CHAPTER FOUR
The Depth,
the Glory and the Grandeur

 

Not very long ago, there came the privilege of discussing some basic topics concerning the Creator of your life and the wonder of it, with a young person in the Pacific region. Truly the internet makes the world like a back-yard - though a particularly attractive one, if the imagination is allowed to rove. It is good at such times to share something of the scenery, the life and the joys of the place.

For now, however, it seems best to share part of the correspondence from this side only, in case it is of help to any, and to stimulate your imaginations and thoughts, as you consider the way for your life. It is - when one is young - sometimes odd that this fact, that one has only one life and that it turns old in a while and is up for review, may not occur forcibly to the mind. Let us then consider the ways of life a little, as was done in response to questions about underlying principles, about creation and evolution, about former times and these, approaches to the Bible and 'modern science' and how they relate. Slight changes have been made, with a few expansions, partly because this is not now a text-only file.
 
 

Knowing your Creator when Young

There are senses in which, if you do not know your own Creator, you have everything to learn. In a way, it is like just starting the computer. It is not that you know nothing beforehand, but that a new sphere of operations arises, with its own demands and provisions. It is like this except - that this world is directly alive to the power of God, where is to be found the knowledge of God, both His wonder and His glory. In another way, it is like an orphan being introduced to his parents - when they are 'discovered' - so changing his state... for the first time. If in addition he/she were alienated from their memory before the discovery, then the change is yet greater.

When however it is the Creator of the power to know itself, who is the One to whom we come for the first time, not merely considering His office or His works, then the transformation is greater yet again. It is more like a man dying of thirst meeting the darting mountain stream in full waterfall display; or a blind man seeing, with sight restored for the first time, seeing in its splendour a sunset of artistic exploitation and wonder: but rather, it is rather like someone blind who did not know this was the case, or that sight existed, being awakened.

The Third Letter, which we take first....

Excerpts are from the reply given to the original enquirer - except that we have now had opportunity to extend these, and update them somewhat, for later readers. "You" refers to the Pacific enquirer.

He queried whether there was some harmony, some underlying principle or procedure which could unite former times with these, former theories with present ones, allow for people doing earlier what now they find different. Was there a basis for the earlier creationist and the current proponent of organic evolution, was there in method some common element? This was the thrust of the query, along with a touch of Hindu interest, perhaps drawn by some kind of "process" and some kind of "unity" which is to be "thought" in some unknown way. IS it unknown? THERE is the query. Since there are rather a lot of people in the Pacific region of the world, and the thrust is on the reply, there is no breach of privacy. There may however be empathy on the part of some, who would share in the reply. It follows, in its extended form.
 
 

FROM THE REPLY:

Now we can look at some of the matters you raise.

·  1. You have opened up some interesting areas. IS there a fundamental principle underlying the mental, intellectual, discursive work of all scholars ? If so WHAT is it ?

·  Actually, what underlies and overlies them all, is their Creator who gave them the power to know anything at all, and in Himself alone gives the power to know as truth and not as reaction; through which alone is any power to compare or discuss anything in reality - all theories included. That is why Chapter 1 of the trilogy, The Shadow of a Mighty Rock (SMR), especially the first 70 pages is so important as a prelude to such discussion.

·  I hope you can find time to read this section of SMR, perhaps printing it off. A substantial part of the rest of this trilogy is an indication in very numerous fields of endless and uninterrupted verifications. After all, if God said it, it should show it.

·  These later chapters show that this is entirely so; and that the tests are most stringent; and that the confirmations of the Bible are not merely adequate, but exuberant with that vitality which is recognisable as life, not dreams. It as if you look for a loaf of bread, and find a backery, for a glass of water and find a reservoir. That in itself is yet a further verification which one finds, in overview, in one place only: the Bible.

·  2. We shall, then, assume this Ch. 1 material, in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, is in view. Now when someone makes assumptions that all things created themselves, or that 'nothing' created them (on that see my Ch. 7, Models and Marvels, in That Magnificent Rock - - this is a simple contradiction in terms; and as I would put it, If you contradict yourself, there is no need for anyone else to do it), reason is evacuated. Here in our State, Paul Davies is talking this way, while admitting as a physicist that a beginning for the universe is indicated.

·  In reality, of course, to create oneself, one has to be there to do it; in which case it is not creation: one is there already. So for whatever else that does not attest itself to be self-sufficient, total means are needed for it and before it.

·  3. The causal basis then ? 'NOTHING' simply will not do (see also Barbs, Arrows and Balms, Item 29); something adequate is required, as always both in science and any logic which is not simply self-contradictory, denying what it uses as it speaks! Giving 'reasons' in the effort to show why causation is not valid would, similarly, be using what you reject, and hence simple self-contradiction.

·  If reason is evacuated in this, then the system of thought is contrary to itself, and has no validity. If however reason is followed, as shown in the Ch.1 of SMR, noted above, then with rigorous finality, God is indicated: the God of the Bible. What then did these two scientists, one of whom was also a preacher, have in common ? A knowledge of many facts, although we must note that a 'fact' as truth is not possible without God, merely a convenient reaction assessment. Both knew plenty of these. They wanted more. Yes that seems to be in common.

·  4. Now you mentioned two people for comparison in their zeal, search for truth and so on: Jonathan Edwards, the renowned preacher in the 1700's in the U.S., one who was also deeply at work in physics; and on the other hand, a modern exponent of organic evolution. He might not normally be regarded as a preacher, but anyone who pushes something with constant force and zeal, and seeks to make others follow this way, may be called a preacher.

·  Of course, there are good and bad preachers, as there are doctors; and some are right in their pronouncements, as are some teachers. But the activity is sometimes taken up by people in science, engineering, geology, astronomy or biology, and the office is quite the same. People may preach what is true, demonstrably true, or demonstrably false. The APPROACH of zestful and vocal desire to bring others to the Way, makes it preaching.

·  Very well: you had two preachers, one a Minister in the 18^th century, famous for bringing people to repentance towards God in Christ, the other a contemporary, notable for doing the opposite.

·  Having identified these two exponents, you thought a comparison might prove fruitful, one for one age, one for another. This seemed possibly to allow some measure of underlying identity of action, which might be discerned in BOTH, you thought.

Each sought to find what was an underlying 'principle' - or 'law' ? But what 'principle' or 'law' has the power to make ? A principle does not create the universe by whatever means. A principle is a descriptive title for the procedure of what is operative. But what of the thing itself which operates ? What of the power ? What of its nature ? A force, after all, is what gives acceleration to matter; and if we mean more, we must find out what is the NATURE of this 'more', of what HAS this force. Evidentially, matter lacks the power to make matter, being merely the repository of laws and procedures, in terms of investigation (cf. SMR pp. 159, 1-50, 137, 315B-316A, 422Eff., Ch.10 That Magnificent Rock (TMR) Chs. 1,8).

What then makes the laws which this, matter, possesses ? The laws cannot do it, for these are merely descriptive titles of what is happening. What is their source ? Why does it happen ? What constrains it so that laws are applicable ? Clearly chaos does not make law, for chaos is merely a term designating its absence. Law in matter, not constructed by matter, requires an immaterial maker of law, or the surrender of discussion. This is because causality is inherent in all thought and language; and if one is to give reason, for example for not believing in reason, then one is invalid at the start, for reason is dismissed, then used, in a vacillatory and self-contradictory fashion more interesting psychologically than logically!

·  5. What then of your aim to show a correlation between science and religion ? It is a good one in itself. It depends on how it is handled. But we shall revert to this.

·  Perhaps therefore instead we might wonder whether scientific method underlay both these men, these 'preachers' in the scientific part of their work ? But as shown in an earlier letter, and seen in SMR Chs.1,3, 5,10, any materialistic, naturalistic approach to what is here before us and viewable, is not following scientific method. Perhaps parts of scientific method underlay their approach at that level ? Certainly, the parts about gathering information concerning procedures discernible, and considering correlations is relevant to any enquiry ... but the part about verification, to the required level of hypothesis presented, this is not found in the modern science-preacher you mention at the necessary level.

