paper, Mr Manning, the speaker, refers to a note in an aboriginal grammar, sent back to England by Archdeacon Gunther. It recorded the missionary's certainty that the aborigines could not have derived the beliefs he noted during his work, from white men, as they had had no communication with them. The beliefs in question included the concept of creation in that they referred to a Being who "made all things", in whom was the outcome of life. He made at the first and would judge at the last.
  • The point for us is simply this: that this very early report merely confirms other testimony printed more recently to the same effect. There has repeatedly been attested at least a notable belief among many aborigines, in the Creator.
  • It is therefore not without reason that distaste at the racial or cultural level may enter into the minds of some aborigines, when they are abused with the Circular's prejudices, imposed so cavalierly, a Western dream-time. (See Index, SMR.)
  • This contemporary secular missionary effort is not at all voluntary in this: that the alternative in education is far from readily obtained. It costs to diverge from the State philosophy; and doubtless it is worth it. Nevertheless, being the victim of others' dreams can be more of an imposition than imposing. It can strike differentially.



  • Involved are the nature of what observably happens, something to be recorded in the books of the naturalistic; and on the other hand, the nature of what for 'Nature' is claimed. These parallel lines do not meet.
  • Believers in creation of course on the other hand attest that it has finished happening, the act of institution of the designs in their intensity and complexity - creation. Confirmation comes in a predicted inability to find it happening, now. This is a fair, normal and rigorous test.
  • This is in fact what does happen: that is, such creation does not happen. Respectively, this involves anti-verification of naturalistic evolution and verification of creation. The facts unlike some of the theories, are perfectly free to do what they will. They do.
  • It is for this very reason that one of my children, some years ago, at that time even in a State High School was NOT taught the theory of evolution, it being a degraded and non-scientific theory. Part of the reason was this: events illustrative of it, signifying it, DO NOT HAPPEN. Since the School at that time had an enormous and interesting stress on the EMPIRICAL, showing the students WHAT HAPPENS and letting them see FOR THEMSELVES, as basic and essential to science: therefore the simple fact that as far as evolution is concerned in the laboratory, it very transparently does not happen, there was nothing to be said. In Mars, outer space, fossil series, demonstrable method, tests, power, verification: the same! They do not EVEN make life WITH intelligence and power!
  • It is this, in context of the NON-FREEDOM to debate the issue LOGICALLY in science (or freely anywhere without exclusivistic presuppositions in Government school time), that is doubly unbecoming for what is NEVER shown to happen. It makes the sort of discussion permitted rather like a debate in which one party has a microphone, while the other is shut in an outside toilet block. Free? Yes, within decreed confines that exclude rational interchange and mock equality as well as science




The French, as we now see, trusted foolishly in their massive Maginot Line, designed to keep out the Germans at the frontier. Germany simply invaded behind it and took it. The South Australian Government in its noted Circular, this abusive, intrusive Education Document, trusts foolishly in a doctrine on the one hand, concerning religion, and on the other, concerning creation­evolution. No FREE AND LOGICALLY DEBATED CONTRARY THOUGHT is permissible. No intelligent interchange occurs. They KNOW. Clichés masquerade as thought. Protest and criticism alike are vainly disregarded. Education is nullified in these crucial dimensions, and the Department of Misinformation acts in peace as if at war.

However, it is not good enough to misdefine religion in general, or to mischaracterise Christianity in particular, through erratic and undisciplined generalisation, through the direction of a Government Department. We did not elect a pope, a dictator or a guide to souls. We would also prefer education which has more regard for the normal canons of logic, and provides a better force of example, both with reason in general and with scientific method in particular... and this not in name, but in demonstrable, attestable fact. It is not platitudes which we need; but practice.

It is not good enough to idealise the competing and often catastrophically contradictory current theories of evolution, to misapply scientific method, to misuse reason by defining in advance what students must believe and teachers receive or accept as parameters*1, before they speak; or to patronise the people of God by the mere scratch of a pen or sound of a key, astir within the Education Purlieus of this State.

Quite the contrary! Facts must be presented, the realities of contrary evolutionary theories must be made apparent, their mutual criticism, the one of the other; as also where some of these theories now accept creationist premises long held. Reasons must be presented likewise, reasoned student responses should be encouraged, if we are to have education rather than a lurid mix of discrimination and indoctrination . And this ? it is by some fearful, lurid, bureaucratic mistake, masquerading as secular education. Conceivably, the whole area could be omitted; but if it is included, it must be treated openly, rationally and adequately. It should be regarded as a matter of education, befitting a Minister for Education, whatever his department should now be called. It is no service to youth to replace their minds with the preferences of his culture, sub­culture or person.

Examinations, including those of year 12, should not be discriminatory in their presuppositions, thus giving an unfair advantage to those who share the cultural canons adopted; a command educational establishment should be abolished. In short, liberty should continue to bat. It is far safer than being pseudo­omniscient.

Children should be taught, encouraged to think, and in particular, made aware of the demanding requirements of scientific method. This area should serve as an example, not a repudiation of it!

As Dean Brown has stated, we have raised several important principles. This was his pre-election view, expressed in writing. Their importance, there stated, however has not been sufficient to induce him to receive even for a few minutes, the representatives, four of them Christian Ministers, of the hundreds who have petitioned his Government for review. Review? It was not timely, he said before embarking on over 1000 days of inaction.

Freedom is not the least of them. There have been those who, in two World Wars, thought liberty of the body worth protecting; and there are those who now consider liberty of the mind should not be prostituted for simplicity or sold for convenience.

There are even those who consider gratuitous insult ought not to be offered to the children who, with or without their parents, hold otherwise. Ostensibly at least, the United Nations in its Convention on Child Rights, to which this country has for some years been a party ­ whatever the faults of that statement ­ might be among them.

The acts prejudicial to information, to participation and to free and equal education, involved in this dogmatic direction to Staff and students, are notorious: and in particular, Convention Articles Numbers 12, 13, 17 and 19 appear violated.

Far more importantly to us and to those who hold with us, this shameful indoctrination not only flaps the wings of political potency against various major Church Confessions, but this prejudice given such astounding licence in the field of State education, is against the clear teachings of the Bible.

People do not HAVE to believe the Bible; but when they

assault its premises, one would at least hope that

something of at least spurious reason

would be offered to help dignify

the occasion

and the oppression which is coming into vogue,

just as it now has long been put into practice:

whatever the intention.


When however the presentation by

AUTHORITY is or purports to be a



and this is manifestly nothing other than contrary dogma, without justification:

then this is, if anything could ever be, vilification*2A.

Is then the Government of this State acting in some sense criminally ? Such a question is for lawyers. It is acting unprofessionally in its ostensible description of, but actual indictment of religion in general.

That such religious bents should be so indulged with such educational adventurism, and so propagandised with monopolistic exclusiveness is objectively reminiscent of the Hitler youth days, in which similar, and of course equally disastrous, views were put forward, as has also been the case in Russia. The common content of evolutionary mythology ­ that is of a theory constructed without exacting regard to actual evidence, or discipline by it, or in disregard of it, to satisfy a yearning or desire ­ in these cases is not accidentally related to human conduct.

