W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc

History, Review, Overview, Helps, Hindrances and Holiness
giving a select overview of much

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I madly imagined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making it simple

CREATION, LIKE EVOLUTION, IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT. AS WITH EVOLUTION, IT IS NOT BASED ON OBSERVATION OF EVENTS HAPPENING. BROADER TREATMENT OF BOTH IS THUS NEEDED. HOWEVER, UNLIKE THE CASE WITH EVOLUTION, WHEN THIS IS DONE, CREATION DOES MEET ALL THE LOGICAL CRITERIA (cf. p. 161 infra).

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

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

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

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

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

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

From A Spiritual Potpourri Ch. 8

With significant addition

THE ORGAN OF SIGHT
AND THE ORIGIN OF EYES

The Spectacle and the Spectacular

PART I

The Eyes Have it

MULTIPLIED MIRACLES

It does not matter how many miracles are posited -

to change

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

that responds in terms of action;

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

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

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

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

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

INTERWOVEN AND INTERACTIVE TECHNIQUES

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

Then, you will need

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

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

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

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

e) correct synthetic correlation for

i) time sequence of each phase of construction

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

iii) transmission procedures for operational data received from the eye

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There is no known natural law
through which matter can give rise to information,
neither is any physical process
or material phenomenon known
that can do this."

What makes it the more interesting is the combination of his eminence in his field of information science, where he is an acknowledged leader, and the fact that this statement was presented with challenge for anyone to falsify it. The absence of answer, over the years, represents the inability to show otherwise.

Imagine the philosophical naturalist, dedicated by religious conviction, to the concept that what lacked mind, spirit and intelligence, did the thing anyway; and then, despite the logical lapse involved, the scientific method solecism in omitting the needful parameters of relevance and operational visibility or its equivalent, he meets this new contradiction like a panzer division on the march against him. Imagine his new fiasco. NO WAY can information 'arise' - that most unscientific of terms anyway - either by PHYSICAL PROCESS or MATERIAL PHENOMENON that is known.

Information in billions of units wed to integral results in the form of living creatures of almost incalculable complexity of governing code, chemistry and operation, of mathematical sophistication, must be generated from nothing, or from something which lacks the means by any construction or sight, and which in turn must be generated from nothing, or magic, according to preference. Further, information must be generated by a law or method which opposes that of science in this specialised field as does the hypothesis in each other, so that Information Science puts flowers on the grave, these too grown without information. Information 'arises' without occurrence, functionality or propensity known to man, and the empirical fact stares down the meandering miasma of imagination without discipline.

For this magical contrivance to which so many lie vacant, like empty houses awaiting squatters: Logic dies; things 'arise', nullity is king and obfuscation is the Crown Prince.

What then ? In information science, there is this to add to the rest: NOTHING is found of this kind. Not one iota is to be discovered of design uplift, informational innovation.

This has long past the bizarre, and represents the height of obscurantism, the nadir of scientific method. and the demise of logic on a lonely hill. Information science, like every other form of disciplined science, can only say: IT IS NOT HERE, this is not where law or observation, function or facet is to be found for the task. It was only to be expected, since in every other aspect, the thing is null. Go away, we as part of natural phenomena cannot tell you where it came from; it is not with us. It thus joins the ranks which cannot conform to such myths^*1A.

Empirically, and in terms of scientific law alike, chance does not produce law, matter does not chatter logically cohesive symbols from their absence, contrivance does not arrive from the a-logical and what lacks grounds does not produce has requires them. The GIVEN character of matter and energy, the REDUCING character of specialised construction, the non-arrival observationally of life from non-life, even with big intelligent pushes which make it irrelevant to the issue anyway: these things sum up scientific laws; and the effort to circumvent them in this is the reverse of all scientific method.

Such laws are MADE from what is deemed data, given facts, and are not law when contravened. To assume their contravention in order to account for a particularity is the reverse cycle in scientific method. If you can SHOW that there is an exception, the thing is not a law in any case. If you cannot, then you abide by it, and find a way from evidence and reason, within the bounds of known law, to account for it. Here it is ludicrously the opposite, you seek a means, not observable, contrary to all known law, and suggest it as an hypothesis, even when it is starkly refuted by independent evidence, at the level of verification.

THE PERQUISITES OF MIND

In short, you need the exact perquisites of mind. The mind in view is normally referred to by the word - God.

However, on the imaginary, contra-evidential and anti-causal and hence anti-rational (see SMR Ch.3) basis of the gradual,

you need the paraphernalia of mind not once, but millions of times, or some vast number, as each one new kind of design, gathers like chickens, the assemblage of other mini-designs, integrates them, gives them schema and coherence, and sets them off obediently to obey, which never obeyed, at commands from what never commanded.

It is usual to refer to the origination of commands in a term - the word of God.

Whatever name is used, the functionality is necessary. There is little misunderstanding when the name GOD is used; so it seems good language work to use it.

THE CONCEPT OF ODDMENTS OF INNOVATION
THEREFORE NEEDS REVERSAL

It is not a matter, evidentially or logically, of many breaches of the inert to create life by multiplied miracles inventing new worlds from what is not there. It is rather - even if such magic were invoked from a 'nature' which does not show it in its nature:

i) design innovation is always to be found at the top level, never in process and in progress of becoming functional.

ii) the synthetic synergism of the actual agencies has always to be instituted for operation, without which there is a anti-survival deadweight.

iii) the practical as well as the theoretical collaborations have to be established hand in hand.

iv) the whole has to be in toto concatened with the neural structure and consciousness grading provided.

