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


CHAPTER EIGHT

 

 

CREATION

 

Creation is a delightsome topic. It is a good idea to see what it really has to say for itself, when you look simply at what is about you. Then the gas mask, which actually injects gas into your system in this case, removed, you can breathe again the free air of creation.

 

 

The Magnificent Rock

Ch. 1

1996
with various subsequent extensions

LECTURES ON CREATION

THE GOSPEL, THE CREATION, THE SIN,

THE ATONEMENT AND SCIENTIFIC METHOD

See also Chapter 8 below,

for an application in corrupted pedagogy,

and further development of this chapter’s theme.

 

 

·  1. THE CONTRAST

 

A. THE BIBLICAL PRESENTATION

Simply, the Bible teaches:
 

1.  That GOD CREATED in kinds (base kinds - variation is around a kind, not from kind to kind). We see this categorically in such statements as these: Genesis 1:1, 27, 2:4, Isaiah 40:26, 44:24, 45:18, Colossians 1:16-18, John 1:3,10, Ephesians 4:24, I Timothy 2:13-15, Matthew 19:3-5. Refer to Appendix 1, pp. 277-322 infra for more detail.

 

2.   That man in particular was created in the 'image' and 'likeness' of God (Genesis 1:27), so that he not only became a living soul but in a contradistinct act from the material format, had 'breath' breathed into him, an act of direct and personal divine expression so constituting him not only a child of the dust (Genesis 1:7), but one who by that express design-intimacy was apt for fellowship with God Himself. To Spirit (Genesis 1:3), the man God made could relate his own derived spiritual capacity, and with it act, or by it be left. (Cf. Genesis 41:8,38, Isaiah 31:1-3, Ecclesiastes 11:7, Proverbs 20:27 with pp. 123 and 139ff., 181ff. infra, and SMR pp. 179, and 348 ff.). Negatively, this could and did result in the situation of Genesis 6:5, where the non-material gift direct from God's own vitality, specific to man, was devastatingly abused. Hence we see:-

3.   That man sinned in many ways - Genesis 3:5,10, Romans 5:12-14.

4.   That God provided a solution in one way, necessarily His own:
both meeting the specifications of man, and conformable to godliness - I Cor. 1:21-25.

5.   That His solution is the eternal Lord of glory, the living word of God, incarnate as Jesus Christ - John 1:1-14, Philippians 2:1-9. Though in the form of God, He took on the form of a man as Jesus Christ. This He did in order to show life as it should be lived, and COVER sin for those wishing to return, and coming to their gracious Creator, putting their trust back where it belonged, in Him, and to DEMONSTRATE personally that death, being a penalty put on an erring race, could and would be demolished for His people.

·  Accordingly, He bodily rose again in 3 days as predicted,
proceeding from the tomb of His captivity, absconding with
His own body, confounding Jew and Gentile alike, and
activating the church who knew Him, by this performance,
which makes landing on the moon seem almost tedious by comparison. Indeed, He died at the date predicted and the Gospel itself is in exact detail as predicted, thousands of years ago in the Bible.

 

·  In view of these things, each must ask - Have I returned to God through Jesus Christ ? If not, you need to do so, being re-created in righteousness and true holiness (Ephesians 4:24). If so, you need to be clear: you were CREATED, and by our own fault fell from the love of God you should have had, and have been RE-CREATED as a 'new creation'. Sin, not madness, is your background; God, not survival of the fittest is your basis. HE MADE YOU, and not you yourself. All this may be seen in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock (SMR) pp. 1-64, 482-502, 582-594, 179-190 etc.; re predicted date of Christ's death, pp. 886ff., re resurrection, Ch.6 & 931ff.; and Biblical Blessings, Appendix 4, The Magnificence of the Messiah, Endnote 1.
 

·  Now one ingredient of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is this: MAN WAS CREATED upright (Ecclesiastes 7:29); and gifted with freedom in this fascinating format, he sinned. Accordingly, GOD became man that man might be brought back to God ( I Peter 2: 22-25, 3:18). All? no; but as many as believed, trusted and received the remedy for their sin - Jesus Christ, the sin-bearing redeemer, and thus followed Him (SMR pp. 43ff., 53-63; Psalm 50:21-23, 33:16-18. See also: Appendix 1, pp. 277-316 infra).
 


 
 

B. THE HYPOTHESIS OF EVOLUTION

·  This asserts:

 

·  1. That fraud, deceit, ugly evil and all the rest in the image of the 'survival of the fittest' syndrome, was essential to man becoming man.

·  2. That he is essentially developed brute; and what can you
expect of him ? Made by crooked means, he IS crooked (except
of course for the educators who are kind enough to share this
straight talk with us).

·  3. That the development of self-assertion, or at least self-esteem, self-fulfilment and such dizzy heights of selfhood are optimal for the good of all.

·  This gargoyle concept COULD not be further from either the evidence or the Bible.

·  The Bible teaches that man was created with a spirit to commune with God, by God who is the light that lights man (though if the 'light' that is in you be darkness, said Jesus Christ, how great is that darkness!). It declares that God is love ( I John 4:7-8, Colossians 1:14-20), and that the way to love others is first to love God and to keep His orders; that NOT to love is not to know God.

·  4. The race in a hundred ways clowns, claws, gropes or grapples with this, with a myriad of psychologies, sociologies, psychiatries, philosophies, political programs or pogroms, but never manages anything, often making absurd gargoyles instead of pleasant statues, as it idolises now Hitler, now Mao, now rock stars with whining desires, now international consciousness. It does not do any good. It does however reveal the constant groping, in the dark, which exists quite freely where God is neglected, despised or travestied.


THIS is the world of the evolutionist who works for and in and with the world: these are the RESULTS of such misconception practically.