·  The hypothesis that what we have and can see and touch, invented itself, slowly or speedily, or that its kind of thing did it, lacks any verification of any kind whatsoever. The precise opposite is what is met with monotonous consistency (see A and F Schools, in A Spiritual Potpourri, for example, and TMR Ch.1). If you want it in some detail like a lecture, see Ch. 1 of That Magnificent Rock. See also SMR pp. 145-151, then on to 162 for a brief summary.

·  The hypothesis, likewise, that ONLY what we can touch and feel and so on, is relevant is pathetic: the hypothesis itself cannot be measured or touched, and is itself in immediate violation of any such nonsensical principle. The idea that ONLY what we describe is relevant is equally nonsensical, because THAT hypothesis is not description, but prescription, not finding what is there but TELLING what we OUGHT not to do. All such things are merely red herrings, clever little ruses. The facts must be faced: all of them. For that SMR pp. 329ff., and 315A-316G, 348ff., and 332E-H are useful.

·  6. Now of course, as to your 18^th century exhibit, or preacher whose way you were investigating in order to compare it with that of your modern science-preacher,: there are two notable people by the name of Jonathan Edwards, father and son, both famous, both living before Darwin for example published. One died in 1758, the other in 1801. They assuredly did not follow the writings not yet made, though ideas of evolution of this kind or that were present with the Greeks, often hilariously ridiculous, as indeed are all of them which try to turn children into mothers, and results into causes, by the flick of the switch of imagination in the dark. The Greeks used to try out fire, or water, or air, or change, or stability - anything at all, seeking to homogenise everything in some way into little pockets of what we find, like someone trying to find out - to use a relevant illustration, whether the human body is REALLY all a matter of the ankle and its developments, or of the neck.

·  It is so childish as to be ludicrous, but perfectly understandable as a sort of reductio ad absurdum, a manifestation of false bases to thought, when people do not realise that the designs and totalities come from what is competent to compose them. It really is most instructive to see these tormented and twisted oddities, which after all, are not different in kind from what Jeremiah rightly denounces for Israel's wanderings in his own day (Jeremiah 2:26ff, with 2:13ff.). Compare SMR pp. 81ff.,
92ff..

·  To revert, then, to Jonathan Edwards, father and son. Normally, I think, further, we would be thinking of the senior one, whose sermons you note. What did he hold on this topic of
creation ? How did this compare with that archetype, Darwin, in his views and method ? That seems to be your underlying question.

·  Simple fiat creation (means - let it be done, from a competent worker! ) is in view, on the one hand; versus - on the other - an unknown beginning (such as Darwin vaguely drifted about in formulating), and an unknown ground for making the things which are to survive; with unknown evidence for the unknown process by which the unknowable results are to be made. The extrapolation is not commendable scientifically.

·  Quite simply, Darwin and Edwards both sought some understanding about what happens, and one contrary to scientific method (Darwin) made assumptions (as in palaeontology) where he admitted the facts did not warrant his view, but embarrassed it, while the other, Edwards who also had some scientific note, did not act in this way. {Said Darwin on palaeontology:

·       "... intermediate links ? Geology assuredly does NOT reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the MOST OBVIOUS AND SERIOUS OBJECTION which can be urged against the theory " - emphasis added, Parker, "Creation: The Facts of Life", p. 94. For further on this, consult earlier letters sent.}

·  In fact, as we read in the work, "The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation" (William Cunningham, 1982, republished Banner of Truth Trust, 1967 - p. 490), Jonathan Edwards was once asked if he could subscribe the Westminster Confession, and replied with pleasure that he did so to the substance of its teaching. One of its teachings, its Chapter 4, is that God created out of nothing, man in particular being a creation, and that he gave an immortal soul to man so created, and that further, man fell to where he is through voluntary sin. There is thus an infinite difference between the two on the topic of creation, correlative to scientific method on the one hand, and to the verificatory substance of the Bible. One rejected both; the other conformed to each.

·  7. Let us then revert to the thought of similarity, correlativity between science and religion. By all means: Biblical religion REQUIRES (as shown in quotations earlier given) TESTING, VERIFICATION. God in Isaiah evidences disgust at FAILURE to compare His words with all others, as to their continual and irresistible accuracy in fact, in prediction, in retrodiction. Science would do well to follow such precepts, and to examine the sort of thing which has this as a feature; and many scientists do. {The list of eminent and indeed markedly innovative scientists who are creationists is long; and after all, Darwin did not invent evolution as a philosophy. John Morris' book, "Men of Science, Men of God", is useful here.}

·  Science does equally well to consider what testable propositions have remained intact, even concerning the physical level (as shown in my first letter with its Web references), for thousands of years; and to consider WHY this should be so, when so many propositions derived by other means last just decades. The source in view ? The Bible.

·  What then ? Underlying possibilities for science and religion both ? yes, this: willingness to observe what happens, to codify and correlate, to formulate hypothesis as to why it does this, and to verify such hypotheses quite ruthlessly, so that nothing is exempted, no 'concessions' are made. If something is anti-verified, like organic evolution and gradualism, so be it. Drop it. If evidence arises, evaluate it, and formulate an explanation and then test that. BOTH are susceptible to this approach: GOD in the BIBLE INSISTING that test be made. In I Thessalonians it says: TEST ALL THINGS. TESTS IN THE BIBLE AND IN 'NATURE', STRINGENTLY APPLIED, LEAD TO RESULTS NOT MERELY HARMONIUS BUT AT THE RESPECTIVE LEVELS OF 'UTTERANCE' - IDENTICAL.

As to test, I shall share just a little here. One of the interesting things Denton makes clear is that NOT ONLY is there an irrepressible leap from design type to design type observationally and palaeontologically, but the same occurs in the appearances of codified sequences in proteins: the protein amino-acid sequences. These are distinct, distinctive, individual, non-sequential from one kind to another (Denton, op.cit. pp.289-290).Actually, the same is true in languages: there is no sequence from 'primitive' to modern in terms of complexity being gained; and the same again is found in cells themselves, the most simple being all but incredibly complex and most challenging indeed to comprehend fully, when you go to the DNA! (SMR 1031C, 13ff., 114ff., 120). We shall pursue the cell case shortly.

Instead of unspeakable divergence from hypothesis, for evolution the case, here we have eloquent convergence and confirmation Biblically. Its many statements and the arrangements actually discovered in the sphere of natural objects are like mirror images, the one of the speaker, the other of the spoken. The mode and the simple datum that "it is there" and is not progressing, are in refined agreement.

For the rest, the death of the gradualistic, naturalistic evolutionary hypothesis is dealt with in more detail in SMR pp. 209-211. Anti-verification is fatal in such cases; and asking MORE in terms of suddenness speaks less of science and more of miracle: which of course is precisely what the Bible indicates as fact. But let us revert to Denton's findings.

So too is the case, he says, in cells: the simplest cell is enormously sophisticated there is, he points out, nothing remotely like evolution in the whole universe of cells, any more than in that of code-directed sequences, or of the substantial exhibits of different design types. Discontinuity is the evidence. This, says Denton, is the empirical reality available to observation.

You will see some reference to this in SMR pp. 1031C, 120-121; and to the mammalian explosion resembling the Cambrian one (on current geological approaches) on p. 236 (cf. p. 203 summary and methodological aspect).

The information correlatives of these things, the data, the language, the concepts inherent in the commnands, via code, these are prodigious, and if they now thought to 'arrive' with explosive suddenness, then not merely are plans needed, but power in a cohesive and minutely appropriate form to implement those plans, which then as now, do not act by magic, but by cause, contrivance, sophisticated assembly-line techniques. Specification codes, command codes, executive codes in robust multitudinous marvels are just a biological way of saying it. It mirrors: 'God said and it was done'.