In this, EACH of the miracle designs in view, from first to last, in the imaginary progression has to be instituted in all these components, pseudo-components and quasi-components, proto-phases. The mere imagination that there is something to come, on the part of contemporary people with the benefit of minds: this does not grant to imagined earlier stages a place in later technical or design terminology, in whatever code or symbol chosen to work, or in concept, or in data bank structuring, or in overall conceptual control perspective for the functioning of life.

The delusive joy of "imagining" the language, engineering, command structure and architecture and assuming it done by noting a few chemical relationships is as profound as that of a child, building the empire state building with a few blocks. It is not the movement of components which is to the point; it is the significance of operational world upon world, its signification in code and implementation by executive "officials" equipped to perform.

In each imagined "phase", all this style of things must be created, if we are talking of "life", and life is most abundantly exhibited in a unitary style of fabric of language, symbolism and chemistry, with many constructions synthetically available. This is seen in detail in SMR p. 332H.

Amongst all these worlds, the eye, in these various imaginary phases, has to be made suitable for the usage of each practical creature: it must be concatenated with each gestalt demand, with each requirement moreover made for different levels of being, operable to meet increasing demand of interpretation, not only of the agencies which internally obey the symbolic commands, but of the creature which uses this equipment in acting as a unit, on this vision control unit as one of its tools. Thus the neural structure needs continual adjustment and augmentation of integral design, while the nerve centre in sympathy must BE, and this must be available for use in the deployment of instinct or thought or some of each, or of spirit, depending on the creature and the level at which any given reaction or response may be made.

To think that a multiplicity of these imaginary "stages" is to be added to the multiplicity of non-imaginary actual designs, is merely to mass produce magic.

It increases the obviousness of the fallacy in the very act of seeking to evade it. It is as if primary school paper aeroplanes in some way as a 'stage' to Boeings is helpful. In fact, the THOUGHT may be helpful, but the MATERIAL AND MODE is merely an encumbrance when it comes to executing the one FROM the other! As to thought, this is the work of THINKER, and this is what is evidenced. This is the modality of thought, thinker, creation, creator. This is the phase of being with which we are familiar, the causality of which we operate constantly; and the elements of which we know, and here see with precision illustrated.

Alas! OUR conceptual powers to conceive models of a progressive kind do NOTHING to facilitate the actual constructions, each "brilliantly" re-conceived and made to arise from the complex preliminaries, so demanding to thought, to restructure into the new things, so that the mere initiation from start is so much easier, requiring less mastery to perform.

Easier ? At each level, on the magic hypothesis, however, not super-brilliance but blind chance (that is, material things excluded by nature from each of the worlds to come) - that is, from blind absence. Magic? It is perfectly fair to use the term when what it is to be present is required to arrive from what is not there. NOTHING, or matter minus mind and spirit, as a base, is what is NOT there.

THE PRICE OF ADVANCED ROBOTICS AND OTHER EXOTICS

Precision equipment requiring advanced robotics such as man has never yet begun to make, though he is trying at lower levels, is not in its essence made easier by what lacks it, when there is no mind to institute either. Indeed, one might hope it obvious to anyone who deals with actual direction-information, symbolism in highly structured phases, code, symbolism, command symbolics, that 'transformation' can demand far more in ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL PRACTICE, far more technical facility than does action ab initio, directly designed for the purpose in hand.

And that? That also is not easy, so that 'bugs' can be a vexation of monumental proportions, their removal being the condition of operation even of relatively simple contrivances, a demanding and sometimes almost vexatious challenge and chore. It is true the field into which we enter in 'life' is far beyond this; but it is into this area that these things begin to enter - though without the specialised wonder that is life itself.

Even the dim imaginations, the early resemblances in some measure, that lack the core and essence of life, these are maximally demanding on mentality. That is the nature of command symbolism; it has to be coherent in style, conceived in purpose, consistent in language designation, not a part may be diffuse or ambiguous, used differently if it is to reach anything remotely resembling these standards, and reliably work - let alone for a few thousand years without outside repair...! In other words, the necessity of God is obvious even in this area of VERIFICATION, as it is taken to be, in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock. How brilliant is the evidence when verification composes the case all over again, even apart from the initial demonstration!

Indeed, the greater the complexity of what one has to alter, the more formidable and formal is the requirement to meet for some transformation of purpose, program or procedure.

Such WOULD BE the case for any SERIES of stages for the invention of the eye, such as gradualists might like to imagine. However, there is a further consideration. Now, there are two elements to ponder further.

THE ANTITHESIS OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD

· 1) These chimerical, these phantasmal and unphotogenic stages nowhere appear: nothing in TRANSITION IS EVER SEEN. Only different working models, like our automobiles, in their brands.

· 2) The required TIME SEQUENCE is in fact CONTRADICTED, in this, that trilobites are found in profusion in one of the very EARLIEST (theoretical) times, the Cambrian, yet their eyes are of EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT AND COMPLEXITY. The contradiction is so extreme as to produce mirth at such belying of hypothesis. In other words, the fact that highly developed eyes are found near the first does nothing to make this a posteriori exercise in imagination less magical, or more fact-related.