 

·  It is important therefore to be clear of the irreconcilable conflict between the absurdly pompous pretences of morals which frequently 'come' from organic evolution, as if a mere describable process constituted any moral grounds! (But then man obviously feels quite lonely without morals, and in the last analysis will roundly condemn someone, something, morally, if there is no other point of contact left with morality: showing the matter to be inescapable and inveterate).

·  It may therefore be that someone will want to reply that the morals of organic evolution (as commonly proposed) are NOT ridiculous morals, thus simply demonstrating the point made. IF they can be SO assessed, then they ARE morals, with only this proviso, they have no logical base, since DESCRIPTION CANNOT BECOME PRESCRIPTION.

·  What is, does not dictate what ought to be. For that you need outside information. The Christian has this; for the secular organic evolutionist however, there IS no outside information. For the theistic evolutionist, GOD is turned into the author of this wild folly of method, described above. THAT GOD IS recognised in the Bible: as the devil. The evidence however has only negatives to assert concerning such things as the METHOD of creation, a point to which we shall return.

·  If, then, the 'morals' of organic evolutionary thought are defended as not ridiculous, or in some way satisfactory, then implicit APPEAL is in fact made outside the system supposedly so competent to create, though it NEVER shows this relative to what it is. In that case, something ELSE is 'it', the standard, the criterion of morals; and hence from THAT standard, this is announced.

·  This is done as from a pulpit, very often, though there is logically no place to build it: a despicable lapse in naturalistic preachments. In fact, the TV is a wide-ranging pulpit shamelessly utilised by the organic evolutionary contra-evidential specialists in a way that must be highly pleasing to their moral base and source which of course DOES INDEED EXIST. It is just that it is not God, but the devil as Biblically defined, who so acts and so DOES NOT show ANY power to create such a universe as this, or the component parts of matter, mind and spirit, in it!

·  Not least, because of such ungainly byproducts , and because the truth is always vital, we engaged in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, Ch.2, in a study to show that

·  in terms of scientific method,

 

·  creation totally eclipses organic evolution


as a verifiable approach to the way man came to be.

 

·  In terms of pure logic likewise, its inadequacy is exposed. Man needs restoration to the righteous God of love, whose esteem for this created race does not extend to pretending that sin is mere abnormality or in some way excusable, but judges according to truth, He the repository and resource of the same.

·  He needs this by the GOSPEL God has given by His grace, not self-esteem, self-assertion and their appalling and brutal progeny that wreaks perpetual havoc in the deluded sons of man.

·  What we have here, then, is intended to provide a simplified and brief review for any who would like to share in a discussion session on these topics, on this or a later occasion. From The Shadow (op.cit.), the topics : Creation, Evolution and Scientific Method may be pursued from the copious references in the Index.


 

·  2. THE CRUX OF THINGS - CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTIONISM

 

We may now ask:

1. Has there ever been seen anything which

a) is direct observational data, and

b) shows increments of design,

developments of design to higher levels, in an existing life form or organism?

·  This observation would make the organic evolutionary hypothesis to be in order and ready for consideration - IF the facts for it were to be found. The facts ? Has such upward movement*1 *2 been seen ? The answer is a categorical negative. Mutation ? yes. Variation in DNA as from the invasion of other DNA or direct mutation as by radiation ? Of course. Lateral movement ? yes. Vertical ? No.

·  However it is VERTICAL movement, upward movement in design sophistication, advance in design development which is ESSENTIAL if organic evolution is even to be considered. THAT after all is what has to be "explained".

·  PROGRESS is needed on the part of any program... procedure or principle in terms of which the sophistication of what-is, of the existing aspects, elements and integrations in the universe (such as man with his mind-matter-spirit trilogy) is to be considered. We might add, a fortiori, of course, that in the case of a program as the supposed or alleged basis of creation, there is then the additional feature that it answers the problems in advance, so that it also needs institution from an adequate source. THEN you have to account for two things:

·  A) the program and

·  B) the universe as it came to be. That merely exacerbates, aggravates and intensifies the "problem". There is MORE to be accounted for. The fact is, moreover, that any evidence of such a "program" is not to be seen; only the results are visible. But of what? Of what has the power and the precision and the conceptual ability, the capacity to formulate symbols and symbolic logic and to implement plans which imply and utilise it. It is in fact normally called "God", and the detailed considerations have been traced in SMR Chs.1,3,10 especially. His speech is, we there found, not found only in coded concepts and symbolic logic in our cells, but in the Bible, addressed to the minds which utilise the cells, in this prodigious, conscious and analytical being called... man. For the moment, however, we continue to look simply at the topic of creation.

·  Our FIRST QUESTION, then, was this: HAS there ever been SEEN any such design leap as is needed, in simple observation, in laboratories: does it manifest happen before our testing devices, eyes, hands, ears, equipment; or does it not? The answer? It does not. That was very simple and quite untaxing. NO! simply, no.

 

 

2. But has there been any verified process which has the power to
do this: again, based on actual observation ?

There has not. Theories here are mere substitutes for thought, where they show no operational medium, no means demonstrably able to produce such a result, yet are cast in the realm of the visible. Theories about the visible realm, this world and its basic matters and features find no help here. THIS world and THIS universe has NOTHING to offer in this field. Since it HAS happened, this outpouring of all these marvels which we call creation, logically we must therefore look elsewhere, and test this, being shut up to it.

This world shows no power to create itself; no program to do so; no capacity to do so; it functions in what it has, wholly deficient in evidence of power to make what it is. No more than a car does it show evidence of being its own factory. For that, we necessarily look elsewhere. When it is the world and "nature" itself which is in view, the case is not at all different. We therefore look elsewhere.

Let us however pursue the steps. The world has NO evidence of this upward movement of design happening for the senses or equipment to OBSERVE, step one. It also has NO process verifiable or even logical, by which it COULD happen. Two negatives down. More to come: let us probe it further.