You cannot HEAR the command at this distance; you can however see its symbolic significations. In such a field, no more intimately precise verification (for that is this area) could be seen.

·  8. WHEN the test is made there is no difficulty in the comparison. Verification for creation by direction of what is sufficient, the One who is sufficient (SMR Ch.1) is available consistently. Language, order, contrivance, imaginative correlations, synthesis of order and energy provisions, code and maintenance procedures, conserving and proliferating structures, editing and conserving constraints, packaging for preservation and for the proliferating new cells, all is needed, and needed at once on this basis. THAT simply happens to be PRECISELY and in DETAIL JUST WHAT the Bible stated.

·  Evolution did not occur; is not occurring. Gradualism rejects facts. Magic rejects logical principle. Creation however did occur, and is not doing so now. As with Jesus Christ the man, there is simply no comparison in power, predicted events, performance, plan, purpose, age-old plan revealed in advance and so forth. See Ch. 6 SMR.

As God puts it in Jeremiah 23:28, concerning His words and 'competition':

"What is chaff to the wheat ?"

 

·  9. Now as to Hinduism, a point that appears to interest you: that or point concerning it, is discussed in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock (SMR) on pp. 48-49,995-1008, 1012-1014, with relevant principles in view on pp. 269-332. It has of course many 'gods', which is an impossible situation at this level, as shown in pp. 1-70 and elsewhere (SMR): they are busily evolving into this or that, and in their quarrels they certainly cannot speak with authority of what is.

·  In this religion, components of what is seen are set in a literary format, and what is the declaration of the Creator of all ? of the One who is over all and above all and on whom all is founded and by whom all is maintained (as shown op.cit.) ? Why, He is not around with speech. Test is not around. That is the situation there. Verifiability is not around. Logical conformity to the requirements of reason is not around. It does not help in any correlation with science therefore; or with logic: and as to the case without logic ? we have already looked at that. Philosophical errors in view in that religion are looked at in Ch. 3 SMR, and in Ch.10.

 

·  10. Now we come to your point: "Science and religion are merely mediums for ideas." By what means, however, do we get THAT idea ? Is this view found then by science - as a medium for
ideas ? or is it by religion, allegedly a medium for ideas ? If they are MERELY media for ideas, how do you get the truth with which to say that this is so ? From 'mere' media ? But then, by your own definition, they could not produce it, being a medium only... Of course, culture merely is a shroud around what is being produced, and people have to produce it, or find it from God Himself (what I call "meta-religion" - see A Spiritual Potpourri, Ch. 15, *1. See also Barbs, Arrows and Balms Item 7, Can You Be Absolutely Sure? ).

·  If, however, culture is the determinant of truth, what is the determinant of culture ? If people are the determinant of culture, what is the determinant of people ? If people have the truth, why not admit it: but where did they get it from ? If however they do not as such have the truth, neither does culture. Similarly, if all things are relative, flowing uncertainly through media, how do you know that THIS is absolutely sure, how COULD you, without absolute contradiction.

·  Hence the assumption in this statement is self-contradictory and not to be bought. You have to transcend it, to say it as truth. IT ASSUMES A SOURCE OF TRUTH IN RELEGATING SOURCES. But how can you do this, except the truth be there with which to say it ? Absolute truth PLUS access to it is necessary to exist if one is to make such assertions; and if one does nevertheless do so, logically it is then on THAT basis. However, if that be so, then all is NOT relative, but as absolute truth directs.

 

·  11. Actually, you would do better to say this: scientific method gives an ordered way of securing operational knowledge, making hypotheses, testing them and adjusting the hypothesis constantly towards conformity to observation, correlation with other such hypotheses, and so on. It cannot by itself give the truth as such, but it can constantly conform to the criteria in its field.

·  Science and religion can both be admitted to the field so treated, and the results should conscientiously be considered. When this is done, creation is indicated, and a creator should thereupon be sought in terms of this evidence. This is the logical and evidential reality shown in our Web pages.

·  Also, the underlying principles of thought should be considered, so that contradictory procedures are not used, self-defeatingly. Hence when logic is followed (Ch 1 SMR e.g.), the evidenced reality of God is met by the logical necessity; and when science is followed within the creation, the same basic reality of a deposit of knowledge and intelligence and form and structure, with mobilities evidentially limited, is found. It is soberly amusing to watch Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the century's most notable Cambridge scientists, stressing this. To that extent, his scientific methodology was good. The ULTIMATE source of this too, is needed.

These things cohere, correlate, are testable, verifiable. If reason is followed, only one result is obtainable. If reason is neglected, in a reasoned exercise, this is self-contradiction, a contradiction in terms, unsystematic thought. If then it is followed, the one underlying reality is God; and the question is simply this: has the evidence been acknowledged or not ?

If then the 'books' of nature and of God are of one disposition, then you have not so much an underlying as an overlying fact. The attestation in words and that in deeds, these act as one. THERE IS YOUR ONENESS.

The human race also is one, a conscious correlative, a creation; He is another: a consciousness imparting Creator. Companionship with God is another step; and through that there is another division:

·  a) Creator,

·  b) creature,

·  c) co-operative creation. All is OF one, all are diverse kinds; some are WITH One. (See Also SMR pp. 329-332H, 315C-316G.)

 

·  12. Now we come to your ideas that the view of the modern scientist you note, is based on logic, Edwards on faith.

In the ways shown, it would seem better to say this: naturalistic evolutionism does not achieve scientific validation, so that it is not founded on scientific method; nor does logic support it. It is founded on faith contrary to factual evidence. Edwards' views were likewise founded on faith constrained by factual evidence; but not limited to that. They accorded in this field with logic, evidence and testimony from the two sources, the deeds, the universe, and the words, the Bible, each of which accorded with the other.

When

·  a) the religious testable material is uniquely vindicated (see e.g.Ch. 8 on prophecy, and Ch.9, as well as foregoing considerations) and

·  b) it is wholly in concord with the evidential realities tested as to natural procedures,

then though faith is indeed still required, since to know God is to know the invisible (Hebrews 11:1-3); it is a wholly logical faith.

 

·  13. For my part, I should go further. Reason will never make anyone come to God (cf. Ephesians 4:180-19). It can only show the illogical character of any failure to recognise His power, His position and His word (though of course this can have ramifying effects!). A person can then say: O.K., but I do not want Him. The reason ? It could be that the person feels ...

·  a) too important

·  b) too needy of pleasures as desired or

·  c) in need of name or fame, or being AUTONOMOUS or whatever (not that that can be done, death being so difficult, and birth not of any choice, but some like to feel like that). For that reason, 'I do not have faith', someone might say.

Surely this is so. But then, that is not a LOGICAL rejection, but a PERSONAL one. (Cf. Questions and Answers 1, Barbs, Arrows and Balms, Item 14, for dialogues on this area: it is of the most fundamental importance.) As indicated with reason in SMR, not only is God a logical option, He is the logical necessity; and in particular, not some culturally conditioned stab at what 'god' may be, but some evidential and reasoned necessity that He is there and operative, whether we like it or not; and has spoken in one distinct place as becomes one distinct being. Similarly, the code language in 'Nature' is, in precise conformity with all this, JUST ONE! You will perceive this in terms of 'chaos' on the one hand, and The Almighty SPOKE and it was DONE, as the Bible expresses it, on the other. ONE form, formula, format, methodology involving command, code, conceptually intertwining co-ordinated and co-operative constructions is of course to be expected from one mind making with supreme magnificence of intelligence, many things; but not from the mindless exponent of nothing. As noted in Barbs, Arrows and Balms, in some detail, "Nothing Doing from Nothing". In more formal manner, it is likewise shown in That Magnificent Rock, Ch.7.

Culture then becomes simply the permutations and combinations, expression socially or personally of the options which freedom (made by God - see Predestination and Freewill, Part 1, and SMR Ch.5 and Ch.3). confers on this human race: and this whether from the private thought world, or where it is a social chatter matter, an interactive format.