A more precise contradiction of the whole fabric of an idea, a more anti-verificatory demonstration it would be hard even to imagine! The idea that it is scientific is precisely the OPPOSITE of the fact; for it is in fact on all sides which it aborts, rejects, distorts and ignores. If scientific method were being followed in this, we would have here an opportunity for a Lecturer to cite the most magnificent case of theorising, an example where you see the need to embark on a wholly different plane.

The fact that this is not normally done is merely an illustration of the brilliance of the hypnosis, the ballast in the bias, the naturalistic fixation.

The eye theorists? At every point these exercises remain what they always were: an exercise, an effort to explain what does not happen, contrary to what is deemed to be the order of what DID happen, with use of (our) conceptual apparatus to invent the idea of such things, to make what lacked it have an easy passage as if it were present at all times.

The confusion - it was not present, but what was adequate for this level of performance was, and this is vastly superior to ourselves - remains a theological obstructionism, a naturalistic adventurism and an irrational fantasy.

THE PRESENCE OF WHAT PRESENTS

What was present of necessity was the creative, conceptual capacity which does not require constant, continual, systematic creative magic to appear from nowhere; but operated quite causatively and competently, because it was there,
code its expression in this format, command its mode, creation its consequence.

For each and all of the worlds of being, and their institution and due maintenance, God is as necessary - yes, for every grade of existence, function, specification and correlation, in His causative enterprise, this time including the specifications for existence from sub-material particles to atoms and molecules to spirit and will, as is creative work for any other construction. That He made its basis and is its engineer is as difficult to understand as is any other product which comes unseen from whatever its production site may have been. Thus it is simplicity itself, multiplied in all our living, commonplace and continual.

It is the product which speaks. Who spoke it first is a matter of finding the source; and here it is not 'nature', a spoken item which speaks not at all, except for the vocalisations of its living things, which do not however speak life, but rather speak AS life! That, it was a gift spoken for, like any other sound equipment; it is just that this one is both a peak unspeakable in marvels and ... is ourselves.

To try to proliferate His actions in an anti-scientific scenario, which baulks every time it is sought out, and refuses every time it is "asked", is mere mutiny against reason, logic, facts and evidence, observation and scientific method. It is witchcraft or weird wizardry, futile and frustrated, founded on an undisciplined imagination; and the "stages" for the production merely make, as we have noted, the whole necessity the more obvious, every "change" requirement a management miracle in itself, for finished production units.

It is better than this? A model by model exhibition of such imaginative constructions in a more concrete format... a laboratory demonstration of the thing happening, without human intelligence would be as impressive as it is absent; would show the inherent properties of matter as it does not show them. You see, quite literally, this is anti-science, or what the Bible characterises in I Timothy 6:20, as science falsely so-called, in a precise statement. It is not new; it is just the form it has now taken in its deceptions is new. It is an old maid re-applying for service, after a face-lift. The countenance below is the same, the heart and purposes unchanged.

THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING
NATURALISTICALLY PRESENTABLE

A laboratory presentation would be impressive, then, showing these self-made steps, this unheard of, this logically phantasmal causeless exhibition, this arrival without control, this onset of magnificent controls without any control; and with it the exhibition of the basis of it all; but it is not done. It would be impressive IF it did not include, this experiment, implicitly, the conceptual skills of the experimenter, working within the program!

For that, it is precisely the point: the conceptual skills for concepts are certainly required, and nature shows their presence, but not their genesis; it operates on them, but it does not produce them. It works as a product, but not as a producer of the control mechanisms, the word processes, the creativity, the originative flair. It shows it, shows the plasticities which are programmed to respond; but it does not show one thing: the power to create the programs, words, expressions, concepts, robotics - merely that to implement those already given.

'Nature', vexed enough in carrying out its programs in this sinful world, without having to create them! To ALL attempts to force it to be what it is not, it is stubbornly resistant, like a mule kicked in desperation and frustration by an owner not willing to get a horse! Indeed, implicit or not, any intelligence of the experimenter, we STILL do not see it, this development, at that! It has not at that, been done once; far less many times, as the gradualistic idea requires; far less in that great oeuvre, the massive conceptual, synthetic-executive thing at the end, the eye! That is something one can and should be able to see with the eyes closed!

Nor has the beginning been kind to such dreamers, as we saw, with the trilobite! What sort of a hoax is this, which speaks of eyes coming by stages contrary to all law, reason and experiment, which also shuts its own eyes to the fact that trilobites with extremely complex, sophisticated and able eyes were present, according to current geological assumptions commonly received, nearly at the very beginning of all life? Are facts so irrelevant, that as with certain religions, the faithful are expected to believe them in some unscientific mumbo-jumbo supposedly faith?

Neither science, in its scientific method nor Christianity in its Bible has anything whatever to do with such magic.
On Scientific Method see : NOGO 3, 5, Appendix 2, TMR 1, 8 with 7; CASCADE 6, 3 , DDDD 2, 7, with Victory 8, esp. *4, (and the applicability of the phrase in I Timothy 6:20 to much in modern science, inter alia, which becomes a sub-category of knowledge falsely so-called, that is science falsely so-called), SMST 6, 7, 8,
DD 7, ESCC 1, 7,

Each demands evidence to be examined, faithfulness to what it shows (cf. Isaiah 41,43,48), and offers reason. They are more than compatible in reality as has been shown in earlier publications like The Shadow of a Mighty Rock and That Magnificent Rock. They are like twins. The word of life and the life in the world are beautifully adapted, adjusted and have a common result. Philosophy plays the fool with the minds of some scientists, though not with large numbers who are faithful both to the Bible and to scientific method, and the priesthood changes to white coats. It is a disease which afflicts many in this field, but by no means all. That? it is another matter of fact. Hundreds of Ph.D's are creationists, and some of the most eminent scholars.