3. However, if eyes cannot "watch it happen" on its own, and our minds can specify no such process, can they at least "find it happening" before them, when theoretical scientists apply their own intelligence in an effort to MAKE IT HAPPEN? Is there some sophisticated evidence which demonstrates this kind of thing happening, even if it is not visible, or defined in any ordinary way as a process? Is there ANYTHING measurable which SHOWS this logical feat of what does NOT have what it takes, MAKING things anyway, above its own level of operations? HAS there been any such "find"?

·  There has not. Theories are impotent gargoyles when the very means fail demonstrably and so boundlessly to produce the results. Such CONSTRUCTION devices of even the most highly theoretical kind, are never found wedded to demonstrable action of this kind. PROGRESS UPWARD in design specifications does not from nature happen. The nearest is our OWN intelligence MAKING designs, beneath our own level, with the equipment in our minds and spirits. Even we, however, even WITH intelligence and imagination and personality and all the rest: even WITH all this, we do not create the universe or its essential components. It is wearing out and we are QUITE powerless to stop this; FAR LESS do we create a new one! We are in this WHOLLY IMPOTENT! It is time to be realistic.

·  What means, then, are these, and what science is this which makes organic evolutionary assertions, and quotes "Nature" for what it simply does not "say? Cannot any charlatan do as much ? If man cannot create life, rather than snip and paste bits and use what is there, how cacophonous to the harmony of thought is it to ask the unequipped to do it... As Jeremiah puts it:

"As the thief is ashamed when he is found out, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they ... and their prophets, saying... to a stone, 'You gave birth to me.' For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face.."

But let us probe in a FOURTH way, and ask yet one more basic question.
 

4. Have, then OTHER theories abounded which would act in the
same direction as this one, giving it some sort of support,
collating with it relationship in the whole area of RELATED THOUGHT?

Does SOMETHING SIMILAR happen in some other field in the line of CONSTRUCTION of this kind? Is the IDEA of such naturalistic advance, spontaneous creation from "nature" found in SOME form or other, which might not at first seem relevant? Or are other areas just as resistant to the "idea" as this one, the universe relative to creating itself?

·  This sort of collation, after all, this congenial and friendly theoretical companionship in the whole area of RELEVANT science is most important, and eminently so for a theory which operationally can boast but failure. If you don't have everything, it would at lest help if you had SOMETHING! Normally in science, if ONE new law or idea is fostered, we look to see how well or badly it HARMONISES with kindred laws which may affect it or proceed in a similar base. What then is the readout here?

 

NO! there is not one. ONLY by intelligence and imagination and creativity as such do we find such symbolic logic as language and DNA alike utilises, and ONLY by ADEQUATE causes do we find given results. Spontaneous generation of realities are not the order of the day; causality is. ITS breach merely contradicts the basis of thought, which with what is called "reason" utilises this concept in WHATEVER terms it wishes to argue. Such argument is basic to all science, and without it, its method is impotent and outcast.
 

5. What then in particular do we find of other theories which
would confirm and corroborate, acting in the same direction,
giving it some sort of collateral support, even if it fails for its
own part ? This is what we find: that we must come back to earth and start OBSERVING things if we are to propound what they do. When we do this, and become scientific again, what LAW do we find which operates in this kind of field?

·  What is available is
an observed tendency for the exact opposite.  

Actual observation in fact requires the substitution of the organisational advance, upward design concept that organic evolutionary theory posits for the living for its glorious biological past, with the observable reality of devolution, downward motion. That tidy little thing called science, as distinct from the religious and philosophical preferences, penchants or addictions of some scientists, has the precise contradiction of this theoretical trend to REPORT.

·  Read, then, not UP, but DOWN; not ADVANCE, but retardation; not self-creation, but self-wearing. Read not the UNKNOWN SCIENTIFIC LAW of auto-elevation in KIND, but the KNOWN scientific law of increase of entropy for a given system, such as this entire universe. Entropy? LESS specialisation, organisation, differentiation; MORE approach to death, devolution, downgrade.

·  Our OWN intelligence will sometimes give an opposite idea, but this is intelligence, not nature; and even if you say intelligence is part of nature, it is still doing it WHILE it is present, not being invented, itself, while it is absent! Further, as already noted, even our much vaunted intelligence does not begin to act in such a way as to create the essential, observable ingredients of our universe. It cannot even conserve them. Entropy is in fact said to increase in this way, in terms of one of the THREE most important scientific laws which we have! To contradict this is not a particularly positive result, when we are considering whether the idea of organic evolution has support from other laws which relate. The result, once more, then is a simple NO.

·  What then? Let us sum it up. There is such confusion here with many that we may be forgiven any measure of repetition for the moment as we put it first in this light, then in that light, so that the darkness without light may be the more obvious to as many as may be! This is like eugenics for superman: it does not happen, but many have sought to make it happen, and to think that it might happen. It is time to be frank, and even if need be, to labour the point.

·  A tendency for organisational advance, then, for upward design movement in a living being over its observable generations, this is precisely in general what is not found. So exceedingly is this the case, moreover, that there is even a law which is one of the most fundamental in science, and for common sense alike. It is enshrined in scientific theory as The Second Law of Thermodynamics, and in common sense as the fact that  in any sphere of operation that is distinct,  things not tended do not tend to get better but worse, and that things do not conveniently before our eyes create themselves into the pleasant forms and formats which we aspire to create for them. They do not appreciate, but depreciate.

We have to do it or it has to have been done by another competent agent. This is the observation and it is categorical, hence law. Anything thought to be contributary must first itself be there to contribute, so that net upward dynamic is the universal requirement, before any borrowing can be imagined. Imagine any universes, and they must bear the brunt of causative invocation, before 'lending'. Logic and observation mix. The case is the same, the necessity for what is sufficient to make in the first place.