 

·  14. Biblically, and in terms of Jesus Christ, the problem is sin; the unifying is not absent but the willingness for it, frequently is. Diversifying from the plan, program, pattern and personal expression of God leads to disaster. Liberty becomes licence, freedom autonomy and autonomy (as desired) fiction. Fiction does not work.

·  The static is sin; the deliverance is salvation, the means for it, justice, provided through mercy. The plan, announced thousands of years ago and fulfilled by Jesus Christ at the date predicted, is this: His life is made a sacrifice for the life of each who receives it for meeting justice; and when this is accepted by faith, then the LIFE is regenerated, through constructive mercy. The sin is forgiven. (Hebrews 8:12, II Corinthians 5:19-21, Galatians 3:10-13, I Peter 2:22-24).

·  It is thus that the static is quieted. Correlation on the grandest scale at last arrives: that with God. He does not dither. He is very direct. He does not reject: He who comes to Me shall not be cast out, said Jesus Christ. Some tend to treat Him as a plaything (here I am, no I'm not -I think I'll come and receive you... No I won't!); but it is a very dangerous game, as one sees when looking at the end of Matthew 7 - for example in verses 21-23. Some like to laugh at God, but as Psalm 2 shows, this can backfire.

·  The ultimate unity between man and God is that of someone made capable of fellowship with Him, actually achieving this. And how ? By the method proposed by the Creator in the attested book. It cannot be altered any more than the laws of physics - and indeed, less than these, can it change. Men may change, but what God says has His imprimatur. Your impression of a book may grow or change; but the author has actually WRITTEN IT.

·  The Gospel or good news from God concerning what is His way for a race in our own situation, one which He made: it is simple, but profound. (See The Everlasting Gospel, in Barbs, Arrows and Balms.) Its basis is uttered, not conjectured. Thus John 3:15-18, 8:58,10:9,27-28, Galatians 1:6-9, 3:10-13, II Corinthians 5:17-21, Isaiah 52:7-53:12 all give a straightforward expression of it, and emphasis is laid on its incorrigibility, intransigeance if you like, sovereign disposition and deposition from the Almighty.

·  When He is received as required, the life is then nourished as is the mind, and the spirit.{For more, and more attestation on this topic, see "That Magnificent Rock" on our Web Page, Chapters 2 and 3; and SMR pp. 520-532.)

Before we leave this, let us note that while earlier Ages of history are indeed past, their significance is not. There is much to learn. Mistakes made can be a tutor.

But it is not only in the realm of Ages of history that mistakes are made. They are made also in different ages of a single person, boyhood/girlhood, youth and young adulthood, middle age and old age.

As to youth with young adulthood, it is a time in which a declaration of independence may be made, from one's family, or church, or nation, or from God... As we have seen, this is unwise in the last case at least. It is superficial simply to cast off that from which one has come, though in some earthly cases it may prove necessary. With God, however, it is mere tragedy, for autonomy is illusion, God is real, and separation from Him is a dream that does not have a happy ending, since it is founded on absurdity and leads to the same, which, when occurring in sober reality, has the aspect of hell; the more so, when there is no hope; and worse still when the action is in the face of the opportunities of reconciliation with God and liberation from sin which are in Christ Jesus.

 

Let us therefore complete this word, with the word of God as found in Ecclesiastes 11:

v           "Rejoice, O young man, in your youth,

v           And let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth;
Walk in the ways of your heart,
And in the sight of your eyes;

v           But know that for all these
God will bring you into judgment.
Therefore remove sorrow form your heart,
And put away evil from your flesh,
For childhood and youth are vanity."

The meaning is that IN and OF themselves, these youthful exuberances of life when it has its greatest latitudes and opportunities, maximum resilience and much time to be expected, are merely an empty show, a preparation for what Ecclesiastes 12 so graphically shows as age creeps in. What is necessary is the knowledge of God, who made life that begins, and man in His image to experience such a beginning with reflection, and made the way for fellowship with Himself. If this is not taken, vanity indeed, empty uselessness is the ultimate result.

The message is precisely as Jesus put it, then, and it is what is found in REPENT OR PERISH, in Item 11 of the Silent Sermon, at the entry near the end of our Home Page. Toying with God and trifling with truth are dead options that lead to more than death. Life is sacred in the Lord and must be found in His life (John 17:1-3), through His sacrificial provision to cover the sin which obscures the way that leads to eternal perfection at the summit prepared for those who are His. NOT TO BE HIS is a negation of His mercy, and of Christ's sacrifice so stupendous in implication, that it is enough to render a life "vain".
 

·   

LETTERS 1 and 2: These are provided for any who want more background information on the topic in view.

Points from LETTER ONE:

In the interim, here are some pointers to the question you pose. These could serve as an introduction. There is a view, currently strongly held by some in our Government in South Australia, that religion does not deal with facts, rather with meaning statements, legends, values and so forth; while science deals with facts, so that the two are like two old friends, nodding away together as they look at life, in perfectly happy and harmonious agreement, each seeing the specialty, each appreciating the other's ... line.

Such a view has a little merit, perhaps, in some contexts, but none in other; and it is miscast as a generalisation completely. Thus in order to decide what a religion IS, you need to examine what it says, and what happens in terms of what it says. I once did this in a Senior High School course, with some amazement on the part of some; but why not?

If it declares some things to be so, let them be tried, like a glider.
It soars or crashes; so be it. As the Bible says, TEST ALL THINGS. If it does it, that is impressive; if it doesn't, that isn't. The more it claims, the better the test. Christianity's claims are total; the test is superlative therefore. It is most searching, the areas designated making it most vulnerable, all good grist for the mill; for what is strong can stand, and what being vulnerable by vast assertion, does nevertheless stand, is shown all the more in its strength. Professor Karl Popper rightly emphasised this aspect in his Conjectures and Refutations (cf. SMR pp. 307ff.).

Of course, some religions are indeed about legends, to some extent at least. Nevertheless, as my work, The Shadow of a Mighty Rock* points out, in terms of the evidence, often the ONE GOD lies behind and beyond; and is known before the movement to polytheism (op.cit., pp. 1026-1031). Fascinating new work on this is found in the magazine Creation, June -August 1998, pp. 50ff., concerning the montheistic background in China, to which of course Confucius in his very indirect way, gives attestation also.

{*This work and my others cited, are available at our current site, http://webwitness.org.au/smr/bookmap.html.)

One religion however, the Christian, is not at all of this kind imagined kind. Its whole emphasis could not be more oriented to fact, test and evidence (cf. SMR pp. 208-211, 931ff., 1139ff.., esp. 1147, 984ff., Chs.2-3, 8-9 and TMR Ch.1). Hence that generalisation is simply unscholarly and inaccurate, which would put all religions into the same category in this regard: rather like making all living creatures to have femurs, because some do! One can of course attempt a critique, but if one is simply categorising, this is wholly imprecise.

Christianity very emphatically deals with FACTS, as shown repeatedly in the words of Christ and of John; of Isaiah, of Moses, of Jeremiah. One of the classic illustrations is found in Jeremiah 45:10-29, another in Isaiah 34:16, again in Ezekiel 26, esp. v14, Matthew 5:17-20. Isaiah 41,48 shows the principle of test, test, test! It could almost be a science laboratory. USE YOUR MIND AND LOOK, appears as one of the foundational principles of Christianity, as of its forebear in the Old Testament, which indeed predicted Christ in great detail, to come (cf. The Everlasting Gospel, in Barbs, Arrows and Balms).

But let us revert to the Jeremiah passage just noted. Here, the prophet back in the vicinity of 600 B.C., is dealing with some of his most obstinate, garrulous and disobedient countrymen. They have asked for help in the name of the Lord, and Jeremiah, despite their past rebelliousness from their God... has granted the request. He approached the Lord concerning their plea for help. They, for their part, stated they would be willing to do whatever the word of the Lord would be. When however, it was actually given to them by Jeremiah, after some little time, they blankly refused to carry it out saying:

• "We will certainly do whatsoever thing goes forth out of our own mouth".