Factually,

'Nature' NEVER reveals a super-nature component that arises, arouses itself and orders (for ORDERS are what exist in the DNA of the cell-construction units, which are also cells, since the synthesis is so perfect that to be, this means to be able to construct in nucleated cells)!

And orders? These are not a matter of what happens in itself, but rather of what-is-to-be, commanded into existence. They specify constructive change together with the production of what is to execute this, in specified formats, determined in advance. They likewise give the directions for this when it IS constructed, including those formulated for man's use as basic to much of his operation.

Man then . . .

alert to codes (language and its derivatives) which he may originate in his mind, which facilitate the transcription of thought and understanding, while himself established physically with codes:

using and exhibiting symbolic logic in his processes, physical and mental, means and ends alike provided,

this diverse but unitary being is so constructed in one amazing series of levels,

until the person himself/herself, may be seen

actively cresting this fascinating marvel of creation - itself commanded dutifully the while to copy its own sub-structures:

with uncommandeered spirit (SMR pp. 348ff., 23ff., 423ff., 332G-H) ,

then directing many uses

of the whole domain from another level above it all.

Learning and originating his own codes at will, now well or badly,

wilfully or wonderfully,

he may be found, just as he is founded,

probing profundities as he alike is product of them,

in body written, in mind he writes:

His spirit surveying, assaying and

formed to formulate.

All this is constantly organised, functional and fulfilled as a going concern operationally and personally.

These domains of creative orders within a constrained ambit, moreover, and the execution of them are distinct and contradistinct. Design remains what it always was and will be (see SMR reference next page, on definitional design).

Thus is attested, with acute verification, the necessities elsewhere expounded (Chs.1, 3, 10 SMR) for God:

Writer of codes,

Maker and deployer of the interstices of matter, mind and spirit, their synthesis

and that brand new thing,

1) the man who can make his own codes, but not his own world or his own self,

2) the product man who has personality, equipped to violate at will, what enables him to will,

3) man, that masterpiece of creation, that costly masterpiece which can subvert himself to the gut of things material, or aspire to the source of thingsspiritual,

and find his place in that world, at the mercy and grace of God, by invitation.

The ORDERS for organisation, and the organisation to execute the orders are all part of an enterprise in speech which uses matter as its slave and servant.

DESIGN?

· Definition requires it (cf. SMR pp. 211, 252E),

· 'nature' endorses it,

· laboratory bows to it;

· theory asserts it;

· observation excludes its negation;

· creation (in us) exemplifies it;

· causality commands it;

· code conceptualisation positively, and entropy negatively, salute it!

If this be not design, words have no meaning, logic has no force. If however this were so, the field is vacated. Rationally design stands alone, 'nature' its product. Without it, rationality, coherent thought is excluded, and with it all conception of validity. Design alone is valid. The designer has a name not unknown in His many works, including those of His Spirit in the hearts of man, where new creations occur, redeeming individuals to lost specifications in the area of will and spirit: it is the Lord.

PART II

Eying it Again

Let's put it in a different manner for the inward aspect.

There is for each (by definition) design:

Symphony and harmony,

synthesis and unity,

conspectus and co-ordination,

layer on layer of concept and control,

order and origination,

code and command.

In the design of life found arrived, like a baby on a doorstep,

here is invasion of 'nature' and construction in 'nature';

immigration into 'nature' that sees the result soar,

above the status quo,

a base for a blaze of brilliance beyond itself,

a matrix for marvels beyond its own,

and this for each design,

with a chronological minimum

and an organisational maximum.

For -

if one code component fails,

or if language has no meaning,

the design is stifled,

below par or crippled,

indeed like chatter of a child, but worse.

Indeed it is the case that

if one thought were transfixed

in tired mind,

through obscure analysis,

during the construction,

though meaning there was,

so that a command were out of control

so that "perfection" is not achieved, though many see it there technically

in the facility of the arrangements and the

wit of the procedures and provisions,

in the minuteness of the controls,

the economy of their institution and operation:

if this were to be so, all but instantaneously,

then the operation fails,

so that

the advantage imagined - is lost.

Operationally

dead mess then replaces

the potential mechanism

or contrivance

or device,

and becomes

now a dead weight.

So timing is NOW

and organisation is COMPLETE

at once,

a prodigy is born.

A prodigy?

Certainly!

Try as much as you will,

in this, you will be found

ludicrously incapable, though intelligence is yours, and education...

To institute it, sight unseen ?

Why now not even with the thing DONE BEFORE YOU,

is the feat achieved

de novo ...

A prodigy it is:

in matter, mind and spirit.

Yet it is not one, except in degree,

which we do not

in our very own lives

(by gifts not achieved, but rather received)

repeatedly display,

call names -

'original', 'creative',

when we create:

calling to be

what is not...

at our own relatively little

level:

so that we

turn imagination into reality

in our own small mode and modules.

This however IS what creation is,

WHAT DESIGN IS.

Scientifically, it is better simply to call it -

What it is.