·  Certainly, there are - as in computers likewise - available programs which, provided you labour at them, secure this and that; but they are what they are, and their powers are co-ordinate with their structure, as a GIVEN datum. Things tend to run down, not up: natural reality has its ways, but work is required to make them contribute advance to higher design levels. As to these, they are not relevant to the required action for the creation of the universe, in terms of observed capacities. To repeat: even if they were, it would not solve the leap from unintelligence to intelligence, to point out what intelligence can do.

·  They operate at their level, we at ours. If we want to secure from them design increments, as in sky-scrapers and helicopters, yes it may be possible; but it takes intelligence and thrust from beings so equipped. It simply does not happen on its own. That is not the way it is.

·  The general nature of THE LAW is this: things tend to act in the OPPOSITE way to self-advancement; disorder tends to INCREASE, or to use the term, entropy increases - that is, a state of undifferentiated, unspecialised homogeneity. That is what tends to happen; that is what the Law says, that is what we find in observational fact, where it is adequately testable. There are no demonstrated exceptions: it is a received LAW.

·  Quite simply OBSERVATION and PHYSICAL LAW are the EXACT OPPOSITE of ANY CREATIVE PROCESS imagined to construct the universe on a naturalistic basis!

·  What we SEE is that creation is NOT occurring now, and must have occurred in a way which is CONTRADISTINCT from the methods of current continuation of the universe. Verification of the naturalistic, organic evolutionary hypothesis is by flat contradiction. It is a NEGATIVE verification. It is, in short, A FAILURE in the area of verification. THAT is the end of it in scientific terms, where success in verification is not an option. You have it or you have nothing to offer. Anti-verification is fatal in ANY one instance.

·  That of course is decidedly unimpressive, as if a candidate for being Dux of the College presented an examination scoring zero. Or, more precisely, achieved in some way a negative mark, like -100%

·  Except in fun we would not give further consideration to such a proposal! What you need to be inserted into the student is perhaps a bionic device, or perhaps help from his older brother. He does not have it. Certainly if the intelligence necessary were added to the functional realities of our system, to do the job, that would be the answer. THAT in turn is precisely what creationism has been noting.

·  Indeed, the situation regarding creation is so tidy that the noted LAW that states what IS observed is one of the three most fundamental laws according to physics Professor Tom Barnes, and it DECLARES what is FOUND. The declaration of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, then, the opposite of the concept of the organic evolutionary hypothesis, so that it is scarcely an independent witness for it! This law more precisely, states that there is a tendency for DISorganisation, REDUCTION of order (entropy), DE-gradation, loss of specialised distinctives in the physical world.

 

·  This obvious theme of etiological adequacy, not in the least related to irrelevant fantasies of uncaused categories of progress, of new uncaused reservoirs of information, of non-interfaced unknowns, invisible, unevidenced articulations with unknown operations doing unknown things: is in fact found operative with known forces doing known things in observable ways, verified accurately over time, repeatedly and without exception. It has been much enforced in discussion in recent times in particular, through such as Dr John Morris, Professor Tom Barnes, Dr Duane Gish and Professors A.E. Wilder Smith and Harold Slusher, eminent scholars with a vast array of credentials between them, speaking clearly on this point in respect to creation, for nearly forty years.


·  In fact, the great Lord Kelvin, cited as one of the greatest of all British scientists of the 19th century, famed Scottish scientist with the Physics Chair for over 50 years, a man with a vast array of developments and inventions to his credit, and letters to his name, was  one of the two who first scientifically  formulated this very 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It was not surprisingly he who sagely declared this:
 

"that with regard to the origin of life, science positively affirms creative power" - cf. SMR pp. 329-330G, News 82, esp. pp. 202ff., Joyful Jottings 3, A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-3. It is still less surprising  when one considers his vast array of disciplined, cutting edge work domains. Without such power, it is the opposite thrust that is factually available, in all verified cases,  for inspection, observation and accounting in terms of known law; just as it  principially available in operating logic and parallel performances . (Cf. SMR Ch.3, pp. 3-10, That Magnificent Rock, Ch.5.) This is the way it is.

Indeed, of Lord Kelvin, the Encyclopedia Britannica makes the point:
"He brought together disparate areas of physics - heat, thermodynamics, mechanics, hydrodynamics, magnetism and electricity - and thus played a principal role in the ... synthesis of 19th century science, which viewed all physical change as energy-related phenomena."

Thus, in this world, for man,  mental and moral creation and deployment involves energy, as does spade-work and mathematics; but WHAT is energised can be as different as a wave on which a stone hits, a craftily devised nuclear reaction, or the power supply to the brain. In parallel, HOW energy is utilised in domains of oversight and understanding, is in some spheres wholly above the mere but necessary supply of energy: in some domains, this being susceptible to error and creativity more diverse from matter's plodding performance than is the East from the West.

Accordingly,  a recording of an opera singer in full voice,  by a battery-operated tape-recorder, is energised to enable what is acutely other than itself, in frame, fashion and dimension, enabling it to be maintained as a record - cf. SMR pp. 316Dff.. One is a creative performance; the other its copying mechanics. Energy powers, but WHAT it powers is the crucial point; yet for physics, with material action, THAT it powers was the concept. This Kelvin stressed in the physical domain, as likewise what naturally becomes of the results.

Further to Kelvin's stature was his keen logical insight. Thus in opposing Darwin and the magical non-creationist movement (cf. Ch.8 infra, A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-9), he "did succeed in pressing  his contention that biological and geologic  theory had to conform to the well-established laws of physics." The Second Law of Thermodynamics, like the First, was an undisposable reality, its fields of operation accountable and testable. Life is magnificent, but in physical format, decidedly unmagical. The pathways are to be investigated with equable intelligence, factual prowess and keen-minded attention to detailed interfacing of operational realities.

Kelvin's affirmation of creative power in the name of science relates quite justly, even at that preliminary level, to the fact that its absence results in the actual if frequently very slow ruin of its making, in all fields of observation, in every formulation of verified law. Nature apart from express intelligence,  does not propound that usage of power, expound it, show modes, laws or reticulation for it or equipment correlative; but merely reflects it.