That little speech lacked as little in clarity as in defiance. The reply from the Lord included this statement of test: they would know, when God had done exactly as He said He would do,

• "whose words shall stand, mine, or theirs" (Jeremiah 44:28).

Notice the point: it is a test. We shall see how it transpires in the laboratory of history, over which God is stating, He maintains a superintendence so complete, that what He says will infallibly come to pass. (This does not in the least reduce human responsibility, but rather increases it - see SMR pp. 424ff., and further in that chapter, and if you are really interested, Predestination and Freewill.)

Isaiah likewise has this generic statement:

• "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer... who frustrates the signs of the babblers, and drives diviners mad, who turns wise men backward, and makes their knowledge foolishness, who confirms the word of His servant, and performs the counsel of His messengers..."

Likewise in Isaiah 41:21-25, 43:8ff., and 48:1-8, you see a dramatic declaration of God's speech as the one which alone is verifiable amongst those who declare what shall be, who cover the course of things; and this in competition with all others who, contrary to Him, make their efforts with their created brains, in the created world, to declare over the top of the mind of their Maker what it is, what it has been or what it will be. Prediction (and for that matter, retrodiction - the spelling out of what HAS been in the distant past) is a fascianting test for claimants, the easier to 'vet', the more outstanding the claims, since even where direct evidence it not present, implications very frequently are.

When the test is PERFECTION, it is made much easier; and in scientific method there is a sense in which this is so. ONE failure in a theory, in the realm of verification, ONE case where it does not the facts, is fatal. Organic evolution has been in this position often enough for the whole concept to be hilarious. It writhes and turns and twists with ever new formulations, but all lack evidence, all are contrary to evidence, and new proponents often justly criticise old exponents. (See SMR pp. 145ff., Ch.2, and TMR Ch.1; together with A Spiritual Potpourri, Chs. 1-9.)

Thus CHRISTIANITY has a tremendous emphasis on evidential reality, testable propositions. This does not replace faith. It is a reasonable basis however.

Again in Acts 4:20, we read: -

• "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard";

while in Acts 1:3, Christ is declared to have been shown alive by "many infallible proofs"; and in John 8:38, we find:

• "I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father",

similar to John 3:32. Indeed, look for that matter at Deuteronomy 13:1ff.! If a prophet gave non-factual statement of what would be, he would be put to death. The presumption of so using the name of the Almighty was a debased form of contrary religion. THAT is the nature of Christianity: factual, testable, almost provocatively insistent that NOTHING said in the name of God, in the Bible, has even the slightest chance of being false, since it is the word of the Almighty (Matthew 5:17-20, cf. SMR Appendix D).

That, then, is the method of testing, requiring factual, evidential verification. It is indeed, you will find, carrying the matter to the extreme, if you read the Matthew passage just cited; but then, if GOD indeed is speaking, why not! He is not given to error. He backs His word without limit, as you have now had opportunity to see both in the New and in the Old Testament, and especially from the mouth of Jesus Christ. Indeed, on the score, consult John 14:11:

• "Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves!"

Still on implications, with a social aspect, look at Matthew 7:24-2!

Is there reason therefore, to contradict the Bible with its clear statements on creation (cf. That Magnificent Rock, Appendix 1), as is the case with the modern scientist whose views you note ? Is the evidence vanished ? Is the evidence for the substitute propositions valid ? Does scientific method ordain it ? Let us consider.

Thus:

·  1. It is NOT in fact the case that there is any harmony, that there are spheres of influence, backyards that meet, mere neighbours, in the case of the type of preaching-science you note, and religion, WHEN science (read "some scientists") says something in contradiction of the Bible. 'Science' and religion do not so relate, when that religion is in accord with this same Bible.

·  MANY scientists, great ground-breakers and famous, new and old, believe the Bible and creation. It is not SCIENCE but preacher-scientists of ONE TYPE which is in view, and the Bible on the other. It is quite fascinating, just to mention some of the classically famous scientists, that Newton, Kepler, Maxwell and Faraday: these were all creationists, Bible believers, just like von Braun today.

·  If you would like a collection of such names, it is readily obtainable (see some later in this, below). Korea is full of such Ph.D.'s and many have held most prestigious positions, like Professor W.R. Thompson, formerly Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control at Ottawa (cf. SMR pp. 199-200) and metallurgist author and Professor, E.H. Andrews, B.Sc., Ph.d., D. Sc., F. Inst. P., F.I.M., Professor of Materials in the University of London, formerly Dean of Engineering at Queen Mary's college. The cleavage is not science v. religion, but preacher-scientists of ONE type versus religions of legend on the one hand, or versus the Bible of test-orientation, on the other. Mysticism is really, properly defined, found in the science-preacher anti-Bible kind, since their whole case rests on what does not happen, finds no relief from logic, or analogy in principles, being further, contrary to known law. All this is shown in detail in the above references.

·  God does not replace effort - as in science. Nor, however, does effort replace God.

·  2. There is straight competition. That is not too amazing, when you read the texts books in science of 70 years ago, and consider to what extent they have endured, or of 1900 and wonder, smile, and put them away, in many things... and then consider the inability to successfully contradict the Biblical statements up to 3500 years old, and quite precise!

·  3. Your scientist noted, evidently a popular science writer, has given theories on the evolution of the brain, on the origin of life and so forth; and obviously is infinitely displaced from the view of the Bible that God CREATED all things, as expressly stated in unconfusable Greek, in Colossians 1, for example, as in Hebrews 11:1-3, where they are from the INVISIBLE TO the VISIBLE.

·  4. The only things lacking in the theories of organic evolution are:

 

·  a) the evidence for basic jumps in kind.

·  b) the logic for it. (Interesting here is Sir Karl Popper's statement: "Neither Darwin nor any Darwinist has so far given an actual causal explanation of the adaptive evolution of any single organism or any single organ." Cited SMR p. 145. Popper, notwithstanding this statement, is a radical evolutionist...)

·  c) the means for the same.

·  d) the laws governing the same.

·  e) the scientific method by which such a view is to be chosen rather than that which conforms with the evidence: namely that what is here to be seen is NOT a case of advancing in design, but one of design tending to disrepair and decline, precisely as noted in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (See The Shadow of a Mighty Rock pp. 113-116, 135, 252E-G.)

·  f) the ground for all things entering into existence, showing how they could, in the face of the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.

 

What is present is the Biblical statement which is entirely attested in the 3 most basic laws of Science, Biogenesis and the 2 just mentioned (SMR pp. 329-332H). These represent a virtual scientific style STATEMENT of what the Bible teaches. This brand of preacher-science merely DREAMS - in other words, a number of fashionable scientific theories relay dreams of what some think could have happened, MINUS means and evidence at the relevant level, and contrary to logic. This is mysticism of the worst kind, a form of religion that is too self-pre-occupied even to realise that fact, contending with a form of religion so scientifically verifiable as to be authentic and austere by comparison; and indeed altogether when all the facets are considered as in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock.
 

DETAIL:
 

·  a) For detail on this matter of life and scientific method: remember that you can see The Shadow of a Mighty Rock and other cited titles of mine at http://kern.com.au/users/wwww on or from the home page available by hyperlink. SMR has a page counter at the top allowing quick movement to pages. Here then are some: - pp. 145ff., 179ff., and 931-943, as well, of course as Chapter 2, starting at p. 102. The forecast of Christ's death date is also of special interest, and if you are interested, we could consider that from the same book also. You will see it in the index under Messiah, esp. at pp. 886ff..