We create

using understood symbols,

with meaning,

simply because we mean -

know meaning,

and with it purpose,

and practicality

and operate these systems

to secure our results,

our contrivances,

our thought transplants

from original idea, purpose, plan and concept,

into performing creation,

our child of thought.

We are sub-contractors,

originating within an original origination

that we could not achieve,

for in it we are made.

In all this, we are much helped

by systems with their programs,

inherent, inbuilt, resourcefully composed,

lodged within us as part of our creation,

by our superior

of whom

we are the children of thought

and the creatures of His imagination.

Prodigies for a performance level,

which man can only use -

creations we are!

So creative is the Creator that

He created creative creations,

whose purposes like the rainbow

are displayed in breadth - though with man

they are not all beautiful;

for he is not bound to light

as is the colour to rainbow,

but can and often does

choose darkness

of mind,

of spirit,

in which to hide his dark deeds

even though

(as is the case)

it kills him.

PART III
Eye Operations

Eyes? They see. Eyes of the body, the mind and of the spirit operate differently; but they all see.

Thus we read:

"The secret of the Lord is with those who fear Him,

And He will show them His covenant" - Psalm 25:14.

David, in Psalm 25:15, declares –

"My eyes are ever toward the Lord, for He shall pluck my feet out of the net."

Psalm 33:18 has this:

"Behold the eye of the Lord is upon those who fear Him, on those who hope in His mercy."

Eyes... what do they see in idols? Those emblems of immaturity resemble what? It is like worshiping paper but not reading what is written, esteeming words but not performing them. It means honouring that disaster of all personality, that angry probe, the devil, or doing it to matter or mind or energy ... 'Can do!' ... but what? sentence yourself to sin or superficial savvy; and always, in all these malformations of spirit, distortions of mind, eyes are as blind, as is chained car ex-engine immobile. Idols? Or is it a servile slavery to an honouring of self, or of this created race, mankind - holding "people alone to be sacred" as one firm is reported to have it - or is it a serf-like assenting to its culture, or to imagined psychic dominances that never laugh at the grave? Any and ALL may be recklessly hallowed, but NOT God who made it... all!

The grave is not comic; but laughless folly is the ignoring

· of the God who made life, in His protestations (Ezekiel 33:11);

· of His divine zeal for our deliverance,

· of His exhibition of nobility that gives it true name, sacrifice and death borne even in the format of the flesh,

· of the love of God-the-sent, Saviour (Isaiah 48:16, 43:10, Zechariah 9:9, 3:9, I John 4:9, Micah 5:1-2, Galatians 4:4, Hebrews 1:1-3, Philippians 2:1-11, Luke 2:11, Acts 4:12) clothed with shame for us that we should be clothed in His righteousness, at peace with the Wonder who is God, through His Son, sent into the world, that life should torrentially pour in truth in our midst.

"A son," He says, "honours his father, and a servant his master.

If then I am the Father,

Where is My honour?

And if I am a Master,

Where is my reverence?" - Malachi 1:6, charging even misled priests with "despising My name." They do not, in spiritually immobilised masses, honour God who says of idols,

"Eyes they have, but they do not see" (Psalm 135:16), and this, "those who make them are like them; so is everyone who trusts them."

· "He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? He who chastises the heathen, shall not He correct? He who teaches man knowledge, shall not He know? The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. Blessed is the man whom You instruct, O Lord, and teach out of Your law" - Psalm 94:6-9.

· Eyes? "The eyes of the Lord to and from throughout the whole earth to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him" - II Chronicles 16:19. "This is the will of the Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life. And I will raise Him up at the last day" - John 6:40.

There is a beginning to the eyes of the body, the mind and the spirit, all three. There is an end (Luke 13:1-3, Matthew 24:51, John 3:15-19). Those who would junk God become junk - a retroactive result... except they repent; but those who receive His remedy, Jesus Christ the Lord, shall see God, face to face in the end.

Eyes? What better use of them than that.

The only mouth that has with unchallengeable sovereignty spoken in all history, and verified itself superabundantly, challenging us to check this out and see scientifically, is that of God Almighty whose Son was sent to fulfil elaborately constructed prophecies of rich detail, enabling eyes to see, honesty to check, doubt to know and hope to be anchored. It is that of One who sees, whose sight is far exceeding that of those whose organs He equips, whose eyes behold, whose eyelids try the children of men (Psalm 11:4).

"I," He says, "have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth:
I did not say to the seed of Jacob, 'Seek Me in vain';
I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right."
Unutterably dismal to see, devastating to consider is the blind act of anti-faith, which knows that of which it lies ignorant, and sees in the visible world its invisible source, worshipping Nature, under whatever name.

From Repent or Perish Ch. 7

with significant addition

As Jesus Christ put it: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind" - John 9:39. Showing us simply His meaning, He met the enquiry,

"Are we blind also?" with this:

"If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore, your sin remains."

Mercifully, the everlasting Gospel (cf. Item 17, Barbs, Arrows and Arrows) is and has been provided through one more, utterly basic

whose provisions, like His prophecies, cover all that is needed (cf. SMR Chs. 8-9).

Man needs to REPENT of his alienation from the God of His creation, whose response to his sins is quite as real as the planning of man to sin, in the firs place.

Man needs to RECEIVE the truth that sin brings judgment in such stages s God devises - He is very clever and deep; and the other truth, that we continue at all because He is merciful and this third, that the mercy, like the creation, has a domain of its own.