What happens here or there is for this or that reason in this or that setting, where this or that, duly conceived, operates in ways testable, verified or otherwise... Wild speculations which ignore the upward thrust to be found, and the downward deterioration to be seen, in the end are as riotous as irrational, as ruinous to any concept of reality, as imaginative; and being imaginative, as far from material things and physical laws, as are these very speculations far from the operation of all such laws. Kelvin stressed the ways of science in terms of just and faithful representation of action in law.

From this sort of commitment to scientific discipline, dealing devoutly with what is actually found, and constructing from this, hypotheses tested and precise, a growing company has come, such as those mentioned above, and now multiplying hundreds of Ph.D. creationist scientists from Russia to Korea, Australia to the US.
 

Their credentials are impressive, and indeed in the passage of  time, such people include an amazing list comprising many of the most famous of all scientists over the centuries. However, these are almost as nothing compared with the credentials of scientific method, which does not hypothesise what is not found for the sake of accounting for what is, but is industrious in detail and careful in formulating hypothesis and then law to fit facts, not fantasy to fit desire, imagination or contra-evidential philosophy. Hence science has a name, seeking discernible causal interfaces to account for discernible facts, a name which, however, is irrelevant when its method is prostituted, or universes "arise" without sufficient cause, and progress "proceeds" to ever higher matrixes, of matter, mind and spirit, as if law was found only that it might be  joined with logic in a mutual death pact.
 

·  Accordingly, what is NOT seen is a tendency for new and higher organisms developing from already existing ones; what IS seen is a tendency for what is there to be lowered.
 

·  What is seen in nature where intelligence is not currently at work in interference with it, is a tendency for information loss, form loss, function loss, and loss from its loss: not for its arrival like some new-born babe from the winds. The laws merely note the realities. Now to attribute to the things that are seen the opposite of what is seen in them is not only a mighty act of ... faith in itself; it is also and equally an act of irrationalism, demanding from nescience knowledge, from emptiness repletion, from the formless, form, from the uncreative, code, from unreason, reason's implements and from nothing, anything at all. Those who desire this, like some abstract painters in their most existential moments, are free to do this; but NEVER in the name of reason; and certainly, unless science wishes after all its toil, to go on vacation, NEVER in the name of science.

 

Occasionally it is useful to consult common sense. This is of course precisely in accord with what happens to our OWN designs at the physical level, over time: and this by the nature of the case, varied forces operating on sophisticated, carefully thought out objects to their downgrading.
 

6. Has then an array of data which in their general thrust are in confirmation for the theory of organic evolution arrived from various collated and related observational sources, since theory is so unhelpful to it ?
Has evidence mounted
as research increased ?
Has there been a continual confirmation ?

·  Here one could consult the text, The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, esp. Ch.2, and pp. 208-210; 13, 68, 1004-1007, 1027-1031; or works like those of Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial) or Michael Denton (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis).


As Professor Nilsson put it somewhat perceptively, before these writers: 'THE CRISIS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS COMPLETE. As has been shown earlier there is no creation of new species today which are fully vital and able to survive... And it has also now been shown there is no proof of an earlier evolution. The idea of evolution rests on pure belief.'

 

·  So drastic is the negativity which lines up on all fronts, like an army, at the evidential level, that new theories on the universe as a production of nothing, or on new creations

·  arising, as it were, absent-mindedly, constitute the fairy-tale life of many who might sadly contemplate 'native' populations for such myths, while engaging in perfect parallel in their own!

·  In particular we find that:

·  i) in cells (the study of these being cytology), there is nothing primitive at all. The 'lowest' or most lowly are of great
sophistication and exhibit wonderful engineering expertise,
involving complex mathematics, concepts and techniques (cf. SMR op.cit., p. 120).

·  ii) much the same applies in world languages, not IN the cells this time, but in the mouths of human speakers: the primitive are extremely complex (cf. SMR p. 13ff.). Similarly Professor Murray Eden continues the theme to another phase, showing that language is pragmatically obtuse to any thought of wedding it with chance. In this, then, science, nature and observation all multiply agree. (Cf. SMR pp.136ff., 156ff. and *50 on p 252H where Professor Giertych brings in computing simulation on language also, and That Magnificent Rock, p. 246.)

·  iii) civilisations and monotheism likewise show indications of a developing early to great heights, in terms of EVIDENCE. (See SMR pp. 1026-1031C ff..) . In terms of monotheism, there is significant testimony to degeneration into polytheistic diversity and ungoverned erraticism, in something bearing a significant resemblance to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The principle is not however a physical one, but illustrative of the overall governance of discipline in thought and mind necessary to prevent dysfunction, and hence of the effort needed for both sound thought as for its continued expression in sound design.

·  Thus these allied areas, RELATING closely to man as a design, have been anti-verifications of the gradualistic theory... the idea that things slowly and by tiny degrees over vast times turned into something quite different, that this is something amazing about living things.

·  The evidence here is that they are no more inclined that way than is anything else. The idea that things slowly contrived to invent themselves from the simplest beginnings, to the whole structural conceptual, synthetic complexity, that masterpiece of motion and thought, that we now find, just as it dwells in nothing, has nothing to commend it. These elements merely emphasise what was evident from the first, in terms of the evidenced logic and laws of the universe. Help to beleaguered naturalism they give not at all. To get output, you need relevant and adequate input. Just living, simple idling does not contrive it, does not do anything to the point at all.

·  God is not mocked. He was not in the past; will not suffer it now, and will not contrive for it to supervene in the future. It is just that sometimes people take rather a long time to realise that His patience is deep, munificent, unmuddled, unmuddied, and effective.

7. Has then evidence directly relevant to the theory of organic evolution mounted consistently and contentedly to its credit side, at the level of observation ?

