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

CHAPTER 6

The INFORMATION of God

and the maestros of misinformation

THIS TIME,

 IT IS NOT THE 600,
THEIRS NOT TO REASON WHY,

BUT IT APPEARS INSTEAD: 

                                            THE 70,000!                                                                   

An Angelic Conversation

News  361 - The Australian, October 21, 2005.
The Advertiser, November 1, 2005

70,000 - A NUMBER NOT WITHOUT INTEREST

I do not doubt that the 70,000 subscribers to the concept that organic evolution must be taught in schools, despite its numerous features of negation in terms of scientific method, any one of which should exclude it even from consideration, in integrity of thought, are a statistical last ditch effort. 

It is indeed, one last way -  after the South Australian Government has consistently avoided the challenge to debate, on its ghastly ghosting of God in its religious defilement thrust, in a Circular to School Principals - for an effort to be made to drown thought in arithmetic.

Imagine it, if anyone said this: 70,000 students insist that the examiner's report is wrong, and that they should be passed.

How irrelevant! They would need to show WHERE it is wrong, and WHY they think so, and HOW they are able to refute the grounds given by the examiners, not just chuck arithmetic about, as if this solved anything other than hurt vanity.

I know and agree, angelic one. 40,000,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong, used to be the song; but they can be, as you see in the case of the famously defected Maginot Line, their so brilliant and costly method of avoiding a repetition of the German invasion of 1914. In 1939, it was simply circumvented, the attack coming from another angle, through another route. How ridiculous to cite numbers, not arguments, as if this solved anything. The human race in its cultural acclivities, activities and aspirations has so often been wrong, at governmental and philosophical level, that it is marvel that they even bother to cite their figures.

In a way, you know, my dear fellow angel, it is almost as if two young people were considering marriage, and they consulted counsellors in large numbers, Uncles, Aunties, Friends, Teachers and so forth, and all said this: Oh but look at the size of his hands, and the scope of her dexterities, for he has hands 1/4 of an inch longer than most of his contemporaries, while she has one more talent than others in her class.

Even the youthful marital romancers might take pause at this, and wonder how in the world or out of it, anyone could be so foolish. It is not mere numbers which determine truth, but rationality, validity, verification and a consistent epistemology, metaphysics and attested basis which confirms itself on all sides when tested, and answers all things without difficulty, indeed with mastery. Many often err, some are sometimes right.

In this case, that of marriage, the question is first of all: What are they who consider marriage, and what do they want and why ? It is only then that it would be rational to consider whether they would do it better together, and whether a unity so profound that joint children result, is to the point.

Of course, you need to know what the point is before you find ways to achieve it!

The point ? In The Australian's little reference to this odd abuse of statistics on the part of the 70,000 allies, indicates the erratic and unsustainable view that evolution is soundly based on Darwin, on observation, on variation, and is testable; while design is not.

FAMOUS CONFUSIONS IN CONTRADICTION

It is strange how confused otherwise rational beings can become, when their lives, meaning and destiny are involved.

Yes indeed, many in cultural floods seem to become intoxicated, talking of golden plates (no longer available) with divine or angelic messages to be read by special glasses (no longer available), and to present untestable material concerning visions; and millions follow it. Similarly here, but worse IF it be possible.

Yes, they present golden ideas of variation with PROGRESSIVE INFORMATION attached, so that NEW KINDS of living things arise (kinds ? you know The Defining  Drama ... Ch.   10 ?), even though it has never been seen, the means for it have never been positively tested and the equipment to produce it has never been found. ALL tests fail, for the relevant criterion of advance in integral functionality into more complexity and capacity; and anti-verifications abound. Information science, for example,  brings in yet one more law for this dissident theory to break: a law that information tends to disperse, not concentrate; empirics show NO design increase is made in derivative generations, a fact scarcely surprising since generation of information is generation of adapted data with attached significance; and to signify ?^*1

For that,  you need what has it in it to do this, and in the DNA case, to give signified orders that will in fact be executed,  as well. The arrival of kinds in this arena ? We don't find it; there is no such information producer at work in the creation field, to be seen, found, witnessed or observed; no, in advancing kinds of life, there is no scintilla to be found. Books do not write themselves (unless, of course, the text be already written, and we are talking of a program by intelligence to transmit the writing by intelligence, to intelligence-possessing readers, without which the process would be meaningless, valueless and ludicrous); engines do not elaborate on their mutual, detailed specifications and enable their decoding into other engines; buildings to not raise their levels and instal their wiring; it is necessary in all things to have what it takes.

If you do not have it, you do not get it. If you want thought, you need a thinker to process and understand it; if you want will, you need someone who can will, to get the job of willing done; if you want imagination, you need a subject to specify the topic and the events: you do not make merry with water, nor does lava flow from ice. You need what it takes to get what you've got, or want to get. Making hey with irrationality while the sun of popular favour shines may be profitable and an anodyne for pride; but it is nothing else.

That is the way it is. To dabble in magic or its equivalent,  a theory of irrelevance has been produced. It cannot stand 'nature' as given from something other than itself, so it criticises it by showing it came to be what it is by doing what it does not do, and starting its design productions as it did not start. We speak here of what is observed, reported and presented by scientists such as Gould. HE may not have been keen on the implications, and did produce a theory without power and so void of explanatory power; but he did note facts in rather important ways! (I've got some notes for you on that^*2.)

Science often does note things like this, together with what is necessarily implied by them, in terms of correlative procedures. How things go when they are there, made, is scarcely correlative, however,  to how they have got here, in order to be able to go on with things, once they have been made. Manufacture is not the same as operation. The work of driver or mechanic is not that of car-manufacturer, creative thought to initiate books is not the work of the librarian, nor is the butcher the breeder.

Operation has only one thing to say at this level. It is not organic evolution. It coincides precisely with creation. How ludicrous is that fixation which some appear to have as the father of thought, so that they talk of the untestable! Testable ? Is it testable whether or not new kinds of creatures are being currently manufactured by 'nature' with out intelligent aid ? Is it testable whether this negation is to be expected where certain forces act in a kind of way which is used to account for design ? Is it testable when the Bible indicates with force and simplicity, that creation was FINISHED, as to KIND ? Is it not obvious that the one implication is fulfilled, and the other is not.

The ideas of forgetting about facts were often to be found in the darkness of obscuration in earlier phases of science over history; but there seems currently to be a reversal and renegacy, back to those other phases.

Darwin: great stuff ? Marvellous, for it is exactly unfulfilled. What leadership is here! How some rejoice. But Science then ?

Oh but, say some, maybe it does all happen, though we never see it, find the way for it, can test it without negation. Maybe things REALLY are like that, after all.

That is science ? all logic and law, empirical observation and nature of progress in kinds says the opposite, and yet ... it is really science which differs from this finding in its creation of the novelist point of view of Charles Darwin, whose small variations about a norm indicate natural power to flourish with adaptation of design on certain parameters, not creation of the same ? Charles unhappily (he was often justifiably unhappy about the lack of paleontological and other evidence for his ideas) put out the idea anyway. Using variability power about a norm is the same as creating ? Turning on the air-conditioning is making a car ? Showing one of the facilities of a creation is showing how it was made ?

Is there some branch of learning which thinks, still left ?

In fact, this insistence that 'Nature' does what it cannot even be prodded to do, is of the essence of myth, the attribution of powers to something, which it manifestly lacks, or is never found to have, as a form of interesting escape from reality, or a stimulus to imagination. In science, however, it is necessary to test imagination with fact. That is just ONE of the ways in which it differs from a children's book.

The intransigent and intractable insistence of (at last 70,000 ?) many in the realm of science, at least nominally, that would have 'Nature' step out with an innovation never found, by a means never factually delineated, with results never found, and then read this lurid chapter  in the history of literature, back into science is a testimony. What martyr bound for death by torture could surpass such refusal! Whereas, however, many a martyr had courage, faith and reason alike, this has only the first. Faith in what is exempted from any attestation is faith in one's imagination, nothing more. Where it also abuses reason, it is an irrational faith. Reason is not the essence of faith, but where truth is, reason is not missing.

The imagination of organic evolutionists however has reason missing as well as evidence (you can see this in SMR Chs. 1- 3,  and Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Chs. 3 and   7, for example). Thus it sounds like a conflict between certain scientists and nature; but what has it to do with science, which does not prescribe, but attempts to describe, explain and deal with ...  truth. This is mere dissidence,  the testy testimony of will over reality which is found in all walks of life! Never did it fit worse than here, where it is a parody of science and a raid on literary imagination, taking it captive and importing it where belongs as well as fleas on dogs. You can have it that way; but it is mere misnomer and mischief.

It is indeed only in ancient times that even Gould could find an amazing suddenness of vastly diverse, entrancingly and singularly original designs, with sub-types coming in like a storm.

It was appalling how Gould, in his Wonderful Life,  found that there were FAR MORE designs, of vast and spreading natures, of enormous complexity, in some of what he deemed (and many follow the concept) earliest times, and that the fact to be EXPLAINED, is not a growth by advents, but a decrease by departures. It was this because explanations of the opposite are rife, often compelled on students with the sort of passionate zeal that seems to come with the 70,000. Indeed, it is in its relentless and self-absorbed determination, reminiscent of the Inquisition; and we do well to remember that voiding logic in the interests of 'faith' is anti-faith, since faith is not an alternative to reality, but a link to it. No more did Christ break His own body at the Last Supper (and He was a real man - Hebrews 2), not some sort of duplicate monster, than does creation find its origin experimentally, empirically or logically in things that are made.

When the Lord speaks in Hebrews 11, of the things which are made not being made of the things that appear, of the visible a production of the invisible (just as, interestingly, obstinacy is from the invisible resource of human will, and makes much visible in its time!), He states what all attests and reason demands. (A work on this topic is REASON, REVELATION and the REDEEMER.)

Yet to produce an idea of why a growth by slow advents should suddenly bring in what Gould attests as the complexities of creation or prodigies of many kinds,  in teeming array and with sub-categories abounding, when a departure by death is the realm of observational fact (and no funeral on earth is the same as creation): this is a feat peculiarly that of Darwin. He gave quite a lead, with leaps of imagination, as if measured reformatting were original creation: as if a printer were the author. In this, he has been sedulously followed, and now that his leap is deep in the storms of complete departure from fact and method in science, we hear of Darwin as though death were not the condition of his theories. He is resurrected by now departed pope, as if his double death - physical and theoretical - were in need of some hope! But there is none...

To explain the opposite of what is before you is a fine explanation indeed, perhaps for the squalls of the impenitent divorce court! It is to science as potassium cyanide to a new-born babe! It is in fact a controversy with reality, more the work of a dissident religion, than related in some obscure way to science. The question is generation of kinds, and no kind of generation of kinds is being found. Not now!