Expressed categorically in Jesus the Christ, crucified for the cover of sin, the satisfaction of justice in God's plan of salvation, this mercy is active utterly and finally when He as Lord and Saviour is received by faith. This is different from cultural acceptance, social conformity. It is an adoption more real than that of any child, an acquiescence deeper than in any marriage, an attunement more harmonious than any music, a capitulation more total than anything military, a devotion wrought in greater depth than any ocean.

It is commerce between a created being on earth and God in heaven accomplished through the One who exhibited the reality and power of God, His everlasting word made flesh, becoming man and doing for man what he needed. It is total in its embrace as to competence, and individual as to its grace in action. FAITH is the mode of acceptance, REPENTANCE is the path to the door, and the door is open to knocking, the knocking of need, in the path of return to that God who, having made the earth and the DNA specifications, also made peace in this way, for all who come to Him, not to something else and lesser, not in some admixture, according to the word of this same everlasting Gospel.

As to God, He has nothing to gain from His comprehensive creation, man or any other creature. His total construction of all system, power and organic means, and His eternity - for without that, He has nowhere to come from, nor has man, and if there were something able to produce God, that WOULD BE God, so this is mere procrastination, not logic - leaves no ground for HELP from His creation.

Hence there is no possible gambit in this. If man were to be, for example, an object of torment for satanic glee (this of course mixes up Satan with God, an infinite error, but for examination, we face the folly), so that man's follies and strivings would bring joy to the Creator, then that being would NOT BE the Creator, since His inadequacy would show Him a derivation with NEEDS, and hence a participant in some system which, limited Him, being not His, a result which excludes this imagination from being God. If, God says in Psalm 50, If I were hungry, I would not tell you! The idea of the Eternal Independent Creator lacking is merely a contradiction in terms.

Indeed, the conception that man has found morals that God lacks, or grandeur of spirit which his Creator finds absent in Himself, is so ludicrous, the very stuff of magic, like all other naturalism, is too absurd for serious thought. (Cf. Search as indicated.)

Hence the realities of creation are the needs of creation, and lying, for example, being mere contradiction of what God has made, becomes war on God, as does injustice, contradiction of the apt and fitting relationship between what man is and what he receives, as do caricatures of God which abound in nearly every way conceivable, in sects, seances, reductionisms, immoral gods and devils.

Divine speech is thus certain, to speech writers like man, in order to remedy any situation which lacks divine standards. That or man's not yet observable destruction.

God does not lie, since this would mean a self-war, in which His words and deeds, both from non-needing, infinite resource, clash. This would exterminate such a being, since God's is all power. It would show irreconcilable differences within, which means NON-LIBERTY from a source of imposition; and that would then be God. This is merely a reductio ad absurdum, to show that God is not liable to such declivities, and cannot lie, as indeed Titus 1:1-3 declares. It would be a contradiction in terms. There is here no problem for omnipotence, since all power is not the same as all deployment, and what He does not want is not a barrier to what He does not have!

Speech to man is thus the only alternative to his removal as enemy and fraud, and as to that, it is simply the result of the most amazing creation for the universe, LIBERTY which is so only in conjunction with LOVE, for which it is however a pre-condition. If you are not free, you CANNOT love, that is, free in nature. You merely react. Freedom misused in hatred becomes war on God.

If God allowed such without intervention, then it would be an act of self-immolation: He would be burying what He is under what He has made, and allowing His own contradiction in what defiles His works, His name and His nature. That would be equivalent to not being there; but since He is, He has spoken, and what He has said as seen in SMR Ch. 1, is the Bible, the only self-validating book on the word of God (cf. SMR Chs. 5, 8, 9, 10). Hence it is necessary to examine, not Nature in order to find the ways which wound, but the word of God, to find the ways that heal.

Not surprisingly, in Psalm 50:21, God dismisses the concept of watching woes with indifference:

Action IS taken in the darkness of evil, confronting the light, rebuke is offered. Moreover it is vocal, since correction is needed, pending any rubbish-tip procedure. Again, as the obvious character of God's divine nature (Romans 1:17) indicates, so also He speaks as you see in Amos 3:7ff., 4:13.

The God who is to be met, who speaks and has spoken throughout Amos to the people, exposing His thoughts and rebuking them, it is He who both will do NOTHING without telling His servants, and is the God who DECLARES HIS THOUGHT TO MAN. WALKING with man without having agreement, with man in unholiness is not an option. It requires action. The Lord will speak, and if need be, make it so clear as to be characterisable as a ROAR!

His speech is not lacking. It is articulate, preceding judgment and showing salvation. Thus He also declares, "The LORD roars from Zion, and utters His voice from Jerusalem" in Amos 1:1. Tracing therefore the grounds of His speech in Amos 3:1-6, He declares His mind, and that in advance, and in principle in advance as well, as in 3:7, before noting the punishments in their progression in Amos 4, and then enunciating the simple proposition that the One who creates the universe and man, also is He who advises man, His creation on His thoughts. It is this which is exemplified throughout the entire book of Amos from the first verse, to the last.

It is in this, 9:15, that He not only predicts the eventual blessing, “I will plant them in their land”, but its irreversible character: “And no longer shall they be pulled up.” Indeed, He designates the land as in the first instance, the one of His choice for them, a thing which in the last analysis, only He could know, except He spoke; and to all this He gives this: “Says the LORD your God.”