·   b) Of course, to the point of your query: it is true that Jonathan Edwards, a preacher and indeed a College President, was interested in science, and we are told he "exhibited deep insights into physics, meteorology, and astronomy, far in advance of his time." What was that time ? 1703-1758. What is the time of the modern scientist you note - the middle and some of the latter part of this century would relate.
By that time, however, much had been shown on the inability of Darwinism to find the procedural laws in genetics or the palaeontological evidence to support his claim.

·  Thus instead of there being some similar principle that each of the two notables you mention followed, the earlier one was following both the Bible and scientific method with outstanding harmony, and the more recent one is following neither with substantial disharmony not only with religion, but with scientific method.

·  c) Nor has a verifiable alternative been found, as theory after theory has been formed, seemingly in desperation. Hope instead of evidence, confusion of issues of mutation and variation instead of elevation of design level, was not really much of a testimony to real zeal. There is a zeal, as Paul puts it, which is NOT according to knowledge. There is a brand or variety of "science" which is "science falsely so-called" (II Timothy 6:20-21). It neither attests itself from facts to theory, nor from theory to verification, but in its magical constructions (see SMR Index on Evolution for such aspects, including that of magic, and in Barbs, Arrows and Balms, in The Aviary of Idolatry).

·  A book which shows the cumulative failure of this theory, for example, is found in Michael Denton's magnificent production: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. As he rightly says,

• "The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature."

·  (That is p. 353. Denton, incidentally, is not a Christian or assuredly was not one when he wrote this book.)

·  d) It is true that some of the fascinating evidence he produces is from recent microbiology, but as he shows, this merely is something of a culmination to evidence long available in other fields. As noted, Professor W.R. Thompson, noted scientist who was Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control at Ottawa, wrote on this topic. This was as early as 1956 (Everyman No.811) in an introduction to a new Edition of Darwin's Origin of Species.

·  In this, he painstakingly showed the complete failure of the theory in terms of scientific method. You may be able to obtain this. As in politics, so in science and in religion, many take up "positions" and remain with them most zealously, despite the realities. Hope as such, however, is not reality.

·  THAT is one of the fundamental principles for which you seem to be seeking. REALITY attests itself and is verifiable in various tests, and anti-verifiable is the status of unreality. Logical cohesion is another, and careful observation and systematisation - not suppression but expression - is another. Whether in Nature, what God made, or in theology, what God expressed in personal format to personal man, COHESION and TRANSCENDENCE is what is found. Thus all He says is NEVER successfully able to be contradicted, and He says much more concerning Himself which ONLY HE could know. It is the same when we talk: you know a little of me, and if I told you more there would be phases which by the nature of the case (apart from God) ONLY I could know.

·  You test the knowable and then consider the part you cannot test. Whatever it is, it either works or it does not; meets test or does not; shows its authenticity in its competence under all circumstances or it does not. In the case of the Bible, thousands of years of test in multitudes of cases, under masses of situations, reveal only workability, accuracy. (See on method, here, SMR pp. 316Bff., and TMR on Validity.)

·  As shown in SMR Chs. 1,3,10 moreover, there is a logical necessity that it be true, based on what can be known. Disinclination does not constitute ground for rejection, except psychologically. If truth is the quarry, here it is; and its focus is personal, Jesus Christ, who in that same Bible states, I AM THE TRUTH (John 14:6). The special tests accorded Him were numerous! (Cf. That Magnificent Messiah, in Biblical Blessings, Appendix 3, and SMR Ch.6, pp. 936ff., and 1139ff..)

As Louis Pasteur said, when showing the falsity of the concept of spontaneous generation of life in terms of any evidence: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment." Referring to a drop of water verifying his statements, he said:

"I watch, question it, begging it to recommence for me the beautiful spectacle of the first creation. But it was dumb, dumb since these experiments were done several years ago; it is dumb because I have kept it from air, from life, for life is a germ and a germ is life." (Life is transferred (Law of Biogenesis, dealing with observable happenings as base) from prepared particles, now seen to involve DNA, programmed code, implied concepts and the like, language and logic (cf. SMR Index on logic, thought, language). Pasteur, without having our detail, had the principle clearly, and usefully showed how it worked in his famed experiments.)

Incidentally, one of the authors of the book citing this on Pasteur, Professor Slusher (Physics) of El Paso University, has done some excellent work in this area himself, lecturing worldwide, and in books. The confusion, as in the case of Stanley Miller, who put some chemicals together and used electrical discharges to see whether "life" would form is all too obvious.

Thus the designed laboratory REMOVAL of chemicals being formed in this experiment was crucial to the result. In this way, the forces worked in the absence of what was a negative force to destroy what was being created, UNLESS they were systematically and carefully drained off. They were!

Again, life was not in fact formed in this experiment. Further, what was formed lacked even DNA, duplicative power; it lacked vital power. It was a prelude to what is used in life; as is air. It really was not very scientific, hope, once again, replacing fact.

The fact is that as to life, it did not happen. A fascinating and extensive series of videos on this area, expertly presented and known world-wide, indeed used in a Canadian High School where they were created, is available in Australia and U.S.A. through Creation Research in Capalaba Queensland, and now also in the U.S.. Called The Search for the Origin of Life, it itemises much more here. If you want it, I can let you know more concerning this.

·  e) What then of the comparison you propose between Jonathan Edwards and the modern scientist in view ? It would rather be a case of great passion in each party, and considerable knowledge; but it would not be the case of USING all that was available! As Professor Karl Popper, perhaps the world's most advanced thinker in a secular University (that of London) put it: "Can there be a law of evolution ? ... I believe the answer must be 'no'."

·  It is accepted by faith. Popper knew this. He liked it. That of course in that way was a religious and not a scientific phenomenon, since it appealed, without foundation.

·  f) I find that in science that is not good enough. You have to find the theory which

·  i) is verified by the facts and

·  ii) is not anti-verified at all.

The Cambrian Age at once anti-verifies all gradualism, and led to many scientists who remain evolutionists, as evidence mounted, deciding it all had to happen quickly. You then began to get the phenomenon of evolutionists lambasting other evolutionists as obscurantist, and so forth, because they did not face the evidence. This of course was true. What was also true was this: that the evidence provided no sign of the power in natural objects to invent themselves from nothing, or to invent design increases - let alone quickly. The equipment was not there; the evidence was not there. No laws were there. It is indistinguishable from a dream.

You may care to look up our site at NEWS, and see Item 12. This gives a short coverage.

·  g) Zeal, then, and knowledgeability may indeed both be shown in both your cited individuals, the 18^th century preacher, and the preacher-scientist in the modern genre, the Bible attacking sort that may justly be called 'dreamers', and as we have shown, with references provided, followers of 'magic'. Of these I am not and logically cannot be one.

·  Nothing however remotely synonymous occurs in their search for meaning and purpose in life. One follows what is available in word and work of God, the Bible and the universe, squarely. It appears that one fictionalises without warrant, and does not accept the read-out of scientific method, rather building thought on hope; even, indeed, when there is no way anyone without access to absolute truth could find meaning anyway.

·  It would only be reaction of 'man' in such a case, of apparatus of unknown scope, in an unknown medium, indicating what the apparatus was suitable to exhibit; which was unknown - an exercise in vanity, as far as MEANING is concerned; and much more so, for PURPOSE! See Ch. 3 (pp. 251ff.) in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, and in particular here, read pp. 100-101, *30,*31, Ch. 1. What is not the truth cannot invent it. What lacks it cannot have it . Reaction is not reality. It must receive it where it is to be found. "What works" is not "WHY it works", or "the MEANING of the fact THAT it works". Put differently, you cannot PRESCRIBE when you merely DESCRIBE. What happens is indeed, NOT what the organic evolutionists attest. In this, therefore, they are doubly removed from their goal.

·  h) As to the impacts on society, see The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, pp. 231-234, 179-182, 844-845, 999-1002B. Depending on the case, the effect is here likened in similarity to that between light and darkness, historically and socially, not to say personally; and some of the reasons for so saying appear there.