How very remarkable! The idea of this Darwin is that what we CALL designs have ... most slowly come, ah with such miniscule degrees, with vast numbers of non-designs spread like Autumn leaves; and these little things have spread, and grown, and become more and more amazing and complex and so on; whereas the opposite starts off the game, the thing is not found in practice and the means are missing, while laws of science legislate the opposite trend. This is not merely a failure to be verified, but a confrontation with a process totally opposite in kind. Yet instead of immediately dismissing the theory, which never had reason on its side, because empirically it is not merely unable to master the facts, but subjected to mockery by them, they now refer to it as the method of how things came to be, and as testable!

It IS testable, that part is correct; and it has failed - that part needs to be added.

Moreover, this is religion, not science. It is not even a mish-mash of religion and science. It is religion in contravention of science; whereas creation is religion as attested by logic, and verified IN science, by scientific method WITHOUT exception.

The luminous wings of the angel who had spoken flittered as it flitted, and glittered as it spoke. His friend was both sad and amused, and meanwhile mused. Now he spoke.

Just to think of it, fellow angel... what a joke, the very emblem of levity! How Alice would have laughed and loved it; but then, that WAS a dream, and this fits in there. The religion that works empirically, and under many most  rigorous tests, this tells us that God made the creation of which we are ALL a part,  and that  it suffers attrition, although basically keeping to kinds (you find this in Genesis 3, Isaiah 51:6, as we all know). Curses tend to bring on attrition ... and the thing is to be ended, just as it was begun, in various ways, by God. Before that end, it is to suffer end pangs. So it goes ... and THIS is how it is going.

What it says is what is found, and this IS testable. If any wish to disallow what it says on creation because it is triumphant, this may be some obscure form of class hatred, of God, but it has nothing to do with science, except,  if you will, by contrast with scientific method. Scientists - and quite a few are not creationists, though a large number of them are - do not own scientific method. They are supposed to follow it, just as a jockey is supposed to follow the race track. He does not own it because he is riding a horse on it.

Let me add to your conclusion, angelic one. The second major gaffe apart from explaining what is not there for explanation, the opposite being held in imagination, and letting imagination rove about without reason or evidential substance to the basic process required,  is this: They refer to creation as untestable, do they not ?

Yes, and that is not a statement available for truth. IF there WERE new and progressive kinds of design VISIBLY arriving, over the centuries of research, all by themselves, without intelligent intervention, then that would be a negative result for creation, just as the present result is negative for Darwinian evolution. Hence it is testable. The fact that we do not find this, and it has become an otiose piece of continuity (the only one in the case!), that nothing of this kind with the billions of failed efforts is to be found, and that with the the billions of steps postulated for the past, we find none progressive now: it is this which arrives.

Minds however continually do this. They make what they want to make, and when it is done, then they stop. The mind which has unveiled itself in the Bible, and ASKED us to test it (that is, subject it to scientific scrutiny, as to claim and result, the method being the power, creativity and purpose of God, who is not a set-up thing like matter, circumscribed and given parameters, but Himself, original and unbounded), STATED once and for all that the thing called creation of the universe started, continued and was completed. That was that. The affair was over as to creation (Genesis 1-2:4). The scenario is for it to grow old (Isaiah 51:6).

The only thing therefore to arrive on the tarmac in this scenario, is the irrational and contra-evidential thought that this creation would, or even should, be dismissed, and that things the universe and all in it should invent themselves, and that it should be its own writer, contriver  and author,  itself.

Why ?

O angelic friend, it is on the basis that creation must, be dismissed, since any other possibility, such as rational one, must be discarded, deposed and deposited into the void,  in advance. Why ? Prejudice - literally, judging in advance of fact, rules. It is worse. It judges contrary to fact, and appeals to the realm of non-fact exclusively for the relevant creative thrust. Yet if it is started from nothing, that is mere contradiction in terms, for nothing cannot be something with a future; or if from something inadequate it came, the same applies. If it is started from what is adequate, however, it must have what matter never attests, and think thoughts in order to correlate commands and actions, systems and inter-systematics (you see this in Repent or Perish Ch. 7). You must look for the sort of dynamic where it is to be found, not account for it where it does not occur, or given attestation that it could, or  grounds for it, or machinery or functionality.

This necessity being detested, however, the bile of biology continues, and its currently inflamed condition of numerous theories despising each other is predictable, and predictably futile, being fashioned on feeling, a void of factlessness and a torrent of unreason. You see this in its baleful hilarity in SMR.

One evolutionist of some note,  once gave the reason for this illogical and unscientific lapse as follows: the other option, God is to be removed because it is not to be tolerated. It cannot be borne!

Others imply the same by deciding in advance where to look for explanation. In this way, naturalism and nature are confused, and logic is evicted by unauthorised licence.

Returning however to scientific method, what do we find ?

It is this. There is a POSITIVE result to this TEST for creation only: and thus,  perfectly and surely, what has a test and a test result is testable. It is sometimes so ludicrous that it resembles some irascible teacher who finding a student with a perfect score in some test, and cordially detesting that student, and finding moreover that all the other students have failed, then announces that the test did not really happen. It is was only a joke!

Yet it is no joke. What has test results is testable!

One would certainly have thought so, my friend. One can imagine now if a student were not only examined, but  in examinations day in and day out, and the teacher continaully said, Yes he may be a good student, but he is not testable.

One would have to question the motivation, intellect or degree of confusion of such a teacher, would one not ? would one not!

TESTY ABOUT TESTS ?

Assuredly so. It would be almost like a state of intellectual drunkenness. Testable ? of course he is testable, and creation, of course it is testable. If the biblical creation is to be followed, it must result in such things as a vast complexity of designs at the chronological outset, or exceedingly near to it, a failure of incremental design production in KIND over time, and a continuity of KINDS, types, design order, over time. It must accord with scientific law, such as the laws of conservation of mass and energy (finished creation correlate), and of biogenesis, which it does, and the second law of thermodynamics, which is almost like a memorial erected in its honour.

These three laws are scientific in format, observation-based, and what they say is implied by the Bible. The stuff is already made; new kinds are not the order of the day, but rather there is a running down; life comes from life. When the thing is created, there it is (law 1 reflects this); when it is there, it does not create itself in more kinds but rather  tends to deteriorate (law 2 reflects this); and when life is made, there is a derivative process for it to be passed on from within itself (law 3 reflects this).

These 3 chief laws reflect biblical teaching. That is an empirical test. Creation gains 100% for its implications in terms of these legal tests. Organic evolution gains nothing.

One would have thought that decisive, my brother angel ?

Decisive ? It is inveterately the case. Man is sick; and from this sickness science in the sense of the private opinions of scientists, dressed in professional clothes, gains no exemption.

As to creation, empirically it is a winner against what postulates what is not found, and seeks to explain what is not here. That negativity, that nescient construction of the undisciplined imagination, that divorce In terms of observation, is precisely where biblical revelation is not found. Inveterately its attestations and our findings are correlative, intimately rational in realisation in mind and to eye and hand alike.

Organic evolution, however, here is the nadir of negativity and the zenith of myth. It attributes powers where they are emphatically not to be found, and attests potencies where continually they do not operate, and attributes as intrinsic what does not appear as extrinsic, while it nestles sedately in a past which is contradicted by all paleontology, and all harmony of any such theories, which abound as their destruction abounds, as case after case is brought up, to show this or that, which is as absent as the sun in Arctic Winter.

To be sure, angelic friend, the forced avoidance of creation is in a sea of contradiction and irrelevance. The only science that appears to be in it, is this: that of disinformation. There are many in many lands who are prosecuting this science with great power, though no propriety. That is the way in this world: grab it and make it be what you want. If it does not co-operate, then TELL IT!

However, it does not change; it just goes on attesting creation as it always did, and those who dislike it, like uniformitarian ideas better than attestable reality,  as was the case predicted for these days. It was foretold  that they would have such domineering or dominant thought patterns (II Peter 3:3-5), and so they do. There is nothing new. God always knows. He even tells His enemies the lines they will take, millenia in advance of their doing so. Of course, He tells us too! and that is a most endearing grace of His, is it not!

It staggers the mind, but then it brings kindness to one's spirit, a benediction of beauty. It is amazing, though,  isn't it, ethereal spirit, that they talk of non-test for creation,  which is nonsense, since the only just word for the verification of biblical creation in science is BRILLIANT; and the only just one for the Darwinian irrationality is abysmal. An F in a rating for report, would be an inadequate description of what is only solemn farce.

Yes, but even that, my angelic friend, it is not all. IF the MEANS were found for the auto-generation of NEW and progressive kinds of functionality and nature, in kind, then this too would cast question marks on creation; but these are NOT found. This requires thought for origin in some other sphere. If your coat is not in the cupboard, it is not entirely absurd to look elsewhere ... and better yet, where it may be found.

As to that, it is singularly obvious, it is not in 'nature'.

It is NOT the case, as knowledge progresses and prospers, that such mechanisms, dynamics, generative powers are found resident in either matter or non-intelligent life; so that the result is not the delight of discovery, but the discovery that there is nothing found there. It is sad for them, but they should learn to look where it may be found.

If you want to start with intelligence, why that is fine as a work of personal imagination, but that is simply to bypass the whole concept of generation of the stuff by ... natural means. It is what is normally conceived in terms of creation: it is what in all scientific investigation is always required. The intelligence operative is to be seen  in Ph.D. theses and the like - except of course to the extent that they seek to show that what does not happen, does, or that what is contrary to natural law, is not, or that hope is the same as imagination, or detestation is the same as not being. Such confusions are not so intelligent, unfortunately, though the mistakes, biblically, are  not the result of intelligence quotients so much as of delusion, blindness or alienation from God, and hence from domains requiring Him.

Take cars: if there were to be found the massive machinations together with the machinery that attests it, somewhere, in the presence of cars, that would be relevant for those who, perhaps not keen on paying for them, thought they came all by themselves.

Failure to find such natural processes resident in cars, or even operative with cars as a product, is relevant to those who do not believe cars come by themselves, but require an overcoming of certain anti-design trends, where the impacts of matter and time may make it hard for wonderful things to look after themselves in life, without vast protection.

Their arrival, protection included, is not found to happen. We do not find it around. Neither do sports cars nor brilliant works of literary art nor splendid scientific treatises ... uh, arise. They are caused to be created; and creation is their cause, since their peculiar disciplines are not generic to matter, but to mind, and their symbolic representations are not auto-derivatives of matter in motion, but of mind in action; and designs tend to be vulnerable to assault, not by-products of non-symbol deployers. You do not look for figs on thistles, as the Lord put it; and when examining thistles, it is useless to be thinking 'fig tree, fig tree' or to be repeating that mantra to your students. It does not change anything, far less the truth; the only exception being the purity of thought. That is changed, sadly.