It is, we find in Amos 4:13, He who CREATES, this God whom they must now be prepared to MEET! It is He who FORMS even the mountains. It is He who ACTS so as to make darkness over the mountains, and who COVERS, so as to bring darkness even in the morning.

His sovereign power is unmitigated and supreme, and this, it is part of His NAME (Amos 4:13). It is He who thus DECLARES also to and within this creation, where it can HEAR, what is His thought! “The Lord God has spoken,” says Amos in His name, “Who can but prophesy!”

All the action is HIS, all the review is HIS, and all the initiative is HIS. He creates, He rebukes, He speaks, He confronts. It is this God who has something to say, who declares His mind irrepressibly, categorically, with profundity and precision incomparable, not for mere display, but for purposes of purity and truth, judgment and mercy.

Part of this divine declaration exposes man's ideas and ways, but it is the supreme Commander, the Creator and the Confronter who reveals in this way His mind. It could not be otherwise, since He is of purer eyes than to suffer iniquity as a going concern.

He is not in the business of psychiatrising man, at his couch, and indeed nothing could be further from the tenor of His words; but rather is He in that of declaring to man his sin, his fault and his need of repentance at the word of the unseen but very articulate God. There is no guesswork, there is no impatience, there only now confrontation, since all speech is being ignored. There is no mere happening, and this coming confrontation, it is no mere statistic. GOD, He has SAID, spoken and makes no secret but DECLARES the things that will be as in 3:7. He states it, reiterates it, makes it now and makes it for the future. He has spoken.

God did not make man in order that He should be made the butt of the human proclivity to sin, misusing freedom, wallowing in lust to defile liberty, as if HE made man in one way, and then endorsed his abuse of that way in another. He did not suffer such assault of His divine principles, lacking either the power or the purpose to rectify things. Resolution of mercy and justice is found in His covering the sin with justice and hence with the love willing to pay, to redeem.

Nor did the Lord make man upright as He is, in order that he should propagandise his innocence before all domains, as if God winked at folly and was subverted by His own inventions! To pile up works from a heart such as man’s is, is to pile up all the more condemnation; and to have no remedy for this degeneration, is to share its moral infamy.

Since God is not thus, and in Christ alone in all religion, is the need met, the validity found, then it must be followed as given by God, or else man will indeed need to ... prepare to meet his God. Further, rebellion from the Creator is alienation from reality and hence from one's own nature. (Cf. Ch. 2 above, Beauty of Holiness Ch. 4, SMR Ch. 1). All this is implied and judgment laps at the shores of pretended peace, like the deceptive ripples before the tsunami at Aceh. The everlasting Gospel (cf. Barbs… 17, That Magnificent Rock Ch. 3) is the only, and the unchanging, the age-old but never aged answer of God, to and for mankind.

The characterisability of its domain, as with other cases, is shown in its works, here those of heart, of healing, its procedures and power. It is not the worship of power, though it provides power; nor is it the worship of touted human wisdom, though it enshrines wisdom. It is the reception of salvation, spiritual mutation, not to something novel, but to what man was in the first place (cf. Colossians 3:10). It is rest from restless seeking for a 'solution' without God, in oneself, one's works, thoughts, ways or hopes. It is rest in the remedy, and in that remedy is rest (Matthew 11:28-30).

Christian life is the life of Christ within you (Colossians 1:27); for in the domain of personal power expressed on earth, God has raised Him from the dead, to the fury and frustration of sick minds: an act which not even the power of the Roman Empire versus Jesus Christ, could prevent, far less plausibly dismiss. Indeed, in one sense, he took it over, this Empire, which persecuted His people (cf. SMR Ch.6, pp. 931ff.).

It is necessary to repent, receive Him by His free Spirit, accept His word of living substitution, so that the offer becomes an enactment, assuring that your sin is borne - for it is received, this sin, not snatched away (cf. John 8:24). It is necessary to believe Him, and then as God's creation, in the first place, you become a new creation at the last (cf. Ephesians 4:24, Colossians 3:10).Then 'born of God', you grow (II Peter 3:18), for no live baby fails to grow... and this growth, it is in grace, in faith, in knowledge of God, in likeness to Christ in character, abiding in His words which set you free, and help to keep you clean (Psalm 19:9), just as the blood once for all shed (Hebrews 9), in His life for life transaction now received, washes you from all sin (I John 1:7ff.).

If God has granted liberty to man, and restored the way to it - not to autonomy since man CANNOT become eternal backwards, having been created, or be sinless, having sinned, but to due use of his nature, and in understanding disposition of his life - then the question remains. Does the beauty of the Lord lead on to His reception, His loving grace and authenticity of heart ? Praise God if this be so.

On the other hand: Does man desire gratuitous departure from God ? If so, so be it. It is will and no more that so severs (cf. John 3:19). But if reason enters, then the question is to be pursued.

WHY should God be dismissed, when obviously HIS dismissal is merely verbal and the result is war on reality which inheres in created format in one's very being: so that the result is self-marring! If God had been kind, and asked people back unconditionally, in terms of any work or production, is that so bad ? But since He has in fact, as the Gospel narrates, resolved and planned and performed by becoming Incarnate in His word, and suffering for sin, bearing sin, the just for the unjust to bring us to God, and taking the sins which man does not keep for himself, is this the ground of irreconcilability ? His mercy is clearly for those who come, as He cleans their books, their sins, their ways and their days, in abundant pardon. What ground for rejection can lie here, in such things as these ?