·  Rather, I would in such a case where two such diverse scientists and thinkers are in view, in terms of any substantial parallel, put the DIVERGENCE relative to METHOD. For the two passionate and knowledgeable people, one is constrained to express the comparison in terms of CONTRASTING their findings as well as their methods.
 

Points from Letter 2

 

I should like to share some more thoughts with you in the area you queried.

·  1. DARWIN said this - as cited by Gary Parker, in "The Facts of Life" (CLP Publishers, San Diego Cal., 1980, p. 54):
"To suppose that the eye {with so many parts working together}... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Brackets added, present within Parker quotation from Darwin.)

·  And that? Is it a theory compelled by the facts ? a scientific hypothesis which is stirred into being by the facts ? It would be difficult to imagine anything more contrary to what Darwin here says, himself.

Moreover, as cited by Michael Denton in his "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" , who starts each of his chapters with quotations from Darwin, without much help to Darwin! - Darwin said this also:

• "Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor." (Head of Denton's Ch. 14, p. 326.)

Further, Denton (also on p. 326) cites Darwin in a letter to Asa Gray, the American biologist, as follows: "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." Indeed, he does this while talking of "organs of extreme perfection". A 'cold shudder' certainly does not suggest the objective scientists carefully constructing an exact hypothesis with flair and insight, to meet the facts, when he is being CONSTRAINED BY the facts! It suggests precisely the opposite, a die-hard theorist haunted by facts! Or again, (also cited from Darwin by Denton, top of Ch. 13, p. 308):

• "He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly... will further be compelled to believe that many structures beautifully adapted to all the other parts of the same creature and to the surrounding conditions, have been suddenly produced... To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science."

Yes, it is DARWIN speaking. And this is precisely what is being forced on science by the numerous discoveries such as those in microbiology and the Cambrian period, as well as those in the totality of the mammal populace; quite apart from the fact that elements of a complex working structure that are produced episodically are quite useless for survival or anything else.

 

·  2) The extraordinary complexity and towering controls in operation microbiologically, the integrating conceptual codes that form, in terms of formulation, what is to be are hopeless for construction by change: Eden of MIT at the Wistar Symposium being unable even to reconcile the phenomenon of language, present in cells, at all with 'chance'. If it cannot survive it, and Denton op.cit. also puts this in excellent detail: how could it arrive at all ? If the city cannot STAND in the elements, how can it be FORMED.

·  City ? Like New York city in miniature, one cell, that is the comparison Denton makes: the entire resources of matériel, energy production, conservation and exploitation, modes and interchange, editing and expedition all being on one ground plan. Hence the "hopeful monster" concept of Goldschmidt, the "punctuated equilibrium" of Gould, the 'orchid at once' concept of Nilsson and the various express-only approaches, such as those of Professor Hoyle. The evidence now as in Darwin's day, for basic design changes in an advanced direction coming slowly, is zero. The evidence to the contrary is tumultuous, multitudinous; and what is there. 'Miracles' then Darwin ? That for this case, was certainly his term. In this, if in nothing else, we must agree.

·  That it should come to that: Darwin's own statedly ludicrous case is the one which is being forced on those who name his name, and then try to improve on it, by making magical situations routine, and worlds within worlds the spacious production either of nothing, or nothing in the least degree demonstrable as remotely to the point (cf. SMR pp. 252H-N,
329 -332H, 422Eff., 23ff., 315Aff., 348ff. and Index, Series, Thought ). So be it.

·  3) In this reference to continual miracle, Darwin is exactly right. It does however nothing for a naturalistic view of such scope as he imagines, to have miracles the mode! Miracles were the mode; they appear the mode; the hypothesis is to the contrary; its means are not available on this basis! The hypothesis is inappropriate, to put the matter with typical British under-statement. It does not relate as a rational construction from the facts.

·  This is science ? I fear not, not at all! It is evasion. He had quite simply, to use mathematical terminology, made extrapolations without warrant, contrary to evidence, without understanding, and without being to visualise or conceive the character of what it was he was hypothesising, as in any way adequate for his "leap" or irrationality. That is the great Darwinian contribution, based on little variation within vital boundaries, but proposing all.

·  In fact, a former President of the French Academy of Science, Pierre de Grassé, stated this: "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." - p.88, "Evolution of Living Organisms"; and again: "There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it" -
p. 103, op.cit, on this topic.

Theories do not alter these facts, at any time.

Day-dreaming? It is the process of requisitioning in a careless or even pleasant way that for which no known power, no known process is adequate, in fulfilment of a wish, a desire, or perhaps a fear. It is not science. It is a kind of debased and debasing religion. To consdier just how debasing, consult Barbs, Arrows and Balms, Appendix 1, The Generation of the Dispossessed S, Item 18 , A Spiritual Potpourri Ch.13, and SMR pp. 125ff., 578ff., 1001. It does however describe the Darwinian process of mutation building, in the face of logic, fact and observation, to the heights.

·  4) You will find in "The Shadow of a Mighty Rock", p.207, an interesting description of some of these affairs from the renowned Cambridge Professor (now deceased), C.S. Lewis.

·  5) Incidentally, you may also find on pp. 226, 251-252H).

·  It was indicated at this Symposium that the language and theoretical model necessary to express Darwinism was not available. The source of arrival was unsatisfactory. In fact, there was a basic failure within "the current conception of biology" (this is cited, for example, by Wilder-Smith, in his book, "The Creation of Life" p. 193, Publ. Harold Shaw, Illinois, 1974).

·  Indeed, as Parker notes, Darwin was not really addressing his writing on the theme of the title topic of his book. It was not origins but aftermaths he was addressing. Origins do not come through removals, but through arrivals. Arrivals need what it takes. That is the stress, mathematically expressed in a fascinating way, however, of Schützenberger, the Paris Professor at the Wistar Symposium.

·  Speaking of what might have happened if this and that law were ignored, or arose by accident; and the required synthesis and structure of laws did not exist, as if destruction were unknown, codes arose in the air, and words with their command structures habitually found themselves 'arising', and mere changes like this or that happened: all this is precisely beside the point. (Cf. SMR p.311, Ch.3, and A Spiritual Potpourri, Ch.7, Organ of Sight.) It begs the question and supplies in the mode of expression, vague and tendentious, in the very vacuity of thought, the necessities for creation. Vacuity however is the opposite of creation, just as convenient non-survival is also contrary to it.

·  More to the point is DOING it and SHOWING that one has dealt adequately with the case by the observation of the happening, and THEN making a theory to ACCOUNT for the shown and therefore KNOWN FACT. As to facts in this matter, they DO NOT EXIST.

·  Survival ? Extinction by wolves does not create lambs; nor is death some form of creation; it does not alter the arrival quotient. Cleaning up after building a house is one thing, actually making the components, design and fabrication is rather another. Making the substructures of the components is other again; and making the whole legal arena is yet another, and constructing commands and the codified concepts that they use, that is still another. Correlating it all is something else, and inventing a system which could 'take' or accept such instructions is another feat. A sufficient cause is science; an ignored lack of it is magic. Magic is fun for kids.

·  6) All this is expounded in "The Shadow of a Mighty Rock", which is on the Web as noted; but our immediate point is this. DARWIN was NOT with sincerity and straighforwardness yielding to evidence. A "COLD SHUDDER" is not a sweet conviction; to attribute the alternative of sudden arrival* to miracle, the concept of the flow chart of biological progress to such outrageously disregarded source, invoked while it is prohibited: this is NOT to find a scientific hypothesis of the way natural processes work. Again, Darwin says this: "...intermediate links? Geology assuredly does NOT reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the MOST OBVIOUS and SERIOUS OBJECTION which can be urged against the theory {of evolution}". (Emphasis added, brackets added - cited by Gary Parker, op.cit. p. 94.)

·  (*This sudden arrival concept is now being increasingly used, since the facts are utterly hostile to gradualism - cf. SMR p. 234, 251-252H, A Spiritual Potpourri .1-9. The naturalistic impasse is complete.)