That is one more reason for protest, in view of the corruptive force on morals which this unscientific mythology involves. As to the views on the Bible expressed in the Circular, a rather drab and antiquated form of theological radicalism, a relativism, as if those who teach that all is relative, somehow had access to absolute truth in order to so declare it: this is not merely illogical, but presumptuous. As a base for the behaviour of Principals and teachers, it is laughable.

It is not mirth, however, whatever its elements, which is our main concern. The misuse of authority often has a mirthful side; but equally, the results can be murky, as Macbeth found in Shakespeare's so just expression of the moral issue of overweening dictatorship. The extent and intent of it are separate questions.

The presumption of the State in characterising the Bible as is done in the Circular, and in speaking there in terms of one vein of former theological fervour, of 'meaning stories' and the rest, is in total opposition to the Biblical claims of absolute, factual truth as to what it declares to be such. As to the Bible, it denounces those who reject God's absolute verifiable, continual, unique prophetic coverage of fact (Isaiah 41,43,48 for example) and mocks the opposition for its clamorous, emptily self-confident projections.

That is fine for God to do; the Maker can contend with the miscreant creature. We merely note that this current assault on Biblical Christianity is unwarranted, unevidential, unconformed to scientific method, a breach of liberty in this State, an attack on our academic traditions, a usurpation of the freedom of debate in the field of provoked controversy, and a discriminatory and direct attack on the Biblical basis which many keep, often on stated and wholly defensible grounds not only of faith, but of reason ­ indeed, of reason as supporting nothing else.

While such a position can be presented, published and defended (see The Shadow of a Mighty Rock*3 for example), it is not our present desire to do to the government what it is illicitly doing to the children. It is indeed to be hoped that at least some of the government is unaware of the ludicrous contradiction involved in officially ...

TALKING against discrimination -

while being perhaps this State's most gross, and certainly its most extensive violator of the same. The position is not improved by the tender age of those so treated.

We request therefore the removal of this infamous Circular by the S.A. Education Ministry, the opening of free debate (if the area is to continue for study at all), the use of appropriate terms in teaching, regarding the scientific and theoretical standing of the theory being indoctrinated so shamelessly, and this in its major and conflicting varieties; as of creation within the same stringencies of method. We seek the due teaching of scientific method along with this subject, should any of it continue, so that students may decide for themselves, without fear or favour, the current state of their thinking or beliefs, and act freely.

Maginot lines have a place for hype, hypothesis and possibly hubris; but it is better to get back to education in this case.

The opposite is here the case, while in terms of the rigours of the method, evolutionism is at an impasse so great as justly to call forth from prominent non­creationist scientists, titles such as Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, and Evolution: a Theory in Crisis; and comments such as:

  • "The deficiencies are real. They will never be filled... The idea of evolution rests on pure belief." (SMR citation, p.109, emphasis added, from a Scandinavian academic, author of a vast biological treatise in this area.)
  • "We believe that there is a considerable gap in the Neo­Darwinian theory of evolution... of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology" (SMR p.129). This contribution came from a Professor Mathematics at the University of Paris at an international symposium.
  • Further (SMR p.309), an academic leader in this field states this: "The Darwinian myth" is deemed "the greatest deceit in the history of science", defying both "Nature" and "experimental conditions" in their provisions.
  • "Why", he asks of the Darwinian theory, "has it not been abandoned ?
  • Noting Darwin, he states "they follow Darwin's example ­ they refuse to accept falsifying evidence." (SMR p. 252C.)
  • A Cambridge professor of physics attacks in depth those theories which do not reckon with the inability of "natural process" to "generate" the vast "information content of even the simplest living system". (SMR p.252A.)
  • Of gradualism here, a Harvard professor in life science declares, after investigations of RAW MATERIALS, that it is "literally incomprehensible" (SMR p.234). Indeed, he is as one subjected to outraged affront by such a thought. Listen to his expostulation on p. 260, Wonderful Life
    • "How could such a view of life as a single progressive chain,
      based on replacement by conquest and extending smoothly
      from the succession of organic designs through the sequence of human technologies,
      possibly accommodate anything like our modern interpretation of the Burgess fauna ?"

      he asseverates by his rhetorical question!
  • Of the same area, the noted Cambridge professor declares, "evidently nonsense of a high order". "The fossil record stubbornly fails to deliver one single bit of evidence in support of ...'phyletic gradualism' which is supposed to be a prediction of the micromutation theory" (SMR p.203).
  • A leader in research, FRS, showered with scientific honour, in this field, observes of this hypothesis, astonishingly bereft as it is of confirmation, validation and any normal support from the proven methods, that is here, scientific method:

"To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion" (SMR p.200).

  • From a Berkeley academic in biological science comes this protest

on the glib and glossy substitute of imagination for relevant evidence,

in the gradualistic organic evolutionary gyrations:

  • "Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude towards those who are not so easily swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine" on gradualism and organic evolution. (Cf. SMR p. 252B.)
  • But let us revert to a very distinguished New Zealand biological academic and writer in this field:


Again we find the refrain of fact versus myth -


·            "If the evolutionists were 'looking down the right road',
    it was certainly not a road derived directly from the facts of nature",

·            "Can we accuse anti­evolutionists like Agassiz of 'looking down the wrong road' ... ?" ;


·            "It was again the same basic contradiction between observation ­ which spoke for discontinuity ­ and the idea of evolution by natural selection ­ which demanded continuity of nature ­ that lay at the heart of Darwin's angst in the Origin.... How could it be otherwise when they admitted as did Darwin himself that the crucial evidence in the form of connecting links was emphatically absent ?" ­ Denton, op.cit., pp. 354­5.

Indeed (op.cit. pp. 353-4):

"The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature. In a very real sense, therefore, advocacy of the doctrine of continuity has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism, and ... it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts..." (Italics added.)

·       Further, to revert to the former Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control at Ottawa:

    • "Darwin in the Origin was not able to produce palaeontological evidence sufficient to prove his views but... the evidence he did produce was adverse to them; and I may note that the position is not notably different today" (SMR p.200).


  • Moreover, "the inference to design is purely... a posterior... based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic" (Denton, SMR p.116).
  • As to this theory providing ever­increasing evidence for itself,
    "nothing could be further from the truth" (
    Denton, op.cit. p.77),
    despite "the overriding supremacy of the myth".
  • For theoreticians who specialise in the extrinsic visible field, it is an excessively failed case to have nothing visible to show:
    this is a specialty shop without goods.

    (For details of those cited see SMR at pages noted.)

    "Myth", "greatest deceit", refusal to "accept falsifying evidence" -
    it sounds uncommonly like a Biblical denunciation of follies such as 'Nature' worship. Those who so decry are amongst the leading scientists in their fields. If you want negatives on this concept, it is like a mass of them inside your camera, unfortunately often ... lost when protagonists of evolutionary myth, roughly open the  back of the camera, so that they are not published where they ought to be.