Fairy stories alone, in any sort of literature, provide for this sort of will over reality scenario, since it is well known that like perpetual motion, it is not to be found. These myths or fairy stories constitute a species of relief for a vexed imagination; but the facts are not seen, really, to happen that way. You have to have what it takes to get what is in view in the way of glorious creations, moving like the skies, above the common instances of simple material systems. That is what is found. Dreams are the only thing to the contrary. Some like them; but they are not science, not really, not at all.

While then a factory for the creation of cars, in the car-case, or for the creation of universes, in the universe case, or of the cosmos component, in the cosmos case, or of life, in the life case, or of material things - which are not to be taken as given except in special pleading, a known logical invalidity - in that case, would be a good evidence of natural production: there is a crucial problem for such thoughts. These things, we do not find.

On the other hand, the absence of any such factory after refined and sophisticated search, sustained, long and by many: this is highly negative evidence. The plant is not around to meet such specifications, and it is contrary in kind to all that is found. To revert to the generic: Trying to force matter, and life, in any combination, to make life, even that is not relevant, since life then is around and that scarcely explains origin, which is then simply being taken as given! However even this does not do the job^*1, so that the abyss is populated with negativity. Abysmal negativity is the continual result.

THE FOUNDLING WHICH IS TO REPLACE THE FINDINGS

Neither do we find what would make it. Nor do we find anything making it. Nor do we find earlier factories doing it. Nor do we find means of making them so that they should; and it is indeed all very vexatious, that people are calling that science which avoids all the scientific questions, all the evidential negations and all the verification failures, persistently, consistently, since really, in all simple fact, you do not get that. When, my brother, I ask you, when will it be realised consistently among men that the sweat of their brows is not for fun; that you need the stuff or what it betokens,  to move into that realm. Some love to think that it might not be so; and imagination can make great novels; but it is not found to be so, at all. You need work for results; and you need what works to have what it takes, ALL of it.

You do not need to harangue me, blessed brother. I empathise with the human race almost as if I belonged to it! We should not really be teaching a literature class in Science lessons in schools and colleges, but dealing for the time being at least, with science, and scientific method, which is especially interested in what happens, and what is to be found to show why and how it happens: and how this correlates with other things which happen, and other things which make other things happen, in some sort of system. It is necessary to realise, is it not, that when you do not get what you want in science, it is non-scientific to fret and pull political strings to make the opposite of reality be taught, or to talk about the statistics of how many people like to think of things this way or that. This, in other words, is no excuse for avoiding scientific method.

Science ? Brother mine, in this they are really dealing with what happens, and may be shown to happen, and is testable as to happening. Yet in this very thing, multitudes vary as if bombing were the same as having babies.

Irrefutable evidence that it DID happen is good (such as blood of one specialised sort on the shoes of a man who was near the body at the time of death, but even that needs care). Nevertheless, when numerous possibilities arise about what you do NOT find to happen, exhausting every sphere and theme, then the fact that it DOES NOT happen as observable reality, must be taken into account. Reasonable ? The blood is nowhere to be seen, even if its presence would need much further testing (as with the man with the blood on his shoes) before conclusion of specialised kinds could be drawn.

If in profound negativity, however,  it is found that nothing can in any way or series of conditions, even given unnatural support (in this case BY actual intelligence), then the option becomes of the nature of mirage.  It is even worse when you insist that what does happen, duly tested, supports organic evolution and does not support creation, when this is the simple contrary of the fact. NOTHING ever done makes that sort of thing happen, even when quite ludicrously, you use what you postulate to have been absent (imagination, power, intelligence in a consortium such as man), to try to make it happen. It is perhaps more pitiable than pathetic to make something of this failure, as if to try to give it some place in thought; but as to trying to force what is anti-verified, to have a place as verified, and what is verified (in all its implications), to have a place as untestable, this is nothing short of an active delusion.

What is there said, does not show itself. What would make it show itself, this too is in the field of negation; what sometimes so acts, and might act otherwise, this is an absentee likewise. Implications from natural events, these too do not create scope for the story of evolution. It is not impure fiction, a mish-mash of reason and imagination; it is simple fantasy, based on hope, exemplified in nothing.

Nothing is not very instructive, I must concur, fellow angel. As to creation, however, by beneficial contrast, what follows from this does show itself in the most meanly systematic way, and laws of science themselves support the concept that organic evolution is what ought not to happen, just as observations support the concept that this is what does not happen.  The problem, then ?

Ah, my brother ...It is a simple three-letter word: man!

On the other hand, to revert to our analogy, if you did find the factory for whatever it is, say cars, why then, for those who thought cars came all by themselves, this would be interpretable from the apparent cause. You would have some base on which to begin to build a case.

Such a cause however is NEVER found. All we get is ever new efforts to find something with ever old results of not managing to do so. They bombard insects to make them change, but they get no progressive results. They find ever new indications and indexes of coding and programmatics, which are precisely what a Designer would find useful for the continuation of KINDS, as the Bible specifies, and they find ONE language deployed in all this, which again is precisely what you might expect , and this so that  the things prescribed can be set in repeatable instruction lists, and the means of applying the codes (for a plan is not a house) and making them happen in ways of the utmost system and intricate profundity of art, and that there be no needless translation problems. You would expect that where analytical powers belongs. You get it.

This is testable. Does then the thing conform to method, to reason, to active applied imagination, to unitary language, to system and so forth ? If it does, test concluded.

Test concluded. This is the evidential way. Tests are empirical, they are dissociative, favouring one, not favouring another. Where they abound on one side only, the intimations are not difficult. Where the very categories are attested, not merely individual results, and that differentially by reason, then the case is unexceptionable. This is how creation is, and stands.

 If now there had been found something very odd and figmentary without evidence of controls, means, mechanisms, principles, unitary code language and the like, something that erratically produced the opposite of sophistication, or somehow had it inserted from somewhere (the 'somewhere' would then be of the most intense relevance), then that would have been a negative result for creation, and a stimulus for naturalistic thought, as that level. It is the opposite however is found. Neither nothing nor 'Nature' have any assignable powers or productions or attestations or intellections to the point. They are rather a vain show. They are merely a way to use irrationality to gain authority to gain the universe, which is I suppose, to some, a thing worth stealing! Was it not Christ who told the parable of the vine-yard lessees who refused to give their fees back to the Owner ? The results, when they had likewise killed His Son in their take-over bid, were scarcely surprising.

Perhaps what is meant by this incredibly confused claim concerning TESTS  is this:

	1) that many tests are made, and have been made;
	2) that the only tests that are made are positive for creation, and since creation cannot be (anti-scientific exclusion zone), then
	3) these cannot be tests.

How far do they want to go ? or without how much thought do they proceed! This is the very shrine and temple of unreason.

However, it's always so, all they find is precisely what verifies creation, and it could conceivably in some other kind of world, have been otherwise, so that it is a TEST, and a triumphantly successful one; while it again negates naturalistic concepts, since in all respects it is contrary to them. Romans 1:17ff. specifies the whole history of this type of thought, ending in just such sexual perversity as Paul portrays in stinging terms. NOT worshipping God leads to all kinds of perversion, in thought and often in body likewise. It is creation askew. It does not stop with thought. Its issuances are filled with blood, for where power seeks control, and right is ransacked, striving and emulation appear, each filled with the momentary self-importance and self-assertion: there every evil work abounds as James declares in his 3rd chapter.

SHUNT THE TERMS ABOUT
AND IT IS REMARKABLE HOW YOU PROGRESS

The fact is as you say. It is even worse. They not only speak, in this cited report,  of the old-fashioned Darwinian concept of gradual self-making as if it were in some way scientifically testable and successful, but of creation as if it were neither. They not merely ignore the test results, they not merely seek to obliterate the face of fact, as was done with that of Christ before (Isaiah 52:13-15 and 50:6 and on,  have it predictively from centuries before it happened), but they pretend the myth is testable and the attested fact is NOT! You see that simply in SMR pp. 149ff..

This is worse than saying, There is no test! It is to say of the winner ONLY, There is no test. THIS teacher, in our analogy, would be the very height of intemperate passion and injustice in this point.

The fact, beyond all argument, is simply the precise opposite. Both are testable in many places; Darwinian evolution is failed on every point, in the relevant realm of progressive model advance, and creation is testable, and confirmed on every point in that same realm.

This then becomes a lie, if by lie you mean something in manifest contradiction of the facts, which in any normal circumstances no one could possibly state, if truth meant anything. II Thessalonians 2 calls the whole unspiritual syndrome, THE LIE! It is a spiritual generic and ITS creation is clear enough, a delusive and ultimately devilish thrust for destruction in our so fortunate race, to derail their pilgrimage, defile their inheritance and delete the bonds of unity with their Maker.

One needs to add this, I suppose, that it is not the case - such is the estrangement of the human mind from the divine, that it is necessarily in all cases a conscious attack on truth, even though it is no less an attack. With some, it might be confusion and desire, almost like an anodyne, in a mish-mash (useful term, isn't it ?) to remove the criteria of truth from sight in such realms. Biblically it is compared to drunkenness.

I know, and it is a sad thing that this so advanced age is just as remote from reality when it comes to the most obvious, as was that of Isaiah. Remember Isaiah 29:9-15 ?

^"The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed,

which men deliver to one who is literate, saying,

'Read this, please.'

And he says, 'I cannot, for it is sealed.'

^"Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying,

'Read this, please.'

And he says, 'I am not literate.'

 

^"Therefore the Lord said:

                            And their works are in the dark ...' "

There are all the components - Drunk, but not with wine, with a deep anaesthetising sleep on them, so that what is to be found is hidden, and what is hidden, is dreamed. Desperate in alienation, man speaks the opposite of fact, and talks about 'design' as if this were even an arguable issue.

Design IS that integrated, correlated, purposively designable, functionally proficient combination of imagination, information, actualisation and continuation which bears an imprint of effort where the means for its autonomous arrival do not appear.

This is precisely what is found in matter to the nth degree, with the mathematical, ordered, specified, systematically inter-related components and modalities, structured in types, interactive in sphere, without any attestation of self-making powers, nor any real relevance to such a thought, since its genius is observably to do, not to make itself. It is, functionally,  so disposed as to exhibit what it is in myriads of ways, of exquisite sophistication of style; but not to invent those paths.

This is precisely what is found likewise in life also to the nth degree, with - to start, its correlation with matter, which it moves about with all the friskiness of a fox terrier, organising with the rambunctious thrust of a fighter pilot, deploying it with the imagination of a poet, ruling it with the ruthlessness of a dictator, while allowing by specification, some variation on an original theme. Yet  never is it to be found inventing a new progressive type, exhibiting new features of what by definition is design.

That is the way it is, when you become interested in what happens.