 

·  Not at all! In terms of ancient fossils, the area of paleontology, we find Commonwealth Biological Research Institute Director, Dr W.R. Thompson F.R.S. who wrote a forward to a centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, making a quite clear negative statement. Not only in Darwin's day was the lack of paleontological evidence ACKNOWLEDGED BY DARWIN, but 'the position is not notably different today,' says Thompson (SMR pp. 199-200,208).

·  Indeed, Professor Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, a leading biologist of today, has long challenged the academic world, stating that it is NOT a question of gradual change, but of STASIS (a static continuance) which is the thing OBSERVED to a marvel, impactive to the eye where life forms are concerned.

·  Gould did personal research in the Burgess shale deposits in Canada, confirming in detail the ENORMOUS BIOTA (living elements) , the amazing coverage of phyla, of life forms near the earliest basic level of rock (by current theory): the Cambrian. Gould and Eldredge have written voluminously on these things on the topic of continuity with CONSTANCY. They have set forth the new theory of punctuated equilibrium, to stress that the EQUILIBRIUM is the main thing found. They theorised that VAST and SUDDEN change is SHOWN by the rocks, not slow and gradual. As to the method, they vary and remain obscure. There is no clear dynamo to do the job; but at LEAST they are improving things, by sticking to facts in terms of observations. The FACTS, DATA, Gould asserted, MOCKED all gradualism.

A similar startling impact is noted by Dr Gish of Berkeley University (Ph.D. Biology): in the massive suddenness, one might almost summarise it as the dashing ...nature of the fossil appearance, in the field of mammals. He quotes Professor G.G. Simpson of Harvard University to the effect that the ARRIVAL of these numerous forms is like a curtain rising, it is so sudden (*3). Curtains of course are notorious for arising on set stages.
 
 

8. How does that affect the relation of organic evolution as a theory, to scientific method ? (SMR pp. 226, 234, 236, 1031C, 145-161, 931ff., 200, 315C.)

·  IT DESTROYS all gradualistic theories, such as Darwin's, in a stroke.

ANY ONE anti-verification of a theory, in science, if duly tested, ends that theory. You may be able to make another that works; but the theory that failed ONCE, is OUT! It did not work; but scientific theories, whatever else, must work. That is not everything: but it is a minimal beginning!

9. What summary do we have then ? This: a negative finding.

·  There is no direct observational data to show such progressive upward changes AS SOMETHING NEEDING EXPLANATION... And that, we may recall, is precisely what science is expected to attend to! In this case, its leisurely disregard of its very genesis represents an exodus. Scientific method has never been so shamelessly disregarded as in this area of licentious libido, that closes its eyes to the fact, and considers merely the speed of fast theories. NOR has there been found assured confirmatory data in any direction. Instead, there is a direct clash between facts and this theory.

·  Let us emphasise this aspect. SCIENCE explains what it FINDS. Its normal and deftly derived business is NOT to explain what it does NOT find happening, but what DOES happen. What DOES happen is explained in NO WAY by organic evolution. It is explained in EVERY WAY by creation. Creation? We know it. We use it. It is natural to us and we understand much of what it is. It occurs in science in the imagination which breeds a theory for explanation of WHAT HAPPENS. It is found in music, art, literature, architecture, medicine.

·  Creation and creativity is pervasive. Ours is limited. Someone's creativity must transcend ours. It is not operationally exhibited in theory, in practice in our system of nature; it is not possible in our logic by which we think and make our present discussion. We therefore are scientifically OBLIGED to consider super-nature, creativity not enshrined as operational in our system, but merely ON our system, so that it could come to be. In SMR we find that there is verifiability to the uttermost in this area. Scientifically, creation is the only available option. That is the fact. We shall however look further, being inclined not merely to dismiss an error, but to look carefully on all sides.

10. What about antibiotics and bacteria? and radiation bombardment of living creatures such as the fruit-fly Drosophila? Do these attest organic evolution?

·  The variability in such organisms is real enough, as it is in the case of radio-active bombardment of living creatures, such as the fruit-fly Drosophila. DNA is variable when harmed, and deficiencies that can arise may advantage germs, as is the case where there is reduced absorption of antibiotic, just as variation in the proportions of productions can be stimulated: we are not looking at concrete but life. Yet the whole potential inherent in the DNA is at a given stage of design sophistication; and no advance in this is found. See *2 on NOT page to follow. Similarly you could alter the productions of a factory by bombardment, without enhancing its design awards.

·  Amusingly, the fruit-fly Drosophila, chosen for bombardment of its DNA because of frequent new generations, has, it seems, been in vain subject to such treatment since 1947, hundreds of generations being faithfully checked, to find the result in mutations. Hope springs eternal, or in this case, perhaps infernal, in the human heart as a major proclivity of that organ! The utter failure to advance is noted (*3): the failure to gain new forms of new functionality is entire. Variation and impact has not created design advance; and without that, any advantage that may be imagined in special circumstances does not help the necessary elevator-effect.

 

 

11. Yet has the theory of organic evolution been or become a sound stimulus for thought, for research, a gateway to life, uncovering deep wisdom ?

 

·  The opposite rules. As to the many theories now invented, concerning evolution, there is no peace in their mutual contests. None meets the evidence. There have been theoretical paroxysms, upheavals, cries, attacks on and from this and that party of contenders, each pushing some imagined program for evolution; but only too well is each exposed as inadequate by its evolutionary attackers (as they frequently are). Internecine strike within the Camp is both understandable and predictable.

·  Professor Søren Løvtrup is only one of the most recent who has declared the concept of advance by natural selection a myth, contrary to ALLL observation, as well as a deceit, and an improper standard of 'orthodoxy' by which preference is given for research to those holding this concept (and recall, Løvtrup is not a creationist!).