    Such is the case, however, when one simply exposes these their statements made of the situation, WHEN FACTS are in view! Myth, the fanciful attribution of powers where they do not belong, is in cold, realistic fact what is the nature of such ultra-scientific theories that fit facts the way Cinderella's sisters' feet fitted the neat last required. The very effort is grotesque.
  • On the other hand: the assertion that the visible is not equipped to be,
    or active as author of itself, is not merely logically, experimentally and rationally fulfilled before our eyes constantly, as well as unrestingly attested by rational and confirmatory results in all directions.

    It is quite simply what the Bible in fact asserts (Hebrews 11), as to the arrival of the created universe. It came from what had what it took; which the visible logically and observationally lacks. As to the visible universe, what it is good at, is being what it is; what it finds withheld from it, is the power to make itself into what it would be*4 .


What observationally is found is that the visible sphere lacks the powers to do this very thing, which it does not do. No coherent exposé of such an act or any observation of it has ever occurred.

Verification is perfected for creation just as perfectly as evolution is anti-verified.

Small wonder there is such patent audacity, pertinacity and tenacity on the part of those who want to 'educate' the young into such fields without opposition, with monolithic powers of legislation replacing both thought and transparency!

It is worth emphasising that all quotations above are from biologists of advanced or eminent standing. With the exception of Dr Thompson, none is known as a creationist; and the latter was of great scientific eminence.

The demonstration that, on the other hand,  creation fits scientific method uniquely is presented in detail in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, esp. Chs. 1­2, with a useful summary on pp. 145ff., and a relevant Extension at the end of Ch.2, in the Supplement S1-S34, in pp. 421ff., and 251ff.. The logical requirements that this doctrine of creation in turn is part of what is necessarily the communication of God Almighty, in the Bible, is also first presented in the same publication. This, it stands in the starkest contrariety as to FACTS and their scientifically correct interpretation, as a basis for thought. It is not only confirmed, verified, it stands with just that bleak indifference to illogical constructions and patently unempirical pretence, not to say pretension, which has marked the magic of meanings without mastery from the first.

Such matters merely increase what is a major contention here presented. And this? It is that in this educational field, people should be free to think, that youth should be neither oppressed nor disenfranchised; and that the government has neither authority nor ethical propriety in substituting preferred philosophy masquerading as science, any more than it has logical propriety in avoiding logical grounds in favour of clichés, as though the latter did service for thought. People must be given opportunity to test, to learn, to select, from a just curriculum in Government Schools. If this people permits the present position to continue: in a democracy, it will deserve with increasing gravity, what it gets. Indeed, it is beginning to get it already.


*1 It may be added that this cultural self­indulgence by the government of the day is not merely gratuitous, with nothing that could feasibly even pose as rationally stated grounds, mere begging of the question being deployed, chosen 'definitions' determining the issue. It is also a mockery aggravated by a failure to distinguish between vast and relevant diversities in religions, which indirectly leads to a caricature of what the Bible states concerning the actions and intentions of God. For this erratic definitionalism, there is neither excuse nor extenuation: it is unscholarly.

*2 As the above­mentioned publication shows clearly; the concept that scientific method and the Bible are at some kind of variance is both prejudice and presumption.

*2A See VI below.

*3 As to the relevant teaching of the Bible see The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, pp. 482­498, 177­199; or in this file, infra at pp. 293-338; and as to Scientific Method and its impasse with this Government's approach, see the same work, pp. 145­153, 931ff., and Index. It is here relevant to note the SMR was first published in 1992, reaching the Government soon afterwards; and that the 2nd Edition, together with That Magnificent Rock were both placed on the Web, November 1996. (Update note: The Kingdom of Heaven - see Ch.1 et al. - followed in July 1997.)

*4 This is no unusual situation; it confronts us too, all the time; although we, being more creative, can affect some works within the models provided, and with the imagination, itself a work provided at another level; as is the power to defile or deface the evidence and reject its portent, at another level again. There are worlds within worlds, scenes and scenarios; there is mind, matter and spirit. Reductionism is an alternative mind style to realism.



WHEN a State elects, or is visited with a government which claims absolute authority in religious matters, there is always a problem. It is one which could justly be termed that of 'political papacy". NOT religious in their essence, such a government nevertheless may aspire to direct the thought, or the understanding of people in religious spy This it may do either absolutely or in significant part. It is not a question of keeping people from murdering one another, or mugging as an objective: the State now moves on to keeping the thoughts of the people, in named situations such as education, where the Government thinks it best they should be.

WHO however gave the government the right to do this ? Force sometimes helps, but then might is not right. Propaganda may for a time subdue people: but subduing is most unlikely to be total. Many will normally protest or present a determined opposition. In our democracy, the government has acted in this way of dictatorial tyranny: but few there are who protest. It is true that hundreds of people have done so, some Ministers including the President of a denomination but percentage­wise, there are few.

For a State, the condition which tends to follow is one of voluntary servitude, one step nearer to political papacy! HAVE the government by mighty works, by the presentation of religious laws which they can show they know and which operate, have they EARNED the right to do this? ASSUREDLY not! Was it granted to them? Scarcely: the issue did not even arise in the election!

Is it then a cultural norm in this country for such political domination in the field of religion? On the contrary, it is a gross departure from the Australian insistence, vigorous insistence, for which it is famed, on freedom and independence. To view religion as meaning stories, myths, legends, subsisting in a realm... other than fact, may seem a worthy thought for a government, should it wish itself to play God. Yet to issue a Circular to Principals to constrain their conduct, on such grounds, seems the work of comic impudence in some Gilbert and Sullivan opera: fiasco not service. To do so without warrant, gratuitously is, in a word, political papacy.

If then the religious ways which are forced upon the State education process IMPACT NEGATIVELY with or even contradict the religion with which the country was, if any, founded; and if they do so in crass, gross and wholly unsubstantiated ways; and IF the government will not even allow dialogue on the matters, or arrange interview, or provide closely reasoned grounds: what then! Yet if it instead aborts approach, ignores hundreds of petitioners and pursues its ways saying ­ IT IS NOT TIMELY OR SEASONAL TO CONCERN OURSELVES WITH YOUR MATTER (in essence what has over improvident years been the case in S.A.): then politics is becoming imperious indeed. It is time for freedom-loving people to call such a Government to account. THAT time is now.


To take a case, the Christian religion, in the Bible which throughout the history of the church has continued as its supreme written source book, more, its doctrinal base and security, contains references to things that have been SEEN and HEARD. These are numerous, solemn and substantial. You find this for example in John 3:11 and in Acts 4:20.

Thus both Christ directly and Peter and John state that they speak what they have seen and heard. In the latter case, this follows the account of a miraculous raising of one lame from birth, occupied in begging alms, but categorically cured, with the sermon which followed and a priestly arrest of the apostles. We speak what we have SEEN and HEARD, they say indeed, they go further. WE CANNOT BUT SPEAK THE THINGS WHICH WE HAVE SEEN AND HEARD.

Here is a religion, as the very title of that book, The Acts of the Apostles indicates, dealing with FACTS, EVENTS and OPERATIONS VISIBLE AND AUDIBLE, PHYSICAL AND PRACTICAL, as well as with their SOURCE and His teaching. Nor is this all. In the case of the CENTRAL FIGURE of this religion, He is proclaimed on a CENTRAL OCCASION (Pentecost) to have been UNABLE TO BE DETAINED BY DEATH, so that His flesh did NOT ROT (Acts 2:30­333).