The issue, you know, my dear angelic friend, is really this: it is not whether there is design. By definition that is precisely what is there. It is HOW it got there!

I have to concur that it is amazing that in this newspaper article concerning the so vocal 70,000, they speak of a method which is defunct, that of Darwin which, through continual contrary evidence, becomes through its own negation a stimulus in turn,  leading equally continually to new ideas, to substitute for its decease, imports for the loss of this Darwinian dream, shot down by contrary fact. Yet it is precisely these which have the same result, like that of Gould, who speaking of the amazing thrust of having the exact opposite of what gradualism requires, proposes a non-equilibrium for the method by which equilibrium is breached, and progress made.

Brilliant! Non-stupidity is the method by which stupid students become good ones. Have some!

If ever there was a non-scientific theory, this is it. They CANNOT explain what they have, they MULTIPLY explanations which are both testable and failed, and they REJECT the fact they have to explain, and then refer to the explanation which alone stands in every test of the fact which is observed, and is positive in every verification mode. That, they say, it is something fantastic! It is as if truth is impossible, the empirical impermeable, the requisite depraved and the attested delinquent. It is then a new religion in very truth, founded on error, resistant to reality, rebellious against reason, displacing results to its detriment with more imaginations again, as if it had never been tested, and failed.

Is it not, dear brother, like an examinee, who being repeatedly failed, denies it was ever tested!

Very much, except that it then declares of the Exhibition winner in the field, that he was never tested and could not be tested, and indeed seems at times to suggest that he is not there at all. It is just such a spirit which crucified the Lord, for if He were there, they would not recognise Him, and if He were to BE there, so that they would try Him, then BECAUSE He passed all tests, THEREFORE they had to proceed in such a way that, they hoped, He would NOT BE there. That was of course murder, and the resurrection put paid to their fantasy, just as the milling millions and momentous centuries since have recognised. Men lived and died because of Him, for whom nothing was too much, and death, it lost its sting so that no more could they be intimidated. They had SEEN resurrection in others; but now in HIM who, as Saviour, had it to share.

As to the unbelievers, they even set about trying to kill one whom He had resurrected before His own arising, namely Lazarus. Yes, they wanted to kill him a second time, as John 11 shows. It is this inveterate, inexorably unswerving alliance with rebellion against fact that appears in mind and ideology, in conduct and in culture. It is GOD's creation which is intolerable. For many, ANY god would do; but not the living One who OWNS it all! Hence the drain arises like a giant, to bear  the flow of a departing civilisation, which no longer able to control its inveterate lusts, lets its reality fade away, like a liquid poured out, and sees its destiny dribble like putrid liquor. Christ said it would be so; and so it is.

It is fantastic, though you know, isn't it, my devoted friend ? I mean, not the fact of design and the necessity of finding what accounts for it, in terms which can stand, not in the face of contrary evidence, but in the light of compelling option. That is the only realistic and rational approach. No, that is not what I mean. What is fantastic is both the failure to DO this and this statistical - see how many we are! - approach in lieu of logic! If ever there was a verification of the Biblical creation concept, it is here. Stalling in the face of facts with irrelevant statistics about how many of them reject the cumulative negation of dreams of this naturalistic kind, they exhibit a breach of scientific method so multiple, a rush of blood to the head so devastating, a diversion of the spirit so deviant, that the issues are obscured, as if by a Goebbels in a white coat.

Of course, it is as you have said. If a given field does not yield the interface, the interchange and the means for a result, you look elsewhere. Nature is profoundly stubborn in its insistence that IT IS NOT WITH ME! to apply the words of Job, concerning wisdom (Job 28). Thus what is not-nature is to be found. That is what is required.

How remarkable! the idea is disdained that you look for the origin of something in something other than itself. You conceive what is there, birthday cake, time, space, matter, a car, whatever it is or may be, and you do  say: Ah! the cake must be from a cake, or a car must be from cars, and I wonder by what process cakes or cars make themselves from themselves! and finding none, you say, Ah! but you see, that just shows how right the concept is that you get cakes from cakes.

Yes, and then if a little surprised, not to say amazed, someone asks: But how do you show that cakes come from cakes when it is never seen, no means for it are found, and the movements between cakes do not appear ? These are as negative as it is possible to get.

Oh! comes the reply, don't you see it: Because cakes MUST come from cakes, therefore they do, and the fact that we cannot find how they do, or why they do, or show that they do, this is simply a passing difficulty, for we shall overcome.

Overcome! one might reply, my dear angel, by what ? by force, by misinstruction, by sacrificing children in the fires of what can only be called, in a kindly fashion, delusion ? You are building on hope contrary to all evidence of kind, nature and matter, and ignoring all explicit grounds of rejection that you continually find, in the very face of reason, and then calling that scientific ?

It is dead, in terms of scientific method, and its replacements are as dead as it becomes by such abuse of it, for indicated is an entity which has the means, the grounds, the methods, the evidence, providing attestations of origins and grounds for  the evidence of progressive uplift.

TRY THINKING

Suppose, angelic brother, just for a moment, they tried thinking ?

But they would not, for you see, this is the case of selective black-out, where their alienation from the scientific evidence is limited to the position of their own origin and status. It is as if they go beserk at its arising (so very scientific, this 'arising', ex-interface, ex-dynamic, ex-guidance, ex-designable grounds at each level for every level), and claim the opposite, the precise opposite of the truth, as their ground, something not attested in any way, something required but absentee to each test. This they do while they sacrifice scientific method alongside the children and call on statistics of how many of them are doing it, as if this were other than a mathematisation of tragedy, and a statistical emulation of suicide.

What is needed is not the imagination of children in the theories of men, coming from adult minds to batter their upbringing, but the force of logic in the imagination of science. If this world does not offer an explanation of itself in itself and from itself, in any phase, evident in any observable, rational, attestable manner, or by necessary implication not from prejudice but from what is in principle observable, and this despite the most rigorous efforts: then something is clear.

What is clear, O angelic one, it is this:  that one must, scientifically, look elsewhere. Lack of prejudice, not of immobility of thought, is what is required in scientific method; but here there is nothing but stasis.

So however intolerant of reason some may have become, we move to something else, call it vertical or lateral thinking, or anything else you like: when you do not find an explanation in one field, but only non-verification accompanied by anti-verification, then you move in enquiry to seek what will not be so devastatingly negative. This is called free thought, in logic, but in propaganda, as in the article's report, a "mishmash of theology and science." This talk does not seem exceptionally scientific.

How could it be ? It is not science, so the methods of non-science, and sometimes of mere nonsense are all that is left. If you have GOT to have this result, despite both logic and evidence, so be it. That is the nature of myth, so myth it is. It is necessary however not to indoctrinate children with private myths, but with realities attested.

Suppose instead the inventors of this form of child indoctrination,  were to think, actually to think at this level. Then, they would proceed in terms of scientific method, which does not START by KNOWING the answers and where they are to be found, but instead moves with a spirit of open enquiry, envisaging, testing, comparing for confirmation on all sides, and insisting on logical structure in thought. Thus you do not EXCLUDE something that is not nature because you KNOW, by scientific method, that this cannot be, since this would be a denial of the entire spirit of research, logical thought and would constitute in its entirety,  a mere attestation of prejudice.

That is the operative phenomenon in their ludicrous naturalism. It does not work:  therefore those who note this fact and show what does, are WRONG. That is the implication however of dogged, dogmatic prejudice and becomes a mere a mish-mash of myth and disinclination.

Mish-mash my friend ?

From the usage I found in the news report, I gather it seems to mean something not very scientific. That is what this is; and it is a mixture, I suppose the mish is this part, and the mash is that part, and they do not like parts - something of this sort perhaps ?

However, how readily we must disagree with them in this, came the voice of the swooping angel, just returning from a quick flit to help a child afflicted  by infantile mythology, at some low secondary school.

Unscientific! the angel sent out the word, with artistic grace during a subsequent aerial manoeuvre. What is unscientific about research, open-minded, open-ended and open at the beginning and in the middle, ready for input from anything that explains, is testable, is verifiable and works, and ready to abandon to the junk-heap what does not, such as Darwin's nonsense and dabbling ? Instead, what do we find in this news report ? It is that Darwin is scientific and is to be kept free from what in fact, by contrast, works and is testable. When did myths become scientific, or when did prejudice become a director of thought.

But surely, is it not so, kindred angel, that it is this kind of subjugation which always happens in totalitarian spheres.

It often does, certainly, but this is democratic in that the government is elected. Yet it happens. We know this because it is HAPPENING and has been so these last 17 years in the State of South Australia.

How COULD such a government which endorses and requires such myths, and attacks with irreligious fantasy objective facts about religion, be elected ?

It CAN happen when people do not care too much about myths being taught, so long as their kids get jobs, and all that. At least it should require a goodly number of social service personnel to look after the lives so readily^*3 unhinged into disillusion, disspiritedness and dyspepsia of mind, by such irrelevances, and even dignified tenaciously in SCIENCE, since nothing of reason can help them. They often lie slain like birds with Asian influenza.

But surely this is unfair to them, being not merely dictatorial in the government,  but insidious and seductive, delusive as if driven by desperation, being a mere misuse of authority to achieve what reason cannot secure ?

Of course! this world is not very nice. It killed Christ and now tries to kill truth, while becoming so deluded that it calls its victim trash.

I am reminded of that aspect of this once so glorious creation, whenever I visit: to call good evil and evil good, just as Isaiah declared in his fifth chapter.

Of course, we must be fair. We must clarify that in detail; for while it is quite true that these things occur, yet they do not actually say they are going to seek to keep education in science free of what works in this sphere: it is just that this is what they are doing.

True, we can clarify that, but you know, you would have hoped that they could note that all the requirements of Genesis creation are met, in the three major laws of conservation of matter and energy, the second of thermodynamics and the third of biogenesis, and that this is the same as saying that we do not find nature producing nature, non-life producing life or what meets the definition of design going naturally up, but rather down.

Darwin and the other failures project the opposite, or allow for it, but they do not find it in logic, where what lacks the capacity of thought is to explain the evidences of it; or in empirical science, where what progresses in cardinal kind is never found nor is any evidence of it in the past ever found, only the 'hope' dressed up as a find, when the fact is absent.

Creationism projects THIS, both in the major scope of domains of reality, and in the minor matter of orders of life. If ever new domains, orders came along, and we found why and how, that would be naturalism with flying colours. Since they don't, and what is sticks, and the means for such upward motion are not found, and logic requires that there be means of getting what we have, adequate for the purpose in kind,  then  we must look elsewhere.

So you were saying. What is elsewhere to a material creation ?

An immaterial entity.

Of course. That is what the 70,000, theirs not to reason why, it would seem, refuse to do. It is the nadir of logic, the abyss below scientific method and the zenith of unreason.

Let's do it for them, then, since they appear so unwilling.