·  Professor Nilsson in his vast work in the area, stated that this gradualistic theory of bit by bit advance over long periods, as the 'growth' method of life was an unutterable failure: that the crisis of the theory of evolution was complete. Professor Goldschmidt of Berkeley Cal., cited in exasperation the facts that condemned such a theory also, and his work was commended by Professor Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, whose work, Wonderful Life, 1991, was an exposé against gradualism. (SMR p. 234; Nilsson, pp. 108ff., 244ff.) Things have come SUDDENLY, he cried, THAT is the evidence. STASIS, stability, continuity, THESE are the observations.

·  Moreover, in the CAMBRIAN period, right near the (theoretical) start, there is not only a vast mass of biota, an amazing assemblage of phyla and varieties, but it enters with prodigious suddenness. It is more than was thought, he declared, proceeding to itemise his own discoveries in the Burgess shale in Canada at the Cambrian 'level'.

·  Meanwhile, Professor Fred Hoyle, Professor of Physics at Cambridge University, has poured vitriolic scorn on the mathematics back of the code- design situation, as having no intelligent background! And pursuing the matter in his book: THE INTELLIGENT UNIVERSE. Nonsense of a high order, he declares, is the concept that this integrated, synthesised, codal complexity of such sensitivity and unified purpose relates to chance. (SMR p.224.)  

·  How, after all, does unsystematic irregularity create law, such as abounds in our own bodies, which is systematic regularity. Dr Michael Denton, Sydney microbiologist has written a work, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (name not unlike Løvtrup's Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth), in which he reasons from extraordinarily detailed evidence to the view that DESIGN is not a possibility: IT IS PRECISELY THIS that we are facing in the labyrinth of code, concept, execution, plan, mathematics, engineering feats that is the DNA.

·  It mirrors our own, only far surpasses it, is interpretable in terms of it, and has a degree of miniaturisation better by millions of times, than anything we create with intelligence. (SMR pp. 116ff.. Cf. pp. 934ff., 101, 254, 299ff. re truth.)

·  As to Gould and Eldredge, who have popularised a concept of 'punctuated equilibrium', the emphasis is on equilibrium, but they derive no dynamo for the SUDDEN rush upward of design they notice to have happened. They see and acknowledge MASSIVE and expeditious CHANGE in living things, and their views move this way and that, in a tension between this fact and their failure to find anything logically or experimentally justifying it!

This is an advance for science, to stress the facts*, though a retardation for the hypothesis of evolution. More on this topic at the social and political level will await a later point. The result however is monotonously the same. The finding required by the facts is negative for the gradualistic theorv of organic evolution.

 

12. Perhaps however there 1S some clear evidence of some organ 'arising' by organic evolution ?

·  Again, far from it. Professor Karl Popper, world-famed expert in scientific method, notes: "Neither Darwin nor any Darwinist has so far given any actual causal explanation of the adaptive evolution of any single organism or any single organ" (SMR p. 198). Indeed, Løvtrup points out that creationists have always been right on the topic of SUDDEN institution of a new creature: bits that don't work over long periods of 'development' are of no value, and the design is inoperative till in place.

 

13. But surely the theoretical expression of the theory of organic
evolution can be sensibly made ?

 

·  NOT in terms of current understanding, declared the Wistar Institute Symposium on Biological and Mathematical Sciences, including Professors from MIT and Paris. The conceptual apparatus, the means of expression are NOT available to give a satisfactory expression in logical order, to this theory: THAT was the finding. The people were evolutionists: but frank. (SMR pp. 128-135;. 111, 252F-S.)

·  Modern exposure, moreover, of enormous complexity in the simplest cell, and almost inconceivable dimensions of billions of interactive elements in a sophisticated whole in the human brain only serve to show the folly of the gradualistic theory from the start. (Cf. SMR pp. 229, 216, 162, 115-116, 132ff..)

 

*Professor Gould deems gradualistic evolutionary views, facing the broad spectrum of Cambrian life models, systematically diverse, teeming, embracive of many categories, advanced, to be 'literally incomprehensible' (SMR p.234). On the Christian perspective, the admitted unscientific and irrational nature of this evolutionary view is nevertheless clearly understandable!: a further verification... (SMR pp. 125-7, 843-8, 103-4, 306-7)!

We return now to where we were a few minutes ago.

 

14. But is there any alternative theory that is not mocked by the
evidence ?

·  Dr Gary Parker (Ph.D. biology, with cognate in geology -paleontology) puts it thus: This new concept of evolution is based on fossils we don't find and on genetic mechanisms thathave never been observed. The case for creation is based on thousands of tons of fossils that we have found and on genetic mechanisms (variation within kind) that we do observe and put into practice every day.(Italics added. SMR pp.160-162.)

 

Certainly there is such a theory such that:

 

·  a) in terms of observation, data constantly and thoroughly are met by the perspective in all fields;

·  b) there is harmony with other scientific and well-established theories or laws, and

·  c) predictions which may be drawn from it, are verified.

·  (Organic evolution, as Prof. Popper of London University points
out, makes no predictions, 1S not a scientific theory - SMR p. 145.)

·  What then is this view - theory or hypothesis, as science might call it, which meets the case so very much better ? What is the approach which holds what the observational and logical evidence requires? What in short meets the case, and ALONE meets it? What covers, then the following actual criteria which MUST be met, if scientific method is to be satisfied:

·  i) WHAT WE SEE does NOT advance in functional design with time (i.e. organisms per se).

·  ii) the way life proceeds, evidentially (*3), does not contain this design-increasing feature: such process is not to be observed in a sequence in place.

·  iii) that information theory rightly does not allow increments of this kind to 'happen' in living materials, that it is contradicted by the concept of gradualistic organic evolution entirely, by sudden chance evolution exceedingly more.

·  iv) that life which we now see is INSTITUTED but continued; is CONSTITUTED already but not progressive beyond the parameters and bounds inbuilt for each kind, and that

·  v) its place as a product expressive of code- making intelligence is to be assigned to another time ... ?

 

What theory, approach, perspective, model meets all these points faithfully and aptly ?