THIS Christ, did NOT have His flesh rot (cf. Luke 24:39 ­ "Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see Me to have").

Paul in I Corinthians 15 pronounces that a failure to receive (15:1­3) that what it was that was buried, was raised from the grave, is a failure to
receive Christianity at all, and constitutes an ENTIRE REJECTION of it ( I Corinthians 15:13­15).

The fact that this CENTRAL FIGURE, the Lord Jesus Christ is also attested as the Son of God who was PRIOR to incarnation, in the very FORM of God, thinking it nothing to snatch, to be equal with God (cf. John 10:30, 5:19­23), makes the case more than central. It is basic, inalienable, definitive. To act against this with the assault of mere political authority is to act to the uttermost against Jesus Christ (cf. Mark 8:31­32, Luke 24:37­40, John 20:25­29). Political assassins (or would­be assassins) of Christianity should at least seek mandate, or cease.



A further excerpt, with a measure of summary, follows. It is taken from Ch. 8, That Magnificent Rock,
slightly adapted to the present.

It may be seen in its context at




1. The Portrait 

The problems then with this dreadful directive in SA, the Circular to Principals, January 5,1988, said still to be in force after many years,  are these.



It is defamatory and presumptuous relative to religion, the Bible in particular: and it is so in an unscholarly and fashion.  


It is suppressive of free speech: in particular, of free, rational debate where the theory is taught, as it often is from my own experience in this State, in schools ­ in science.


It is distorting to argument, preceding its permission for talk in humanities on this point with assumptions of 'meaning statements' as distinct from rational challenge, directed if need be at the actual Bible for example. Pre­empting the floor, it tells us the presuppositions to be in view.

It is propagandist, using repetition and repression to assist an untenable theory which would require no defence from such means, if facts spoke for it in the realm of austere and accredited scientific method, in such a way as to make it regular and creditable: they do not (cf. SMR pp. 145ff.). The whole realm of the visible is as silent on design advance by nature, as a closed book, which as has been shown, it veritably and verifiably is.


What is observed and in rationality confirms what is written in the Bible, in point of fact, a total estrangement of this current universe from any proclivity to self-create from what it is: this we have on the one hand. Logic as shown in SMR, observation and coalescence with other laws is the spread before us.


What is not observed, never has been observed by mankind in any recorded form, it is this: sure increase of design complexity without intelligence at work and applied to the point. This is what is in fact in conformity with organic evolution - intrinsic integral development by transmutation of what is here, over the spectrum of natural things.


The laws to compose it, the observations to exhibit it, the cohesion with thought used in the process, to validate it and the avoidance of self-contradictory antinomies to render it rational: this is what it needs scientifically. This is what it lacks in each dimension. It is not evidenced as a natural phenomenon. If on the other hand, you acknowledge that nature played no part in setting down the basic structural kinds of life, you return to creation.


Which theory then is chosen?


The theory chosen is the statedly evolution or more exactly evolutionism, providing for internalised upgrading, almost one might imagine, because it is entirely contrary to demonstrable fact. It is spree day when, as it were, the bankers throw their money bags about the Bank. What is not chosen in the Circular is the long-standing statement which is in accord with fact.

Here then is a marvellous thing, concerning creation (more precisely biblical creation) and evolution respectively:

·       that what, in its model, predicts the absence of what is not in fact observable (contemporary design advance - CDA), being verified,  
is rejected in its summary as to the participation of natural things;

·       and that what, in its model, makes natural the presence of what is not observable, CDA, being unverified, is accepted.

Small wonder heady clashes in evolutionism are now conspicuous (see That Magnificent Rock Ch. 8, where marked   for hyperlinks to follow) Denton, Kouznetsov, Stephen Jay Gould and a collection of clangour).

Failure can readily be divisive. Result: Verification void is preferred above verification accord. Loser takes all... THAT! It is science. And this, it is but one of the areas of failure in this model noted in this Chapter.

Science ? No, it is procedurally derelict, evidentially immune, non-science and astounding prejudice: rashly conceived, believed and then foisted into the realm of science in the most contradictory possible way, relative to scientific method.


It is dangerous: diverting free and rational enquiry by mere effrontery, without the semblance of rationally sufficient grounds, so that error in science may be prolonged.  


It is authoritarian, determining, by a few lines, matters that scholars toil over.  


It replaces science with statistics, consulting what are in fact, personal preferences of scientists in a quite standard appeal to authority, and use of the ad hominem error of logic.  


It is pernicious: setting up an example of dictation from bureaucracy in place of determination by logic and scientific enquiry: it is thus unsystematic.  


It is clandestine: authoritarian pronouncements are made as if assured, to the total ruin of fair play, and then the Department declined to so much as send its text book writers or teachers to confront Dr Gish when he came. If it is true, why not show it? Since it is preferred in this propagandist style, why not defend it? The Department has 'not' taken sides? Not? well, if Hitler did not take sides against the Jews, well then. . . perhaps.  


It is outrageous towards children, oppressed like the victims of industrial mines at tender ages in the Industrial Revolution. These children are brain­washed so nicely, so pleasantly by their dear educational community, which appears to have its gods before it, these wet with the blood of those who too well follow their ludicrous lore: for that is as near to law as the theory goes.


S.A. is polluted heavily by this tragi­comic intrusion of the State into the field of religion, dogmatically creating a creed (it is easy to propound one from the Education Department document), without logical requisites or clear ground: a monument to intrusive religious prejudice as also to unscientific methodology - erected on the broken wall that once stood for freedom!


An end note is added which related to a prior point in the chapter, and concerned the failure of the Department concerned near the time of the invention of the Circular, to engage in debate with world-famed Dr Duane Gish, in defence of its innovation.


·       *1 Granted that Dr Gish is an eminently successful debater for creation on university campuses throughout the world, being granted indeed one hour television coverage in debate in the entire USSR television network when in that area. This however scarcely excuses the Education Department in South Australia for avoiding the debate, when alien material, instead of science, is forced on trussed up children, not allowed, that is, to deal with the material rationally in science in this affair.






Nearly all the above material consists of excerpts from an evidentially rich and reasoned presentation in That Magnificent Rock, Ch. 8. It is taken for ease of understanding of major issues, but by the nature of the case, is not a substitute for the material on which it is based, which requires attention in any studious exercise.

In addition, many other volumes in the 141 volume set, In Praise of Christ Jesus, a work in the discipline of biblical Christian Apologetics contain material which relates to the basic and underlying issues concerned. It is to the extent of many volumes, to be found at the generic  URL noted. The same applies to the material to follow.

One major set of volumes in the field, on this site,  is this:


The gods of naturalism have no go!

It may be freely consulted for all detail.


The testimony presented to Government now continues.

                   The Issues ...


·       1. The fiat action of creation relative to the misuse of scientific method in this philosophic, naturalistic evolutionism - is this to be considered on merits, or peremptorily pulped, then hidden, then buried with radioactive waste? Is this to be a society of fear or of assessment and competition?



·       2. The misnaming of evolutionism as science in the educational setting not merely begs the question but disregards scientific method, which favours performance not philosophy.