After all, as happened in ancient Israel, this is peculiarly rough on the children. Remember Psalm 106:

"They served their idols,

Which became a snare to them.

They even sacrificed their sons

And their daughters to demons,

And shed innocent blood,

The blood of their sons and daughters,

Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,

And the land was polluted with blood.

Thus they were defiled by their own works,

And played the harlot by their own deeds."

 

That resembles this in principle. The idols are the concepts they refuse to discard, which won't work, and the 'playing the harlot' is the turning from what evidence attests UNDER test, and logic requires, and what indeed attests itself ... that is to say,  the entity outside this world with its designated designs on all sides. If it is NOT here, then it is ELSEWHERE. Is it really so very and truly difficult to think that ?

Of course not, but the results of such integrity of thought are most difficult where people worship the things God made, as in Romans 1:  that is the trouble, and it has been since Satan made his own glory and his desire to grab that of the Lord his obvious intention.

It IS, I suppose, attractive to the grabocracy - (should there be two g's there, as in grabbing ? I rather think so - to the grabbocracy - otherwise it could sound like grabe-ocracy, which it shouldn't, although grave-ocracy is suggestive perhaps), to grabbocracy to have everything for itself. I mean, Stalin loved it, and Hitler, and Napoleon, and Mao: it was so great to have a whole country which you could ... lead is the word some use - drive by some engine of thought. They always blow up, those engines, but still, men love to make them, and when they fail, why they make another one of them. You see that in some detail in Aviary of Idolatry.

You WOULD think they would get tired of it.

Yet we should return to our news report, you know, because children, they ARE suffering from this obscurantism and magical view - in fact, not in intention as far as I know. It is that although NOTHING shows how nature does or could make itself, or institute itself from what was not there, let alone when nothing was there, on such a basis, for from nothing, nothing comes, yet it MUST be believed in. This is of course a religious faith in the face of logic, evidence, scientific method and the self-attestation of the Lord, which is something we haven't gone into, because for the present, the requirement of NON-NATURE as the logical source of Nature is established, and we should see where free thought leads from that.

(Incidentally, I have something for you which you can read later -look in the *1 spot.)

Especially should we do so, since we are having this angelic conversation in the premises of South Australia, where the Premier is on TV record as wanting this to be the State of Free Thought, or perhaps the free-thinking State; whereas the state of the State in this field, within education, is the State of Thought Foregone, and bullied children.

TRYING LEGISLATION INSTEAD

 Yet those who here legislate their will for religion, in the muddle and befuddled follies that deny the God of creation and truth: they will not change, or give a reason, nor will they suffer debate. This they ignore or decline as the years pass, and the children grow in deformities unspeakable from such miseducation, shameless prostitution of scientific method and gross abuse of privilege.

It is not only that, you know, it is the attack on 'religion' in the infamous and long-sustained Circular to Principals of January 1988,in South Australia, which bemuses me^*4. How anyone who did not hate scholarship could unveil on the topic of religion, such a prodigy of arrogance, an acme of delusion and a vehicle of unreason, is beyond my angelic mind.  You would think that such odium for learning would not become a passion to the point of legislating fictitious nonsense and asking Principals to co-operate - in a department of EDUCATION! or for Children's Services or anything of that kind.

Yet I suppose, when you consider the PLAN, it has to be so. If you do not defile their minds at once, they might grow in power of objective assessment without adequate preliminary prejudice, and this could be perilous to totalitarian humanistic conceptions. Dupes of Satan, the adversary of the word of God, himself intractable against truth, they are to be pitied as victims who make victims of others - you see something of this in Dastardly Dynamics ... Ch.   6, The Christian Pilgrimage Ch.   9.

How they could possibly dismiss all religions in terms of the non-testable when in FACT, the Christian faith is the most testable thing you could have, since it makes statements, not on the premiss of man's thought, but on that of divine omniscience, so that -  as in Popper' presentation of scientific method, and this here most  rationally - it becomes BY FAR easier to test. If you or I make one mistake, that is scarcely surprising, but if what is from God does, this is deadly. The standards are exceedingly high. The tests are extremely chaste, the results utterly sure. If the test were athletic, and the quest to find what is by far the best, if one could fling the hammer 100 metres, and another to the moon, the stars and back like a boomerang, there would be no rational doubt. Here it is more so, since omniscience is not a matter of degree and the predictions of the word of God, the Bible, REQUIRE it, even to begin to happen: yet they happen continually, and this very fling in South Australia is one of their fulfilments as in II Timothy 3, Romans 1 and Revelation 13 with II Peter 3:1-5.

Even under gross duress, from scientific method's place,  science CANNOT move from any biblical principle, or declaration of scope in this whole arena; it cannot do it even if 'it' would - that is, the desires of a group of scientists, roaring amidst the rest, for their desire. Indeed, as to the verifiability and verification of the word of God, and this in creation in particular, everything attests this, in all fields, as that work on Webwitness shows, just to name one, in 113 volumes covering field upon field.

You are flutteringly right, soaringly correct, my brother. Often have I pondered this very sort of thing; but it is for all that,  always startling to find the extent of the delusion; but then II Thessalonians 2 specifies it. It explains, it shows what it is and WHY it is in verse 10, though I would give one of my wings to undo their plight if I could. Like Paul, I could wish myself accursed if only they could wake up - you recall it in Romans 9, concerning his racial brethren, the Jews ? I feel that way towards them all, now. Yet my wing would not help, for even the death and resurrection of Christ, the most abundantly attested fact in history, does not touch them, or if it touches, they brush it aside. It is set like a jewel in the very midst of those very prophecies you just noted, the very date of His death forecast from centuries before as Highway of Holiness Ch. 4, for example, sets out. It is not very difficult; but unbelief is like a grasshopper in a tempest, wanting to lie on the top of a rock, undisturbed.

If it were free to WILL it, it would not be free to DO it. So the world roars like a wounded bull, just as Christ said it would, till it would not be POSSIBLE for man to stay on the planet...

Unless, my friend, oh yes, unless HE intervened. And that is near; but like those sucked down to the depths in a whirl-pool by inward dynamics, devilish delusions and impotent philosophy, they rush to ruin ... with one difference, many are exulting in the sense of fast motion, ignoring their fate!

Logically, you would ask this: If then you cannot dismiss that, the truth of the creation by God, of His word, and you must dismiss naturalism, what is the problem ?

You TRY that step instead, and see if this is indeed so; and if it is, as it is, then you use that as a basis, and if someone objects that he or she does not want to be taught religion in science, then the answer is this: merely receive the verified validities of the case, which are in Bible, as so many propositions which work, and do what you want after that. Study the facts and follow them, but first, it is always necessary to know them. Exclusion is not the same as knowledge. Prejudice is not the same as preparedness.

You are right: yet instead, they merely disregard, yes all religion by unscientific fiat, produce gross distortion of the nature of biblical truth, talk with their myths about legends, as if their minds are incapable of seeing facts, give no rational answer at all to challenge, and after irrational assault on it all and altogether such as is made in the S.A.  DSS, the Education Place, you know, they simply proceed as usual, as if hypnotised. They insist on naturalism and say this is science, even when it is contrary to logic, scientific method, verification and evidence. They assault all religion, and refuse even to acknowledge their false charge, flit over their skit, and ski down the slopes of unfactual fiction to very factual ruin, which the State, as many a State and nation, often less profoundly blatant, is doing to this day.

How perfectly extraordinary it all this, isn't it! You know, however angelic one, it is now ordinary to be ornery in these fields, and to insist on what does not work, as working, and to decline what is splendidly testable, even triumphantly, as non-testable, while speaking in reverential terms of what does not work, as if it does.

Is this not deception ?

Is that not just one more verification of the Biblical word, that it is not a question of what gifts mankind has, or how bright he can be, but of the darkness which being environmental through sin, to man's spirit, and hence operative internally so in many cases, so envelops that they CANNOT see... You know, "The people that sat in darkness have seen a great light" - these are the ones that didn't.

You mean Isaiah 8-9 ? yes, but more, what of Ephesians 4:18:

"having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God,
because of the ignorance that is in them,
because of the blindness of their heart..."

 

WHERE DARKNESS RULES, LIGHT HURTS

Yes, it is a selective phenomenon, so that the darkness is just where the light hurts.

Not only that, think of Ephesians 4:17, "you should no longer walk, as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind".

Indeed, 'futility of the mind' - a steadfast refusal to let the light of reason and of truth to enter where God is concerned, to the point that the procedures and relevant ideas become entirely futile, words decked on words, like those poor Iraqi prisoners, misused in Iraq, in a pointless and unseemly way, a matter of mere mismanagement of what is there: disorganisation and distress is the way of it.

How they trip. Yet, a little step, to what is NOT NATURE in the light of what is NECESSARY FOR 'Nature', this leads to that series of potencies, not allied with nor aligned to nature, as to mode of being, and hence immaterial. You move from creation to Creator, from result to cause, to producer to product, to the realm of operation from the realm of result.

This, it is not really so hard to consider, since thought is immaterial, and we think al the time: its rigours of logic being not subject to any material force, but to immaterial considerations, which are material to the point at issue. Nor is will material, since its deft defiances of logic or reason or emotion or truth or righteousness are not impelled, but improvised; and we who create do it PRECISELY by rising above the material and considering in a free world of thought (by comparison with matter's dungeons of slavish activity), what is to be, to be done, to be created.

Profoundly right! brother to the last swoop of reason and the highest touch of reality. Indeed, such power and procedure is not simply unavailable on site in this earth,  in various aspects or results: for MAN uses it, his mind does it, and that, it is one part of creation which creates! If the power is in man not infinite, yet in type it is the same. If for man there is limit, yet within the scope of his deployments, it is a matter of super-material disposition of internal events, with the rigours of reason of which matter knows nothing, though of course it always shows its results! Here then is a mini-cause, not comparable with God in power or in institutive capacity, but in kind of activity. It is man who in the image of God, curses himself by denying himself, not his pleasure, but his status, and so falls, like a demented fool, rich beyond dreams, pouring out his money on the race-course as if reason were in mourning for his folly.

]Hence it is not a mere imagination, but a reality integumental to thought, reason and discernment. To be sure, with man, he is operating on a GIVEN equipment, and not creating it, for the creation is manifestly past as the Bible has been telling us for some 3500 years; but the use of this equipment of mind and spirit speaks for itself, every time man criticises truth, or indeed affirms it.

Yet they refuse to use in the field,  like a ball bearing which ALWAYS goes on the wrong path, because the shute has been twisted! The twisting of truth has become pandemic, and perversity accordingly arises in a world now fulsomely equipped with power, as if the world were its own. The result ? the world reels like a drunkard, just as Isaiah foretold in 2:19 and in 24:19-23, completing the picture in 66:14-16,  as in Joel 3:14-16 and Matthew 24:21-22.