Which one is not NEGATED at any point, by any point, in the data, so that it might be properly used, scientifically, instead of organic evolution ?

·  The approach is called - CREATIONISM. It has all these advantages. In terms of scientific method, it has overwhelming superiority; and organic evolution has no place. It is contradicted by the evidence. Indeed, see SMR pp. 145-146 for a convenient summary of the grounds for categorical rejection of organic evolution as a scientific theory, and acceptance of creationism. One meets the case; the other fails. (See also pp. 935ff..)

·  We shall shortly see, indeed, that there is

·  a) massive concurrence between the three main laws of physics, classically, and creationism; and

·  b) collision for organic evolution at the same level, with

 

·  SCIENTIFIC METHOD. This is the double action reality. Both positively and negatively, there is only one answer. All that is lacking is the will to adopt it.

 

·  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, 135-144,149-150,158-259, 161, 202-203, 208-209, 213, 252A-C, 290, 315C-3l6; cf.332E-G.) The rules are broken in this - that it is not so received.

·  Only over the smoking ruin of scientific method can die-hard fantasies live.

·  There is in fact a metaphysical paralysis of thought which has made the many consider this:

 

·  a) that if PROCESS be not ASSUMED to be the author of process... in the sense that what is CURRENT to the eye is not the father of what is current; or, to put it differently,

·  b) if PRESENTLY OBSERVABLE THINGS or a CURRENT, CONTEMPORARY REGIMEN are not the source of living things, then this is unscientific.

·  That however has nothing to do with science. It merely represents a sort of statistical norm, given the state of the religion of many scientists, of their gratuitous assumptions, and philosophic irrationalities, which they prefer to carry, that EVEN at the COLLISION with scientific method, they WILL not go where it requires. In a strong and vital sense, it is a strike: unconscious perhaps in many, but not at all in some!

·  IN FACT: To LIMIT and REDUCE the scope of hypothesis to some preferred sanctum, some sanctuary hidden free from the face of the requirements of reality: this is

·  a) precisely what science is not, and

·  b) 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. pp. 252I supra, and 332E-G infra, SMR.)

·  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, whichever is uniquely verified - is relatable well to other effective theories, the one suffering no loss to every 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. 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 exclude, then it is merely comedy.

·  The simple fact is this: The LAW of CONSERVATION OF MASS AND ENERGY is exactly in accord with the scientific hypothesis of creation. SO TOO is the LAW OF BIOGENESIS; and so thirdly is the LAW (2nd) of THERMODYNAMICS.

·  Of these: ONE states how life is uniquely and exclusively observed at this time, to come FROM life; another states the situation concerning matter, and its stasis - there is a competency, it is what it is, is not increasing (the view that it was doing so, was thrown out, after some trial by Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge University for example); and the third notes the trend to downgrading of what is already built.

·  Thus it is THERE, without disclosing from WITHIN ITSELF, or any components, collection of components or criteria, HOW it got here. It decreases its specialised specificities, as is normal with our own designs exposed to general conditions which impact on them; and life in particular is derivative from LIFE. This of course is precisely what the Bible said: The things that are seen are not derived from what is visible (Hebrews 1:1-3); their trend is to wear out (Isaiah 51:6), and life was achieved in a specific, distinct creative act, also NOT from within the interstices, powers and properties of other material things.

·  It is quite impressive when the three chief laws of physics are derivable from a Book which has been around in major elements to the point, for nearly three and one half millenia, without revision, without need for it. On the other hand, this is precisely what one would expect from a source which is in fact the Creator of the things that :

1.   are there.

2.   are duly wearing out according to program announced verbally long before, and

3.   incorporate a specific called life which, in our format for it and with the human spirit added, comes only from life as stated at the outset by what you could almost call, for the sake of impact, the Manufacturer. His handbook is an astoundingly good one; and at the level which is appropriate to such a Being.
 

·  It was Professor Tom Barnes (*4) , as Physics Professor of the University of El Paso Texas who conveniently noted these three laws and emphasised their spiritual relevance, and in particular indicated the confirmation of creationism.

·  Not merely indeed are they harmonisable with it: they are close to RESTATEMENTS OF IT! That then, it is not bad for a start.

Instead of collisions such as the Naturalistic Fallacy has in its evolutionism, which are constantly and indeed increasingly the subject of excruciating self-examination by what are perhaps the more sensitive, as also frequently the most eminent of the secularists: instead of such anguish as 'nature from nature' theoreticians experience in their reflections, now often published, there is in the logical performances of creationism, just the opposite. Here, it all fits into place where logic, experimental fact and the due use of scientific method coincide in a methodological trilogy.

·  Comparatively recently the science of INFORMATION THEORY now finds itself also uniquely in accord with the tenets of CREATIONISM in terms of observational data, relative to DNA. The latter is now a major player in the research game and of paramount importance, because of the fact that it, the master crafting code in living creatures, IS an information storing medium par excellence: and axiomatic with information theory is that information tends to be lost, reduced over time: directed or directional energy is required for the opposite trend (*2).

 

 

·  According to Dr Michael Denton, DNA is something in the nature of perfection in its miniaturisation, sophistication and methodology. Thus that other new science, MICROBIOLOGY is also and in overwhelming detail, as Denton shows in his EVOLUTION: A THEORY IN CRISIS, wholly favourable to NON-GRADUAL creationist that does not come by any type of 'chance', be it never so strangely defined. (Cf. SMR pp. 99, Ch. 3, and pp. 218-232, 120.)

 

·  To demand law from chance is simply a contradiction in terms: one IS what the other by definition is not. Observable facts can nowhere be shown to vary from these realities. Paul Davies has taken the 'illogic' (the day seems to demand a new word for it, though the underlying process is old) a step further in now wanting everything from nothing, a step retrograde even from the desperate and slightly humorous yearnings - though poignant - of the ancient Greeks.