 ·       3. The assault on the historic doctrine of creation with appeal to authority seems pseudo-obsessive, safeguarded, kept in private from exposure to speakers of contrary view, indeed from free and open debate... in what are supposedly places of education.


 ·       4. The assault on religion in general is not diminished by caricature of some of major examples of it, worldwide, in terms both undefended and vilificatory; nor does 'good intention' equate with scholarly accuracy.


·       5. The mischaracterisation of what 'religion' is about in general terms, does not cover important cases: for at least one of these, this cardinally falsifies, without stated ground, the declarations of its scripture concerning what it is about and its relationship to reason.  


·       6. Reciprocally, there is a misrepresentation of evolutionism exclusivistically as science, when it does not in fact meet scientific method, rigorously applied, at all.  


·       7. Naturalistic evolutionism is a contra-observational hypothesis long seeking ground for its ideas. As such, it is cardinally misrepresented in the Circular.


·       8. The assault on freedom of speech, of thought, ideas, on the commerce of ideas is linked to subjection of ideas both in science and out of it, to 'critique' by mere authoritarian intrusion.  


·       9. The assault on the children through this misuse of their freedom, and the adding of prima facie intellectual bullying to the other degrading evils of the presentation, remains a critical issue.


·       10. The exaction of this religious philosophy imported into science, as a cost of studying science is oppressive.  


·       11. The bureaucratic abuse:


of science, through political direction past its methodology and the sustained results of that method,

of children,

of principles, and

of correction through official disregard... is a nearly fatal prescription in terms of the history of nations and of science.



·       12. The institution of what is in numbers of points a religion, indeed an assessment bureau for religion, without even telling the electorate, is dishonourable, quite apart from the question of the political authority with which to perform such a task.



·       13. The conflict remains between this authoritarian substitute for freedom, made worse by propagandising its advent as science, in terms of jarring discord with:

a) the federal provisions of the Australian Constitution, below which this vastly falls for those in this State and

b) the tenor of spirit in the rejected Referendum several years ago (i.e. before the publication date of this volume), in which Government power increments were searchingly rejected.



·       14. The patronising abuse of God's name as a possible additive to the evolutionary teaching concocted, involves the moral attributes of any such god of convenience: murder, mayhem, self-interest, scheming, subtlety, guile, deception, lying and so on, as chosen media of creation.



·       15. This simply means that the god in question Biblically corresponds with the devil, with his profound passion for arrival and survival, parasitically preying on the creation.



·       16. Students are thoughtfully permitted (Circular p.2, end of Section C) to conceive of a matching 'god' for this arrogantly asserted evolutionary mythical process - an imaginary 'cause' which does not articulate with the consequences in any interface, scientifically. (Cf. Secular Myth and Sacred Truth: at the site noted and The gods of naturalism have no go!)



·       17. The double-action invented process and imagined harmonisable 'god' permitted or prescribed has also this result. It erodes freedom both for teachers and for students.



·       18. For some, moreover it means that in all conscience, in the name of freedom and truth, teaching is now morally impossible in State-governed secondary schools.



·       19. Such a result involves, categorically, an affliction of minorities and that not only through its propagandising mode and matter, but through its exclusion of people who value truth in the tongue and freedom in the power to express it, more than any approbation or commercial comfort.



·       20. Some may not realise this, but these are in fact critical issues. Racism is not only biological but spiritual in such a case.





·       What then do we want? For what do we ask?

It is this: the removal of this offensive, minority-afflicting, authoritarian and unscholarly document which not merely afflicts children, but assaults religion with an easy indifference of tone, while failing to provide evidence logically or even scientifically sufficient for its view, even in germ. This it does while gratuitously, mischievously, aggressively, unpeaceably and without any appearance of inhibition, in content assailing the Biblical Christian faith at the same time.



·       If this be not vilification, then that activity cannot exist. Manifestation and exposure are one thing: reasoned argument is a part of the price of liberty. However, irrational fiats, irresponsible force, in human politics, these are symptoms of tyranny. 


·       We however have not elected tyrants, quasi-popes, religious directors, but people whose policies are to be honestly made clear before they are, after election, set like a boon or, on the other hand, a scalpel in the midst of the heart of the people. That a former government stated this pestiferous substitute for education, tyrannically suppressing, not expressing due and free argumentation in State Schools - and that without cogent argument at the outset: THIS does not improve things. Whatever its motives may have been, this is the effectual result.

In fact, it merely adds for any present government which, duly informed, does not correct this, what would become the woe of unoriginality of oppression to its irksome continuation of the evil.


·       In such a case, it would follow that the Circular was not even its invention, only its retention.


Several Christian Ministers have challenged both Governments on this issue, and a petition of hundreds of signatures was presented during the long process of bypassing the situation. This challenge has been made in the hope that a further elected body would be spared repetition of the errors of earlier Government, or at least limited in its entanglement.

We are therefore requesting the removal of this document, fatally flawed in method, the resumption of education, in the way Dr Koutnetzov*, with three bio-science doctorates and the Lenin Science prize, in Russia, advocated when he spoke in Adelaide University. That way ? It is very simple and not entirely original... Carefully present material for students to assess: educate them.

Domineering arrest by someone’s unadmirable philosophy is not the domain of State education. If this is to be secular education, let it be education.


Finally, when the petition of hundreds of signatures from people of different churches was presented, it summarised its desire in words like this:

The Petitioners have this to say:






·       See http://webwitness.org.au/thatmagrock/remodelling2.html#kouz
for the reasonable presentation made at that time. 

·       For his part, Dr Dmitri Kouznetsov (cf. pp. 218 ff. The Shadow of a Mighty Rock) indicated that  becoming versed in bioscience, he had to abandon organic evolution because of the evidence, years before becoming a Christian.

·       All page references to The Shadow of a Mighty Rock may be found at







23 Wendy Ave., Valley View, SA 5093

January,  2005




We refer to the letters sent by the above body from last March, re the issue of creationism and evolutionism. Now, after some 10 months, we have received the first substantive reply from your Government.


Like the generality of replies received over the last decade and more, it is only in form a reply, since the challenge is in no point met, and in this instance the main point not even mentioned.


The reply, this time, comes from a Minister of State to whom the matter was addressed at your own instance. Though it was felt at the time that this was a strange choice, as the matter was not least concerning your own personally stated aims, we forbore in order to see what you might have had in mind.


The event only confirms our concern since the letter from the Minister, in common with what we have found to be normal bureaucratic practice in this matter for many years, does not noticeably cover any single point of our stated concern. Rather, it presents a set position, a statement of faith which might as well have been written, had none of our correspondence even been read. This raises the question whether the material presented has been read, passed on with the results of the researches of your advisers, for whose assured response, we waited several months. One does not normally address questions in order to have other questions answered, and one’s own ignored. It is one thing to answer proposals put; it is quite another to ignore them. It thus seems unprofitable to proceed there after more than a decade of such responses.


We therefore can only repeat our request for a personal interview with yourself, since it is a statement of your own that is a basic concern; and we agree with it.