In creation, just one of the elements of distortion, they simply refuse to envisage it, when they deny creation and set their hearts on nothing or on something making itself out of nothing: affirm creation, they will not,  although it is obvious and necessary as a contender. It is profoundly simple:  that THIS SORT of thing has to have been done by immaterial nature, or spirit if you want a term.

Man, who has some power to create, didn't do it, for he was not around to make himself. Matter which has no power to create, but only to perform what it is endued with, is as asinine a choice as would plasticine be, for money, because it is green. It lacks the symbol producing capacities required, and the mental equipment implied, as well as the innovative designations involved. It reminds me of one of the human songs, "I didn't want to do it', and of course, you might as well ask a grey-hound to lift a Boeing 737, as matter to make will which scorns the limits, and breaches the rules as it will ... till it finds itself, as man now does, in the pit that pride always brings in the end.

Yes, like those both blind and bound, they do not tread where reason requires. Again, to pursue the point, the powers for creation have to be adequate, and the integrality of the creation has to attest a coherence in the realm of the Creator.  Only one ...

Of course, for if there were many, then THE Creator would have had to make the environment for communication, collaboration and mutual knowability, and hence these imaginary gods, rational way-stations merely,  would not be god at all; but He who made the set-up would be.

God is manifest, as Paul declares in Romans 1:17ff.. But why the He, I mean logically ? Nowadays they want to make gender-neuter neutering of the biblical text and even to call this translation.

Transfusion of confusion.

Yes, I know, but why 'He' ?

Spirits don't have physical bodies, as you see when Christ in Luke 24, declares that He is not a spirit FOR a spirit does not have flesh and bones as they saw Him to have.

That is right! Thus the question is not gender-ultimate. Nowhere does it suggest that God in His own form  is physical, but rather a spirit; but Christ, having become man, made the crucial point FOR man when He declared, at His own resurrection, A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see Me to have ...

The objection must be based on confusion then. If the 'He' is not an attribution of gender as in our engendering, then it is not relevant to try to imagine that it is offensive; for what is really offensive is the ignoring of this fact, in speaking of God. God in His own form is a Spirit, and in the resurrection accordingly, as Christ declared when challenged, they neither marry nor are given in marriage. It is a non-issue, a grab for decoding truth in inanities.

It certainly is. In this earth, God made man with a certain functionality and woman with another, something which in no way, as was sometimes held, makes woman inferior, or less significant; but He instituted in spiritual things that women do not lead (I Timothy 2). He has His reasons, and states them.

Can they vote ?

Of course.

Can they reason and present ?

Of course, at the right time and place.

Then what is the problem ?

They cannot be officers who formally implement decisions of the church.

What is so terrible about that ?

Well, you know  my dear angelic friend, how it is nowadays ? Children are not ALLOWED to be children, because of their infinite significance, and hence parents who merely beget and pay for them, are not to be allowed to bring them up on their own moral basis ... if the State feels it best for them not to do so, it will simply take-over. That is one of the features of the so divinely revered non-divinity, the United Nations as you see in Mystery of Iniquity.

What! Who is that pseudo-god, that misplaced non-divinity who would dare to interfere, unless it be physical abuse or force where faith is concerned, which is the issue ? Bringing them up in a given way will occur anyway, whether in terms of Christ or of anti-christ, or morality,  immorality,  righteousness or amorality: it is all A DRIVE, or a FOUNDATION, fitted up like an aeroplane with its own engines. The problem with the model of humanism which in such bodies wants people to hallow its name! it is its irrationality, which then becomes a whip with which to flay children unfortunate enough to be seized.

Yes, I recall that In Communist USSR they were seized, too; and here, even in this Western land,  they are seized in Class, and in examination; and indeed, I have heard that some biology exams for university entrance even in Australia,  operate on the assumption that the contra-indicated, scientifically invalid propaganda, this organic evolution myth of naturalism, is the milieu. This is the sublime insult to intelligence and default for objectivity. EXAMS for university entrance, BASED on it! Discussion of the scientific realities been divorced by that devious decree of 1988, in one State, even in Science, and ...

Yes, I know, how pathologically pathetic can you get, creation is excluded where it alone fits, in the place of its triumph: science.

In fact, my dear fellow angel, it is intimidation and corruption. They do not see it so, for idols seem so good to their devotees, some of the time ... But who pushes this desolatory denigration of reality ?

Oh, the UN and the States which swallow its religious faith, in itself, the space dwellers who look for some other earth in case they mess this one, as they manifestly, as if the patience of God were indistinguishable from laxity, and judgment were on permanent vacation.

The UN, though brother, it has this delirious assumption, this asinine ascription and prescription for the young. Thus they must be free from any influence corruptive of their spirits, minds and bodies from an early age, so that children as gods may use their immaturity to ruin the race. It is setting sports cars in the hands of babes, and power in the place of the undeveloped. It assumes what is not known, and insists on its own perspective as if truth were born in it, while affirming that it does not know.

Their intention may be what they say, but the reality to be sought is this: for the child to be FREE FROM any corruptive influence, not free FOR IT, whether by being removed from their parents, or instructed in ways far removed in many cases, from the sound perceptions of their parents, the truth being put forward that there is no truth, and this is signed, yours truly, by the assasins of reason, and the kidnappers of young mankind. Unreason rules, and has laws and ways and will. What more does culture add ?

Women must be men, just as children must be adult, and man must be God.

It is so very confused...

Yes, and it is in this cultural and terrestrial milieu that you have the phenomenon of the  70,000, theirs not to reason why, or even state, as far at least as the news item is concerned, the facts: but what ?

What ?  to have nature made by nature, against all reason, evidence, method and fact, even making Darwin, it would seem, to be otherwise in his organic evolutionary hypothesis, than he is long demonstrated to be:  scientifically dead. They resurrect him because of sentiment, it seems.

That is a resurrection which is in word only. NOTHING supports his view which would require scientific method's advent to the mortuary, logic's attendance at a new Auschwitz and life's wastage in illusions.

It is interesting, this, that children become adults, women become men, men become god and nature its own source: farce cannot surely go so far without ceasing to be funny ?

They do not think of it as farce. It is, one must suppose, just the normal result of the sale of the soul: a species of evacuation of what is there, so that it is no longer under the auspices of that glorious reality of testing, that is man's dower from God. Truth becomes subject to illusion, and determinations to desire.

My angelic brother, imagine now, consider it! If a car, or an aeroplane or even a robot were to drop from the skies, no one would in the least degree be inclined to consider the 'hypothesis' that it was manufactured by clouds, and there would insistence on finding whodunnit! Yet when what is trillions of times more complex and amazing, man, who is in view, the concept that like Topsy, he just arose, despite the ardent contradiction of logic and facts in magnificent harmony, this for many becomes impelling. It MUST be, though it isn't, and if you disagree, the wrath of 70,000 may descend upon you. Meanwhile, they insist that your kids must be turned into little goats: there they are to be,  bleating away as they stumble down the slopes of irrationality, non-science turning slowly into inveterate nonsense.

It is sad that. It needs attention.

You may be sure it will get it.

THAT GLORIOUS GROUP: TRUST, TRUTH AND PERMANENCE

It is well the Lord is coming soon, for if ancient Israel got its come-uppance for just such KINDS of inveterate alienation from truth and deity, and God is just, there must come a time when the  Gentile world gets is come-uppance. Consider Jeremiah 2:27 ... just the same thing, saying to a stone, Hi Mum!

Haven't you noticed yet the meteorological displays ?   Reporting on climate change expert, Professor Tim Flannery at a conference,  The Advertiser,  October 22, 2005, cited him to  interesting effect. He held that storms of such magnitude as those recent ones in the US (12 hurricanes in this season), had been forecast for the middle to the end of this century, so that coming now,  they were before their time. THIS degree of atmospheric deterioration was expected, but it was thought it would take far longer for man to get there! They felt he would have more leeway for leisure.

The study in view also showed coming increases in wind velocity in hurricanes; and in fact it was indicated that a hurricane's energy budget, its outlay of energy now represents something of the order of a 50% increase in the past 30 years.

Not surprisingly, this was deemed by Professor Flannery to be an alarming development! This soaring statistic was in his view, a consequence of the human energy input.  Wilma, the hurricane current at about that time, was the most powerful Atlantic storm ever recorded. Such was the presentation reported.

In fact, records of numbers of typhoons, staggering degrees of destruction by oft repeated velocities, multiplying earthquakes till the news can hardly rest from naming the next case, millions in trouble in Afghanistan-Kashmir, endless wars which look so ridiculous very often, that it reminds one of the irrational self-exploits of the Primary School yard, political brothels of corruption becoming all but the norm, swelling words of greatness mixed with hideous deeds of littleness: you know, all that was to be ...

Yes, and Israel back, the chief and certain signal, once only in nearly two millenia, it nails the time when the Saviour's return is near, as in Luke 21. That's what He said; and that's how it is. It always matches. Everything always matches: the sovereign God of creation and the intensifying storms of human anti-God passion and disruptive dynamics spelling ruin in large letters, as if wrapping the earth with the banner for it. Ruin, unreason and the ridiculous, for we will fight Him on the beaches...

Yes, it has almost come to that, hasn't it, just as Revelation 19:19 reveals it would come, and just as Micah 3:5 specified it for ancient Israel in disposition!

Did they tell you when ? I mean when He is returning, the Christ, the Lord of life, Jesus ?

No, it is hidden. It is not available for angelic dissemination. Only God knows this.

Why ?

Oh, it's not least, you know, the element of surprise. In the majesty of the mercy of the living God, they told the exact time of Christ's death, some half a millenium before it happened, and people did not believe; so this time, it is not told, but people will receive ... Those who trust, don't worry, those who worry, don't trust; those who know the truth, love trust, for it is trustworthy, and to know the Lord, it is to open the doors to light itself, which shining everywhere, leaves nothing dark. You see this systematically, for example in CELESTIAL HARMONY FOR THE TERRESTRIAL HOST.

Yes I know that surprise will only evidence what is there! I mean, He will find people at it, whatever it is, not as if warned of the approaching Principal, and so pretending to be 'good'! The end of Matthew 24 is very clear about that.

Yet -  when you consider what they are doing to the children, it makes your feathers twitch. I mean, it is hideous, unscientific, irreligious, reckless, heckless, heedless ... It is potentially deadly for their souls, though NOTHING can prevent God from finding His own..

Is heckless a word ?

It wasn't, perhaps, but if not, I have just made it one.

What one ?

Well you see, to heckle means to take decided and determined action, to show you disapprove, to be reckless means not to heed reason and danger, 'heck' is an exclamation, perhaps from the great 'Hector', and if you want to put together the concept of amazement, recklessness and immunity even to heckling, to indicate a sort of splendour of amazing disregard, then heckless has it!