Here then is the RESULT of seeing that the Supernatural God, who made 'nature' and our nature alike. It is this, that you find the need to find Him; and then the fact that He is very near and ready to be found; and then the Gospel, by which you repent and receive the sacrifice of Christ as sufficient for your sin, and then believing in Him, experimentally find God, whom to know is life eternal, and whose acquaintance is beyond all natural things, when it is experienced.

What then do we find ? His life has been issued in human format to exhibit who He is and how He loves, His power in mercy, in healing and in breaching death, that summary sentence on sin, in Himself, as He foretold in Hosea 13:14 so clearly, in a matter never acceptable to the world, which prefers to annul judgment in its own power, like some grasshopper, scorning the mortal chemicals in vain.

GOD SPEAKS (let no one else presume to share this prodigious enterprise from the powers and prerogatives of the King of Eternity), and we have His resultant word.

It is ACCORDING to this word, this gospel, this instruction, these propositions, that we come; but we do not come TO the propositions as if they were God.

“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

^“I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.

^“How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God ? “

Here the DETACHMENT from this world’s inventions of soul is involved, in that this ‘other’ who comes in his own name is assuredly with us. This cultural king whose apotheosis will come soon enough is there for your succour of spirit, as surely as is arsenic for your body. It is however unwise to utilise him. The alternative is coming to the living Prince of Peace and of Life (Isaiah 9:6ff., Acts 3), in terms of His terms, of His offer, of His grace, freely (Isaiah 55). This then is His word, His way, His provision: Himself. These are His words, which He has power enough to maintain, which are not obsolescent (Galatians 1:6-9), nor quiescent (Hebrews 4:11-13). .

As to His statements then, these are those things which He has said, and we believe and receive them. They however TELL us to go to HIM. No division of the obvious is in place, for theology itself will often contrive with those escaping from one delusion, to lead them into the next. It is the word of God, read it yourself which informs, and the Son of God to whom, as person to person, you come. It is HE who saves, it is His word which instructs, and which operates, because He makes it to be so. Listen in conclusion then, to His own words:

It is necessary to repent, receive Him by His free Spirit, accept His word of living substitution, so that the offer becomes an enactment, assuring that your sin is borne - for it is received, this sin, not snatched away (cf. John 8:24). It is necessary to believe Him, and then as God's creation, in the first place, you become a new creation at the last (cf. Ephesians 4:24, Colossians 3:10).Then 'born of God', grow, for no live baby fails to grow... in grace, in faith, in knowledge, abiding in His words which set you free, and help to keep you clean (Psalm 19:9), just as the blood once for all shed (Hebrews 9), washes you from all sin (I John 1:7ff.).

In this way, all ground for rebellion is removed. If God has granted liberty to man, and restored the way to it, not to autonomy since man CANNOT become eternal backwards, having been created, or be sinless, having sinned, but to due use of his nature and understanding disposition of his liberty, then the question is this. Does man desire gratuitous departure from God ? If so, so be it. It is will and no more. But if reason enters, then the question is to be pursued.

WHY should God be dismissed, when obviously HIS dismissal is merely verbal and the result is war on reality which inheres in created format in one's very being, and hence is self-marring! If God had been kind, and asked people back unconditionally, is that so bad ? But since He has in fact, as the Gospel narrates, resolved and planned and performed by becoming Incarnate in His word, and suffering for sin, bearing sin, the just for the unjust to bring us to God, and taking the sins which man does not keep for himself, and so clearly for those who come, their books, their sins, their ways and their days, in abundant pardon, what ground for rejection can lie here ?

Here then is the RESULT of seeing that the Supernatural God, who made 'nature' and our nature alike, is this, that you find the need to find Him; and then the fact that He is very near and ready to be found; and then the Gospel, by which you repent and receive the sacrifice of Christ as sufficient for your sin, and then believing in Him, experimentally find God, whom to know is life eternal, and whose acquaintance is beyond all natural things, when it is experienced.

The matter is BOTH propositional and personal. GOD SPEAKS (let no one else presume to share this prodigious enterprise from the powers and prerogatives of the King of Eternity), and we have His resultant word. GOD SENDS, and the world has crucified His incarnated Son. GOD commands REPENTANCE*4, and we hear this personal call. It is ACCORDING to this word, this gospel, this instruction, these propositions, that we come; but we do not come TO the propositions as if they were God. THESE are what He has said, and we believe and receive them. They however TELL us to go to HIM. No division of the obvious is in place, for theology itself will often contrive with those escaping from one delusion, to lead them into the next. It is the word of God, read it yourself which informs, and the Son of God to whom, as person to person, you come. It is HE who saves, it is His word which instructs, and which operates, because He makes it to be so. Listen in conclusion then, to His own words:

Imaginations devoid of factual basis, inadequate in causal conception, may be deemed myth, as the implicit direction of thought is to magic, or irrationality of some kind, as is the case here. What is self-sufficient and consistent, coherent in conception and verifiable in statement or principle is causatively confirmed, on the other hand.

How like this is to the present day when another naturalistic fallacy rules the foolish hearts of the godless, and deprives of wisdom many of those who are culturally occluded, denuded and deluded!

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

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