It is this. You have stated, according to TV report, that you believe in a free thinking South Australia. This concept is of course grossly abused in the fact that the assessment of the very nature of ‘religion’ in the Circular to Principals concerned (Creationism and the School Curriculum), is a generalisation which ignores the fact that different religions make different claims, as to their import and purport, and the nature of researchable data in them. The Circular’s error in this field is on the one hand procedural, in making such an illicit and unsustained generalisation about religions, a simple statement of its own faith; and on the other, substantial, in that lacking such evidence, its statement by implication attacks the biblical assertions concerning things such as the resurrection, the creation and the nature of history. If the Government wishes to attack Christianity in this way, fine, but it will be necessary to admit it, and to provide something in the way of grounds, and not only to abandon any thought of a free thinking South Australia, but even one of duly scholarly one, or a non-oppressive one.


Unfortunately, the answer we have received, in a way too usual in our experience in this field, did not even MENTION the issue of the religious assault; for however you may wish to present various religions, it is no part of presentation of religions to assault any without ground, by inadequate generalisation of what any of them claim. A reply omitting mention of the main feature of the question in any examination would simply fail. Worse, the confusion of the concept of religion, which is merely an aspect of one particular official and officious religious faith, in the Circular, is added to the ideas about creationism as religious only, in orientation, so as to make a confused contusion of error. This thus becomes on two counts a religious imposition, and not at all a religious coverage. The teaching discrimination involved is colossal. The student awareness of religions on such a basis is distorted.


It is precisely here that the persecution of children is occurring and of families including those of all creationists. Freedom of thought is invidiously blocked by inadequate exposure to fact, as by a tyranny of unsustained philosophy and omissions of coverage of scientific action on the part of many. Moreover, creationism is simply unfactually presented in the Circular, in its p. 1, para 1, and this actively misleads the students, if followed. It is not good to be contra-factual in educational curriculum material.


This basic point is shown in detail in material prepared for the Government in our meeting with advisers last year and which should be with you. It is however  ignored in the answer, as is also the point that creation is not only a scientific study. In terms of scientific method, as detailed in that same material, it is also shown that the basic contentions of scientific creationism are decisively and distinctively supported. Moreover, we have presented names of some 160 Ph.D. scientists who are biblical creationists (a sub-variety of the much wider body of generic creationists). Creationism is certainly, in principle, no less than evolutionism, part of the paradigm of rational science, and is far more so, since NO ONE of the criteria which, philosophy apart, are presented for empirical result, fails to meet the test in this case; whereas not one but several fail in the case of evolutionism. This summarises some of the detailed points made in the material provided.


It was put to your advisers: Are we to designate the 160 Ph.D. scientists of whom one is aware, who hold to creationism, as dunderheads – and that, for the sake of prejudice ? Is this free enquiry ? Is this rational ? Is this any answer ? Is this education, avoiding the issue ? And what of the grounds ? Are these answered by mystical statements about science, rather than the evidence, as if the word science were magic and its application to the issue systematically, were mysterious ?  If it be held in defence that a majority of scientists support one doctrine of evolution or other (many of the evolutionary doctrines compete, and attack each other through their proponents, in EMPIRICAL fact, and this not without reason!), is that of the nature of free thinking ?  Are students to think as most people think, or to examine and learn to examine, evidence ? and if not the latter, how does this differ from authoritarian educational tyranny ? and in what way does it even resemble free thinking.


In the Circular, misrepresentation of fact vies with dissemination of a specific religious Circular faith, disguised as a generalisation about religion; and both are bound by authority, in an appalling way. Is the government elected to rule religion! Let it then say so, before the next election. The Circular’s spurious definition of religion is applied pragmatically to education and so not only distorts thought and provides basis for distortion in that field.


Are we then to decline to educate our children so that they are informed and able to choose at the rational and relevant level ? or rather tell them what to think! Are they to be made selectively aware of what is philosophically preferred in the domain of science and religion, not of the actual empirical presence!


And if so, is this to be called freedom of education, or indeed of anything else ?


Dr Dmitri Kouznetsov, a holder of three bio-science doctorates and winner of the Lenin Science Prize in Russia,  is a scientist who spoke at Adelaide University some years ago. Stating that he became a creationist because of the evidence, before becoming a Christian, he deemed it wise to teach children diverse approaches in science, so that they can be educated … freely. This famous researcher is a little difficult, as are hundreds of  Ph.D. creation scientists, to dismiss as an oddity.


Further, there is a serious question whether this authoritative and inadequately rational approach to education, defining terms by desire, rather than by empirical reality, or even accuracy, is indeed legal by Commonwealth Law, in view of the formally adopted UN Declaration on intolerance in religion and belief.


It is an indisputable  fact, as far as evidence is concerned rather than mere position taking, that creationism represents a sustained and reputable scientific option, held by a multiplicity of outstanding scientists. Much further detail is available on this point, and facts are our friends. It seems also an indisputable proposition that this practical creationist aspect of scientific reality, by its omission in the field of State education IN SCIENCE, constitutes a discrimination and a deprivation for all creationists; for they or their families must either pay for those who will in fact educate them on the scope of present day science, or accept a defective version of the actual fact, which appears tilted, slanted, repressive, religiously oriented by what becomes a State religion.


Further, the current action discriminates against non-creationist students, by failing to provide them through dedicated teaching skills, with a rational aspect, according to scientific method, of the researched creationist position.  This limits their thought and research as students, and misrepresents in advance, one of its potential areas, confusing species with ‘kinds’. If now, there were some error in the presentation in detail in the materials we have provided on this general position, it would be appreciated if someone would show it decisively, instead of merely DECLINING TO DO ANYTHING RELEVANT, in word or in deed.  If the intention were to protect entrenched positions, well; but if education is intended to be a work of integrity on covering factual realities in what is taught by eminent scientists, then there is acute failure. In drawing attention to this fact, one is allowing for those who rightly insist on such precision, to make changes to ensure that it happens.


Our concern, emphatically and statedly, is not that a religious perspective be imposed on students, which would indeed be an oddity, for a secular State. It is precisely the fact that this is already BEING DONE, at which we protest, and for which we seek cleansing. Such imposition is not, nor has ever been relevant in our approach to this State; but rather the opposite,  that various perspectives be faithfully and accurately taught. However, to make ALL creationism religious only, or to make ALL religion only unscientific, these are rash and unsustained generalisation, both about religion, and about creationism: and it is to fail in this educative criterion. It becomes instead a substitution of authority for reason, opinion for evidence and ignorance of the position, for scholarship. If some prefer this, tax use should not dictate it.

The response from your Government, therefore, concerning religion and science, in essence has so far been to beg the question, a traditional trend here. The reply to us makes many assumptions; but presents no grounds.  The Government position is  then make ex-grounds, in the areas of concern: a declaration of what is to be. Now a Government CAN do this; but not rationally, freely or justly.


Since creationism, on the other hand,  has been abundantly shown to be rational and uniquely so (in the webwitness books, now 93, on this amongst other subjects, being validated in the works of many Ph.D. scientists, with a significant scientific following, as it has had over the centuries following creationists Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Boyle, Lord Kelvin, Agassiz, and in this century, von Braun, and many other well-known and innovative scientists): it merely ignores the point to talk of evolution in terms of ‘rational’ as though it had some mandate, because some hold to it. In fact, as shown in the material presented, this is not one of its aspects. It has support; but not from there. That is one reason why competing evolutionary schools engage in internecine conflict.