Anyway, I agree with the principle, that being unprincipled in the name of principle is pernicious.

Such harmony among angels.

If WE could not know it or show it, where would things be ?

Satan was an angel ...

Not the sort of one to whom  one would say, 'O angel' or 'angelic one'.

True, but angels as a tribe have their angles.

Some are very angular, if you take my angle.

It is a right angle which is needed, something that stands secure and upright.

That will come when the Lord returns, and the earth is to be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea, as you see both in Habakkuk 2 and Isaiah 11.

For the children's sake, I hope it will be soon.

Have you seen how many are digressing from the Gospel, into

	uni-sex, even in pulpits,
	uni-religion, even where folly rules, into
	uni-mouth, in UN type declarations based on air, into
	uni-nurture, where the State's rights are to be dominant and perhaps soon domineering,
	uni-learning, where despotism replaces thought in education ...

Yes, I have heard;  and it had to be, for if that one great mouth with its swelling words of vanity and pomposity is to come, you know the one in Daniel 7, where would truth be! But it is there, and it is this mouth which comes, it arrives to precede the bringing of all peoples and languages to the dominion of Christ, all those who are His. I love that part of Daniel 7, where after millenia of love and patience, and having done all, even sacrificing Himself, even at that, doing it physically, there comes this adulation, this adoration, this manifestation of His power, given in celestial beauty where it belongs, for it was always His, and He left it in love, but is given it again as Lord. Yes, and with all this, there are the ditching processes as well.

With all this coming,  then quite clearly there has to be development. It comes like a rocket, and man is trying to avoid its impact, like a veering aeroplane, sought by the rocket of destruction. How it weaves, but its exhaust is too hot!

Now they have the message, the means for righteousness in the Gospel, and they have the stimulus outside it, with the anti-terrorism stimulus to impose what humanism wants. That is the way they will go, for it has been foretold for millenia, just as the Cross of Christ was for at least one millenium, as Joyful Jottings 22-25 for instance, shows.

My brother, it is great to have such a Lord, for having made peace by the blood of the Cross ...

Yes I love that part of Colossians 1 too, so let me continue it: it pleased the Father by Him to reconcile all things to Himself ..

And I'll complete it, whether in heaven or on earth.

God certainly gives good notice.

Readily now can the false prophet of Revelation 19 and the man of sin of II Thess. 2,  hope to have a receptive and ... increasingly submissive audience.  Humanism romps, mysticism maddens, desperation weakens, alarm wakens, and disfaith works its own species of violence.

Soon, the ears that will hear this singular message of confusion must start receiving, so now they are getting ready for his tune. Reason must be displaced, since that requires God, and they are now,   as they have long been in the past, assiduous in getting in training, sharpening their ears to detect the lie and to love it, because of the delusion Paul foretells in II Thessalonians 2.

This is so, though pathetically, they do not realise what the race is to be, and what  is, for that matter, to become of most of the human race. It is this race which is no good for that race; still, as they like to say, 'they are racing'.

They will do this  quite speedily before long, in many cases. They have long been tuning in, and are now set, they are in preliminary mode;  and this is the preliminary to that. It is like the Melbourne Cup, as a racing event; but this is the World Cup and how they prepare, prepare as if for an expedition, but they are a lost race and have lost the race already. What they need is not to prove it, but to improve it, and nowhere is the elevation available but in Him who descended in order to lift.

He came in His time, Jesus the crucified Prince of life. He has waited as Peter said He would in II Peter 3:9, for thousands of years, as Peter there implies. But now! it comes like that express train-like roar of the US hurricanes. It is happening so quickly.

Of course it is, for His time to come is now by His own declaration in Luke 21, defined to be NEAR!

Won't it be wonderful to see this poor grim, grimy relic of the intense beauty, goodness and wonder of God's own creation, reduced in so much to ruin, but still prominent in its wonder, replaced. At last through the Messiah, murdered then masterfully, breaching death itself just as He healed disease and raised  the dead:  it will be turned once more into a glorious thing. The Creator has no trouble in creating; the power being infinite, the tasks are almost like it is for us, when we write a letter. A fly might be amazed that we could do it so quickly - if it could think; but then God is the Maker of man. His power is adequate for His will, and His patience stuns some so much that they laugh as it love were weakness. How often man falls for that trap, on all sides, laterally as well as in vertical relationship!

It will, all this,  however, include a sobering thought ... for the next step after that, it is for this world,  its entire removal. It will be burnt up with all the evil works within it, as Peter says. Of course it will, for perfection does not for ever endure imperfection, nor sanctity for ever tolerate sin, nor majesty for ever embrace patience; for when patience has completed its work, then perfection is dowered, and where sins pardoned are displaced, then beauty illimitable is restored. You see something of this whole sequence in News 87, by the way. I always like to find references for humans.

Yes, this earth goes, it is to be cast off - rather like an old coat.

Yes, sad in a way, but you know with old clothes worn through vicissitudes innumerable and with texture grimed and becoming threadbare ... there comes a time.

That's what Isaiah says in 51:6, of the earth and heavens, cast off like an old garment, going like smoke, and Peter adds this, in II Peter 3, that this will occur with much noise and fervent heat.

The removal of such an energy supply, as the atomic bomb shows to be here, is surely going to be the bonfire of all time.

Small compared with hell.

Do you conceive that hell IS a fire ?

Symbol, dear angel, but what does it symbolise ? Our God is a consuming fire. Obviously, it does not mean that He is a process of combustion, but in context, that there is power and purity which in the end, when the stages and phases of freedom are past, will burn up rubbish. It implies that He is so intense that this purity will be instituted, and triumphant, when the whole historical series of plans and purifications, purges and losses, gains and triumphs ... all is over.

Fire in the grate is great.

It is a matter not least, of where it is and where you are.

I am glad I am an angel.

A good angel, though ...

I wish I were better...

Ah well, not as if we have already attained. You know there are things about the Gospel that I would love to see more of, and what intense desire I have to look into His compassions which do not fail,  and which are such a wonder, like seeing the mists on a thousand mountains in the gentle and subdued light of quiet clouds, with revealing splashes of sun.

In the consummation, the glory of God will be visible.

It is already, to the mind, heart and spirit, when you see the visions He grants: from Him it comes,  whose are the hills, the rivers, the fountains, the mountains, the spirit of man, the beauty of the child who seeks Him; and with all that,  the clear domain of reason, which attests Him, the gloaming of verification, which brings colour to it all. Long has it been seen,  but then ...

Then glory will overflow with righteousness and truth will convey every thought.

I love God. He is so sure, and so sovereign, and with it so gentle that it breaks one's heart to find so many so far from Him, and much conveyed amiss by 70,000 caught in errors on their way.

Alas, they are looking for a very good catch, even the next generation.

If only they knew what  they were doing!

If only sin were silenced! But its base and basis has been, and its way is cut. Release is available in redemption:  it is not a stratified matter, based on income or intelligence, and it does not even exclude the intransigent.

You mean, like Saul who became Paul ? In their intransigence, they are excluded, but this does not always last.

Yes in Paul, majestic mercy operated, just like that in the creation. It was that which showed the mercy of bringing us to existence at all with spirits sublimely enabled to communicate in fellowship with His, and what a result! The Messiah found the straying marauder, Paul, in the abundance of light, pardoned the man and re-created a spirit which became like a flame!

Precisely.

Meanwhile, the case of the 70,000 continues its effort for a blight.

They do not realise ... would one not rather say, effects than effort ?

The blight is the result of their effort, though they may being wholly ignorant of what they do.

But don't forget, they are merely in this respect both a symbol and a symptom. The refusal to face the God of creation is the plague, and those who seek a little,  never have it set down as if a mere apple pie. God tests. SEEK and you will find! says it.

This is a test ?

Of course, and possibly many of the battalion currently against creation, and in their confusion, in fact against scientific method, may awaken in time.

Rather not in eternity, I should say.

Rather not.

Other writings on such topics ?

Little Angel

and

Journey to God or Fantasy's Flight to the Infernal

The gods of naturalism have no go!

 

The Meaning of Liberty and the Message of Remedy

 

REASON, REVELATION and the REDEEMER

 

SCIENTIFIC METHOD, SATANIC METHOD

AND THE MODEL OF SALVATION

 

Secular Myths and Sacred Truth

Wake Up World! ...

 

 

REFERENCES

 

The *1 BOX

You could see also Ch. 1, *2  of The Majestic Might ...,  on created status, kinship, kind and so forth.

For the rest, look at this.

In fact, there is in SMR of Webwitness, p. 308, this point in some little detail:

Let us then review the broader issues. The gradual elevation of uni-series to substance, of engineered matter in its sophistication to errant human thought, of movement in a line to a concept of a line, and to the failure to draw it right... of awareness to objectivity, processive participation to plenary powers of oversight, of determinism to freedom, of interactive interfaces to supervising systems-assessors, of components to critics, containment to illimitable perspectives, of coercion to liberty and material units into error-prone persons, of forced fragments to foolish philosophising (as mutually often judged) where pundits say what is wrong and hence imply access to what is right; the elevation, I say - of elements prodded by force into persons goaded by guilt, of reagents into agents, jostled particles into judges of particularity, asserting obligation and denying it both in theory and in practice: all this may satisfy 'God' machinists.

It may seem splendid to deity manufacturers, who have nowhere from which to gain all these powers (having denied God). But their manufacture of these gods is one of the most obvious testimonies (*15) to God, manufacturer of themselves, giving them logical bases for such powers, though here they are but abused.

How beautifully scripture sums up so much:

"And just as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind ..." (Romans 1:28). and again, "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator who is blessed for ever," (Romans 1:25).

History, Review and Overview, Helps, Hindrances and Holiness has more ...
I've taken a piece from its Ch. 5, though it’s here expanded.

As we see continually further as we proceed, ALL that creation is, is exhibited; NOTHING that non-creation provides is verified; and so, as is usual in definition, having the characteristics which require the one, and lacking those which permit the other, the terminology is determined. Creation is quite simply the case. Words do not have to be divorced of meaning in order that someone not liking God can have the grumps. As to that, it is precisely the biblical message on the point.

God, as Ecclesiastes 7:29 declares, made man upright, but he has formed many devices! Yes, his life is alienated from God (Ephesians 4:17-19), even to the point of making imaginary ones, so indulging the desire to worship, a natural grant of our condition, in a perverse alternative (Deuteronomy 32:15ff., Romans 1, Acts1:22ff., Revelation 9).

We have considered PROGRESS, that magical push which people try so often to invent in the ways of life, rather than to observe in the progressive deposition at the outset, current finding merely no funding for the continuing progress, but rather regress. Now let us consider the other side, the initial invention of life.