The reply so far received by us therefore, in effect is an exposition of the Circular to Principals, and provides no answer to the criticism of it supplied; nor as usual, evidence of the material sent having been studied. Allowing the teaching of religion is of little advantage and none as remedy to the point at issue, when its nature is abused and its place distorted. The definitional abuse of religion, in the curriculum and Circular involved, is not helped by opening doors to it.


For far more than a decade now, the issues have been drawn, the reasons given, the evidence provided, and scientific method in detail shown in its creationist outcome. The result from Government however, to the point, or any point in it, has been like the silence of the ages. If South Australia is not to be a slave State (South Australia, Slave State ?), in this regard; dictatorially dominated, educationally impoverished, segmentally oppressed, and almost certainly contrary to the Commonwealth Law into the bargain, but a State of free enquiry, then a change will need to be made in this stark and appalling avoidance of the issue.


We requested before, an interview so that the matters could be addressed, not repressed. The repetition of the gratuitous dictates of the Circular in no way either justifies them or answers their criticism.


We propose, therefore, as we did when with your advisers, that after the requested interview with the Premier who has expressed his desire for a free-thinking State, there should be a multi-disciplinary debate, in a public forum. That would be perhaps one test better than ignoring the issue, as was done on the same topic, where the notable creationist and successful university debater and biologist Dr Duane Gish, also had the debating offer declined by the SA Government when it first imposed its authoritarian approach and implicit assault on the position of Christianity. The record of the State in this area needs radical improvement both both for the avoidance of suppression, and the provision of either expression or answer.





23 Wendy Ave., Valley View, SA 5093

February 3,  2005


The Hon Mike Rann,

Premier, South Australia

Victoria Square,



Dear Mr Rann,


We presented a matter to you some time ago.  Over ten months have elapsed since first we wrote, without our issues being addressed in the form of reply. 


Some points you may wish to note:

  • we were promised a detailed response by your advisers, when they completed research in two Government areas.  None has been forthcoming.
  • the matter was instead referred to another party.
  • we were at length sent a reply which in no way addresses our issues,
    a long-term norm.
  • reportedly, you claim to believe in a free-thinking South Australia.
  • a Circular to Principals is in force which makes a mockery of this philosophy.


We therefore request to see you personally concerning this matter – one which is ultimately your responsibility as Premier and government speaker on the topic of freedom of thought.


Should you require background information, please refer to our previous submissions, of which a close copy is being sent under separate cover, to ensure they remain readily available; and could you kindly study the accompanying material with this letter, marked (A). With this is the relevant part of a copy of the Declaration on … Discrimination (B), red-marked where relevant (C), adopted by the Commonwealth.


You will note our request, included in (A), for a multi-disciplinary debate in open forum, a fairer test of various repetitively bypassed issues, over the years, and hence to be desired in a free-thinking State, where seemingly in stasis. If you agree, we shall DV proceed to take further action for arrangements, enabling a change to the debate rejection scenario, a procedure in force over years in this field of concern.


In the enclosure, and its references, amongst other things, the Circular is shown objectively inaccurate in designating creationism, unscholarly in defining religion, implicitly detractive without stated ground, of the biblical faith, and almost certainly illegal. It would be appreciated if we could receive an early reply, if by any means these matters may the sooner reach the public eye and ear in debate.



Yours faithfully,


Rev Dr Robert E. Donaldson  Th.D., M.A., B.D., B.A., Dip. Ed.


Rev Kwang Moon  M.Div., Th.M., B.A., Grad. Dip. of Ed.


         on behalf of   the Evangelical Presbyterian Alliance







touching the issue to schools of the
recently confirmed as still OPERATIONAL in this State

2004 with update


Quite simply creation is not allowed to be considered in science, though it fulfils scientific method as evolutionism does not; it is not allowed to be considered in debate in the realm of fact, anywhere else in the school curriculum. This is the position since 1988 in SA, probably illegal and surely slanted.


In fact, the UN Declaration concerning the Elimination of Discrimination in all Forms of Religion and Belief, specifies that there must be no exclusion from any usage or benefit based on religion or belief. This implies, for example, that you cannot legally reduce the facilities for what you do not believe, on the part of those contrary to your conceptions in these fields. If your belief system prefers to have a universe which does what no one ever sees it do, and another prefers a system where what is not observed is not postulated, and what is observed is deemed applicable, then you cannot exclude from help, those who hold the latter, or reduce their help. This is part of the scientific aspect of creationism.


In our present context, the point is this : ARE NOT CHRISTIAN children and those OTHER CHILDREN whose religion or belief specifies creation by a Founder equipped with the finesse found, to suffer the following discrimination ?


1)     NO use of teacher expertise in conveying scientifically represented material on creation, such as multitudes of Ph.D. scientists hold, convey and consider more apt than any other option.


2)     NO use of such scientifically prepared materials, so cited,  in school libraries, or help from Librarian in order most aptly to find them, as with any other material, and no comparable scope in range for such books.


3)     LOWERED sense of social participation in Class on the topic of the beliefs they hold, which eminent scientists hold, present and verify them repeatedly on many fronts, while on the contrary they are made to feel that their beliefs are irrelevant to science. It is important to realise that the point here in view is NOT what given religion A or B teaches, but what in scientific method is  the hypothesis of creation PER SE. That affirms existing by action not from WITHIN our present system, but from OUTSIDE it, so that it can exist, given its verification in the 3 major scientific laws which mirror and verify the concepts of a past creation, a running down of the same in many ways, and a life-to-life mode of transmission of life (Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, Second Law of Thermodynamics, Law of Biogenesis).


4)     NO exposure to experimentation to verify or fail to verify various theories in the area of the origin of the universe or life.


5)     NO effort to create awareness of the diversity of opinion among evolutionary theories, so that some of the greatest of scientists have been attacking Darwinism in the most vital language, and dismissing it on scientific grounds, even though they are evolutionists (cf. academics and authors Hoyle, and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, both renowned scientists, and the latter perhaps the most famous of all biologist academics, of the last 50 years, together with Nilsson, Løvtrup and others).

     If it be held that students are incapable of critical assessment,
     the fact remains that critical    
     assessment of arguments is a component of school instruction,
     in order to assist students to  beware of propaganda,
     and to know something of its methods in many fields.

If further it be held that it is hard enough to give them critically wounded Darwinism,
then the first reply is this: Why give it, in view of its condition ? In fact, it is quite easy –
and one speaks here as a registered and experienced teacher and Headmaster –
to give a short account of the contention of Darwin and of Gould, and indeed of Denton.
It is easier than some elements taught in Commercial Law or Mathematics.


6)     NO balance, even with what precisely fits scientific method!


Thus, if, further, it be held that the current indoctrination is still to continue, then there is discrimination not only against those of a religious creationist belief, but against evolutionists  of a diverse evolutionary view from whatever is being taught, for example, Darwinism. Again, it forwards not only secular concepts but those of some religionists discriminatingly: thus the Bishop in London, aghast at creationist teaching, has maintained that it undermined the teaching of Christianity. The thrust of such advocates, secular or religious, is forwarded without balance or knowledge. It means that any thought of freedom of learning is defunct, of non-discrimination in religion is defiled, while this appears decidedly unlawful in terms of Commonwealth Law and adoption of the UN ruling on Religious Discrimination.