Here the same negativity is in place. You might as well make ingenious suggestions about how you learned to read without a brain, or to think without a mind or to plan without a will. Let us however see how parallel is the dysfunction of the irrelevant, passionately presented, as if an oaf should seek the hand of a Princess, in the area of life at the start.

What then do we find ? It is this. Man cannot so contrive 'nature' that it becomes the equivalent of a personally equipped being, disposing constructions, investing creations, exposing brilliances innumerable, offering integralities, so that myriads of components are fashioned to perform as one being, and the like. He can find no WAY that this would happen, duplicate no MEANS for this to happen, find no EQUIPMENT in nature which verifiably makes it happen, work out no scenario for its occurrence. 'Nature' remains as oafish for any such purpose, as a cylinder head for creation of tyres. It is a silly question to ask, and the answer is as lordly in disdain as the enquiry immune to logical and empirical reality.

Every effort to invent oddities, such as those of Darwin, where NOT having propulsion is the imagined means for getting it, or dying out is the method of creation, simply fails as logically could be seen before hundreds of years of 'research' showed it to be so; and Gould after a long line of theoretical arsonists, simply explodes the myth with éclat. Left bereft, and not without apparent relief, however, his own means of production are zero, his punctuation being fine, but lacking means for the sentences in-between.

 

EXCURSION on the MILL that Gave No Bread

Life is not neo-matter nor is micro-biology uningenious

Just as every avenue is closed, and that emphatically, as endeavour is made to force matter to declare its mentality and its ingenuity in origination, and just as logic denies success to what lacks the means, or access to myth or magic as the ground; and just as in the functionality, the equipment and the record, in terms of the grosser kind, a pall of smoke attests the devastation of mere imagining, that lazy option, so in microbiology it is no different.

As Denton remarked (see Ch. 4 above):

"molecules, like fossils have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology.”

Moreover of the molecular level, one recalls, he declared this,  

"their arrangements and character show mathematical precision, definitive design unlike gradational concepts".

Would you expect a Swiss watch to be an affair of plasticity ? It is child's play compared with this. Plasticity is not in the stars, but in the framework invented and deposited, each area and avenue, each arena indeed exposing what is its own intrinsic capability, as when many modifications of ride and tempo can be achieved in a car, but not the exposition of the vehicle into verse.

There are things rational, and things irrational. The diversification procedures inscribed in vital creation are many, varied, and continually being better realised; but they are just that

- neither sharing between bacteria AS bacteria nor damage which helps but does not create,  in a restricted environment nor turning on and off of control genes, nor stimulated adaptive response within kind constitutes design advance, but mere horizontal diversification, as seen in giants in Genesis, and in the very nature of human variation within KIND -

not creation!

That INSTITUTES the apparatus with all its control and response criteria. That requires the embracive understanding and the facility of symbolic, sustained, preserved, coherent, practical, energised executive and coded constructions beyond the best human minds. It involves the correlative and virtually simultaneous CONSTITUTION of a working model, on pain of irrelevance to life. Turning on the air-conditioning or filling up the gas, or pranging and limping on, makes the car respond, but this does not make the car! They are features both of it and in it. Creation is an entirely different genre. The critique of life, like an examiner on a test, is not the writing of its DNA. Creation as man well knows from his own continual action, is of its own kind. For that, you need not operation of what is there but installation of what is not.

 

The barriers are immense, intense, in complexity and in structure; and they count as we have seen, not only in the vast concourse of top biological pronouncement about the empirical lack of any evidence at the grosser level of advance, not merely in the information theory denial of the very concept, not alone in the logical exclusion of effects dwarfing the causes categorically, not singly in the molecular divisions in their acuteness and non-alignment with gradational theory, not just in the exquisite and all but unending mathematical, structural, ingenious and compressed data storage, application and movement through stored command to new equipment of the kind preceding.

No, they count also in this, that the very endeavour to make life, even by man, not merely pare its finger nails, or move about its organs, efforts in inserting genes or removing, with intelligence of a rarefied kind, with persistence that spans the scores of years, with desire that naturalism naturally inculcates into the hearts of its devotees: this is an utter failure.

In this regard, Dr Jerry Bergman, one of the most degree adorned of academics, in the Technical Journal, Volume 18(2), 2004 reviews three things in connection with this non-connection, this endeavour to falsify the law of biogenesis, which declares that life comes from life.

The first is this: that all efforts have failed, and that the Miller-Urey experiment, when analysed, sketches out the profundity and grounds of failure in a monumental way.

Secondly, there is growing despondency, at least at the practical level, where efforts in this field are becoming increasingly disregarded and de-glamorised.

Thirdly, in effect, the point is made that slight as was the Miller experiments' attainment for anything to be called life, this being merely a marginal contribution  at a component level whereas the crux is far higher: yet even this minimal modicum has been made by intervention and control, purification and removal of byproduct, assumption and exclusion, so that it might appear a testimony to desire more than to performance. 

For these things, he supplies abundantly detailed attestation. On p. 31, he summarises:  that Miller produced and used pure compounds that are not normally found in life. Otherwise, his apparatus would have produced many destructive cross-reactions.

"Therefore, Miller had to remove many contaminants and impurities to obtain pure compounds." After all, if you mix petrol vapour and air, and do not bother to produce the right container, you get explosive destruction, not propulsion. Everything in its designate place is the procedure of intelligence, the essence of design and the outflow of vision. This is the name of what has this result, the criterion of what exhibits such integrality of feature and the requisite for what moves in this order of correlative consensus in the way of disposability as one unit.

Bio-chemistry, he points out, at this level has sensitive reactivities which are not charmed into existence by indifference. Again, "Miller stopped his experiment after just a few days, but if it had been allowed to go on, would the compounds he produced be destroyed or would they produce more complex amino acids ? Research on Murchison meteorites found that natural conditions produce compounds much like Miller's, and the result is stable."

This, he indicates, shows that further time would not produce any new products. Further, these experiments produced many products aside from amino acids, resulting "in a sticky mass that was actually further from the building blocks of life than were the postulated original precursor chemicals. "

After all, omit the traps and the exclusions, include what is not artificially given chemical purity, and you get the products that come from a system without intervention, interference, direction or control. You get the reverse chemical reactions, the destructive environment, the contaminating tars and the drive of entropy. Further you have to restrict combining opportunities, since the desired result is otherwise apt to be derailed, combinations being made freely in more than the desired direction. In short, purity, direction, collection, removal, oxygen-free environment, all this is needed, and even then you get a TOTAL failure for life's left-handed variety of orientation (cf. SMR p. 214).

The oxygen itself, however, is as Bergman points out, increasingly attested in early environments through the presence of oxidised materials in the pre-Cambrian geological strata; and volcanic emissions suggest carbon dioxide, monoxide environment in great abundance, whereas Miller's imagined gases, methane, hydrogen and ammonia are losing ground as abundant constituents of that atmosphere. Given, however, the intelligent intrusion and the abstraction of thought, rather than the control of actualities, Miller of course did not even begin to produce life, merely biochemically making a simple constituent, one without direction, collation, programming information, DNA, RNA, or any of the ingredients of cell life.

*2 Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Ch. 6 has this, together with the preceding chapter in the same volume.

*3

In The Advertiser, November 1, 2005, there appears an article - "Lost tribe of our teens" in which are given citations in the context of a conference, National Coalition Against Bullying.

The general picture was of increasingly young girls using modern communication media to manipulate and oppress others. In this, there arises the advice of adolescent psychologist, Dr Carr-Gregg. Deeming this the most tribal generation we've ever seen, he considers that there has been a  quantum movement from parental admiration as mentors, to that of friends, peers, or indeed anyone admired. Cohesion and integration, family-style, the message comes, has given way to such a horizontal relationship with groups of peers that it is like a lost tribe, moving without moral sign-posts, in what is termed a one-way ticket to disaster.

Disasters of this type need remedies, but the UN type of approach in Child Rights declarations (see Mystery of Iniquity) only enhances this god-like status for the young, not increasing, but rather decreasing cohesion and allowing more of that inchoate vagueness, which appears the basis of the phrase from Dr Carr-Gregg, 'spiritual anorexics' with no grounding values to help them make coherent meaning of the world. In fact, sociologist Rebecca Huntley, author of The World According to Y, speaks of lack of time for parents to talk over ethical dilemmas, and a tendency to avoid authority and become lateral friends to children, so removing themselves from mentor roles, and in fact tending to become supplements to the peer dynamic, rather than foremost or more prominent than that.

A kind of choice or options paralysis, Dr Huntley is reported to have indicated, while Dr Carr-Gregg speaks of the trend of adolescents to become empty vessels, living by observing others, without a sense of meaning, purpose or belonging.

The application of such criteria to drug use, to provide chemical reminiscences of a meaningless but comfortable euphoria, of speed thrills to provide a sense of directional achievement or notoriety, of reliance on sociological support, to provide alternative homes as experiments with various groups of peers are made, in which life and virtue may be ruined in ill-considered brash, rash actions, as if life were an infinitely renewable resource, and not a path for progress or regress, is obvious.

Analytical tools, however, such as are mentioned in the article are not a sufficient answer. How do you analyse right and wrong when you are relativistically oriented, morally ? which is not the case with Einstein (cf. SMR pp.  299ff.), whose concepts on relativity were physical, and whose physics had laws about what was the manner of relationship.

In such a case, the young would be likely merely to find, implicitly, what they want, perhaps blurred in a mist of confusion and empirical subordination to others and their ways, to the present light of the eyes or desires of the heart or fear of society or any other motivational excess. It is rather like experimenting with a fountain pen by trying how it responds to dipping in tar, concrete when soft or in the blood-stream of another. It IS experiment, but is a misuse of resources resultant from a failure to perceive meaning.

As to that, in this same article, Dr Huntley is reported to have indicated that the parents of the current generation of teen-agers were among the first to walk away, en masse, from organised religion. This severs from guidance in another dimension.

This brings us to our text, of which the above article provides aspects of illustration:

How COULD such a government which endorses and requires such myths, and attacks with irreligious fantasy objective facts about religion, be elected ?

It CAN happen when people do not care too much about myths being taught, so long as their kids get jobs, and all that. At least it should require a goodly number of social service personnel to look after the lives so readily unhinged into disillusion, disspiritedness and dyspepsia of mind, by such irrelevances, and even dignified tenaciously in SCIENCE, since nothing of reason can help them. They often lie slain like birds with Asian influenza.

Thus the cyclotron of detachment from deity, departure from Christ and invasion of the mythical mists of detachment from the actualities of life, provides mutual acceleration for a disintegrating society in a world expectant, like a very large mother, of a child in the form of disaster, a desolatory Age, aged before it is prime, and primed for judgment.

*4

TMR Ch. 8 deals with that in detail, providing the wording of the 1988 document here and the critique point by point throughout the chapter.