7)     SCANT justice: Since such things being discriminatory, are also bad teaching, which follows evidence, not blind dogma, it is an interference also with the Rights of the Child, as in the UN Declaration, precluding or inhibiting its desire for knowledge, while simultaneously degrading some aspects of knowledge by authoritarian fiat and daring to present such concepts to Principals by fiat now said to be “enforced”.   Its assault on the Christian faith by implication of its gratuitous claim that religion is not a matter for rational test is not merely an export of simple prejudice in a State educational setting, but one contrary to demonstrable fact as may be seen in Rev. Dr. Robert Donaldson's 98 volume set on Christian Apologetics at http://webwitness.org.au. Assumptions here are slanted presumption and constitute an imposition of a governmentally thrust belief system in a discriminatory, insupportable and indeed, in simple fact, unsupported manner. This is dominion by philosophy set on grounds that are wholly invisible, either in presentation or availability. It is likewise discrimination in the use of Commonwealth funds for schools.


Preceding its illicit because question-begging application to evolutionistic philosophy, it becomes a DIRECT breach of the discrimination law, giving place and position to such philosophy, in a manner which also misrepresents on its p. 1, biblical creationism on ‘kinds’ in a flagrant manner, contrary both to scientific norms in creationism and biblical presentation in Genesis 1. Actively promoting a rationally unsupported State belief system with multiple discriminatory denials for some students’ life and work is a vast intrusion; but applying it to teaching perspective is discrimination to the uttermost degree. It is not isolated but principial, not episodic but thematic; and it not merely promotes a belief system shamelessly, but EXCLUDES the rational discussion of opposition and the systematic teaching of what is contrary, in science. If this is not discrimination, it could not exist, and the law would be a hollow pretence.


8)     SLANT: In addition, evolutionism being contrary in method, to what scientific method prescribes, by which what is not verified must be set aside or re-developed, this is again discrimination on the basis of religion or belief, demeaning a basic concept in various religions, while giving advantage to the religion or belief system outlined in the Circular, which is subjectivistic, and without stated ground, while also gratuitously contrary in claim to Christianity as to the objective nature of God and of His revelation, and to His action in space and time, not only in doctrine, but in attestable evidence. This tends to establish a religion or belief by using schools for its dissemination. If this religious dogma for Principals to rule their schools by a belief system of such a character is actually the governmental purpose, it should be clearly stated before any future election, and noted at once to its public. If it is not, it should not be done.


In either event, it appears to break current Commonwealth law.


In sum, it is not known that the Government has such a deliberate program; but if it has not, it should AT ONCE abandon it in this field, where it is currently operative, whether through oversight or indifference, or other cause.


In his Wonderful Life, contrary examples, noted by Stephen Jay Gould re gradualistic theories of evolution for ‘progress’, are major in the field of Cambrian rock; and he argues  that it is inconceivable that such theories could last in view of this fact. His contentions there are major in the field of macro-change, Gould maintaining that it is not even conceivable how such changes could be made, the matter “literally incomprehensible” (p. 260, cf. SMR p. 234 cf. Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 6); while Hoyle considers it nonsense of a high order (SMR p. 226), how intelligence should be discounted in creation.


Such views do not figure in the Curriculum agenda as exposed. It needs broadening and more common sense coverage of realities, so that thought can freely course, not be put in an arrogant prison of the personal preferences of some parties in a merely dogmatic society, misaligned to scientific method and law alike. The point here is not to argue the necessities of the case, but to note the divergencies at the top level, the recklessness of ignoring these, their point, and the abuse of children’s education in not using these things as a stimulus to thought, but with whatever intention, using them as an opportunity for what becomes such blinkering of the child, that growth and welfare are crassly prejudiced. Licence for outrageously intrusive preference should not blinker children. In a society of free thought it would be not merely not be apposite, but the opposite.


Indeed, how this relates to the stated political desires that South Australia should be a free-thinking society is wholly unclear! It is the opposite, entrenched, unrelenting these many years.


The teaching of information theory, applied to the concept of new information proceeding down the generations, is likewise contrary with the other scientific laws noted above, to the concept of natural increase. Here is the exact opposite. The information theory teaching is natural decrease, which as Gould points out has not only IN FACT occurred but done so to an extreme degree.  This scarcely is a datum to occasion due theories concerning information gain. In addition to not validating current scientific law in the special field of information, such notions contradict them. Whoever heard of explaining observable gross natural decrease by theories designed to account for increase, and calling this – then – scientific!


Thus in particular contrary to the whole thrust of the Darwinian contention is the brute fact of information LOSS in the natural system, as Gould also declares, from evidence in geological formations, deeming some 90% of information in designs in the ‘early’ Cambrian field, to be now LOST, there being far less biological information present now than in earliest stages (op.cit. pp. 226-239). As often pointed out, it is difficult to use a method of LOSS to establish a procedure of GAIN, and worse if one’s object is empirical science, thus devastated! It is worse yet when one never finds occurrences of the type specified, nor the engines for their production visible or viable, far less demonstrated in the practical world.


Such religious attachment to mere preference in the face of scientific method, albeit secular religion, to correlative theories and hostile evidence appears wholly untenable in terms of non-discrimination, and hence illegal in this country. Hence it should cease. What meets empirical requirements should not be excluded, above all, in science. Creation should certainly be presented, with other aspects of science.


When creation meets in its applications precisely what evolution fails to cover or explain, it is time to present it, lest the term ‘science’ become falsified, and religion not merely illicitly summed in the aggregate, but degraded in the sum: a political outlaw that contains the answers which organic evolution notoriously lacks. Because it lacks, its variations fibrillate. As its heart fibrillates, it still fails; and because it fails, it still fibrillates.



1)     the illicit religious intrusion should be annulled.

2)     Its application should be expunged.

3)     Scientific method should be applied rigorously cf. http://smr/bookmap.html

at pp. 149ff. from the slot provided, and in Appendix 2, The gods of naturalism have no go! together with Ch. 5 of the same work. {There is now available a volume on scientific method entitled:  Scientific Method, Satanic Method and the Model of Salvation.)



On the Web, please see a specifically relevant feature and coverage in Worn-Out Earth and Coming King Ch. 4 while the major systematic critique of the Circular to Principals of January 1988 is found at That Magnificent Rock Ch. 8.

 Also referring to matters for review and information are TMR Appendix I and The Defining Drama Chapter 10 as marked.




23 Wendy Ave., Valley View, SA 5093

February 3,  2005



Sent for the Premier
as arranged in our Letter of
February 3, 2005


Provided to enable ready access to copy
of some of the Material Sent in 2004,
with minor adjustments, updatings or additions.

An extensive list of those with doctorates in science-related fields
reported as biblical creationists is available at




With the Compliments of the


Evangelical Presbyterian Alliance


Material for Background or Review


If and as required.



╬The reader may also be interested, at this level, in





See also *1 in Ch. 7 above.