• 7) Professor W.R. Thompson (op.cit. p. 14 of the Introduction he wrote) says this of finding a graduated series of fossils showing the pertinent phases of elevation from one to the other:

"This is certainly what Darwin would have liked to report but of course he was unable to do so. What the available data indicated was a remarkable absence of the many intermediate forms required by the theory; the absence of the primitive types that should have existed in the strata regarded as most ancient; and the sudden appearance of the principal taxonomic groups."

·  That is, the required evidence was missing; and the contradictory evidence was present.

·  8) In ordinary scientific method, that ends the matter. You require evidence TO THE POINT - and not a contradiction - in order to proceed scientifically FROM FACTS, FROM OBSERVATIONS TO THEORY WITH WHICH TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM. In this case, desire, evidently religious, or anti-religious, depending on your definition of the term, is slaughtering scientific method, or turning it upside down.
Dedicated ? but to what? NOT to what was the centre of the dedication of Jonathan Edwards. Not in any sense to what could be called truth.

·  Imagination undisciplined by scientific method, unfazed by contradictory law, amused or indifferent at the slaughter of logic (SMR Ch.3), flying in the face of facts while the facts are both perfectly accounted for on a wholly different basis - that of a past creation now ceased - which NEVER contradicts them, and met ahead of time by its statements (such as occurred in the discovery of linguistic code in the DNA, God having COMMANDED creation into existence, as the Bible states): this is the position.

·  What is this then that we are seeing from the proponents of organic evolution? This exposes no magnificent underlying principle, unless perhaps that of deception - self-deception or other, as the case may be. This is nothing of science about it (cf. SMR pp.251ff.), except denial in practice of its method.

·  That is to the point in your comparison.

·  But let us return to W.R. Thompson ( p.14, op.cit.):

·  "Against these difficulties he {Darwin} could only suggest that the geological record is imperfect, but that if it had been perfect would have provided evidence for his views. It is clear therefore that the palaeontological evidence at his disposal, since it had not led competent naturalists acquainted with it to a belief in evolution, could only justify a suspense of judgment...it does appear to me, in the first place, that Darwin in the Origin was not able to produce palaeontological evidence sufficient to prove his views but that the evidence he did produce was adverse to them; and I may note that the position is not notably different to-day."

·  9) Indeed, the confusion is a process continuing, complex and unwarranted, and THAT is another underlying principle which we find in the one area, the noted brand of preacher-science, but not in the other, the Biblical proclamation, since it is in extraordinarily refined agreement with the facts, and as note,d even anticipates them as to kind.

·  Says Thompson (op.cit. pp.19-20): "This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion... We are beginning to realise now that the method is unsound and the satisfaction illusory."

·  Now as to "continuity", the concept of things forever and abundantly interlocking as they develop, and developing as they interlock, moving together in some amazing medley of creative ability never evidenced and never seen, never found in law or in observation, in logic or in record of any kind, something that is a naturalistic fantasy of creativity hidden without sign or sight in all respects, we recall Denton's word:

·  "The failure to give a plausible evolutionary explanation for the origin of life casts a number of shadows over the whole field of evolutionary speculation. It represents yet another case of discontinuity where a lack of empirical evidence of intermediates coincides with great difficulty in providing a plausible hypothetical sequence of transitional forms. It therefore tends to reinforce the possiblity that the discontinuities of nature may be much more fundamental ..."  (p.271).

·  And again (p. 353-4): "The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature. In a very real sense, therefor, advocacy of the doctrine of continuity has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism... It has always been the anti-evolutionists not the evolutionists, in the scientific community, who have stuck rigidly to the facts..." (Cf. SMR pp.160, 234-236. Indeed, in the end, it wreaks havoc with definition and makes words meaningless: SMR pp. 211, 224, 135, 252E-G.)

·  10) What I am seeking here to bring out is that DARWIN himself was not in possession of data and evidence sufficient or even mildly adequate for his theories. They were counter-established for the scale of operations he hypothesised, to the uttermost; yet he persisted.

·  He was AWARE that the cohesion of parts, integration of elements, perfections of complementarity in the numerous interacting features in a given complex body structure were as far from brute impact as you could wish; but he persisted.

·  Indeed, Thompson says this of integrity and reasonableness, in terms, if you will, of "the respective impacts upon society" of what happened here:

·  "The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident the reckless statement of Haeckel* and in the shifting, devious, and histrionic argumentation of T.H. Huxley. A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus**, who admitted, may years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human." (Footnotes in Thompson are not here included.)

·  11. What then ? "Similarity in ... dedication" between the two men, your selected modern preacher-type-scientist and Jonathan Edwards, the acute observer and constructor of thought: this is what your thesis statement has, has it not ? If there were some similarity, it was not in dedication to facts as a basis for hypothesis, to observation as a ground for idea, or verification as a necessary ground for validation.

·  Was there then sustainable evidence to this effect, similar dedication to principles of reality and disciplined thought in the area of HYPOTHESIS? Was this really the case between Darwin and Edwards ? I think not. I think not at all; but rather an abyss separates them in this.

·  And in modern times, the lack in Darwin's material is hugely confirmed, and the fantasy of his considerations of ORIGIN is merely mocked by the extreme technical facility and sophistication of the code-created marvels we now observe. If Darwin were delinquent in this, how much worse, if possible, is it for those wo see so much more both absent (from the necessities of his hypothesis) as knowledge increases, and present in the concepts of creation now finished! If HE failed in method, the failure now is monumental. Since however it was always of a far deeper character than mere guess-work, violating law and logic from the first, it is hard to say who is the more guilty, except perhaps now the case is one of greater obduracy.

Did then both THESE men, Jonathan Edwards, scientist and acknowledged preacher, and your modern noted preacher-type scientist, alike "tap into all the facets of knowledge available to them, whether it be religion or science, in order to support their points of view" ? The evidence does not at all confirm this. To say that would be a summary of a cultural fiction; not an approach to history!

It appears that the scientific realism of both men was enormously different; indeed, the approach to conscience of each seems of an extraordinary divergence. The facts gave the mind of Darwin little peace; they would not conform... Edwards found peace in the facts, it seems, in the dual, the mutual conformity indeed, of Bible and nature, and the attestation shared by each.

That point is crucially distinctive re Edwards, relative to your thought of something comparable re their response to the "facets of the knowledge available to them, whether it be religion or science". Religion and science ? The greater scope and the mutual evidential complementary of both these areas, when stringently examined makes for a position not soundly comparable between the two compared.

The coincidence of evidence from science and 'religion' in the case of the Bible, merely accentuates the obduracy in the other approach. The Biblical statement pre-empts the issue with what meets the case. The other does the same, without the benefit of long-testing in multiple paths over centuries, while at the same time, it also contradicts the facts. It meets neither the outcry of 'Nature" nor of the document, the Bible. Putting the two together therefore, the religious and the scientific, we merely accentuate the divergence in method and regard for knowledge which is found in each case. With these criteria in mind, we shall now move further to more modern times than those of Darwin himself.

Let us then summarise for your other example, the modern scientist in view. As noted in the earlier letter, Darwinism, in terms of scientific method, is bankrupt, and a replacement is beyond the horizon, as Denton in such detail attests; and since science is built on what IS, not what is HOPED, personal matters apart, your chosen modern scientist's words in the field are in these regards in no better position, fundamentally, than was the case for Darwin. In principle it is similar; in trend, it is even worse.

The comparison, or rather significant lack of facility for it, seems then malappropriate. For all such organic evolutionary views, Nature refuses point-blank to co-operate, and will not produce; and in this, the position is very much as it was described by Pasteur in his field, in the quotation provided in the first letter to you. He implores his drop: but it will not produce, you remember? This was of course because it was not the producer of what he had in mind, life. That is why it WOULD NOT do it! It was not mere obstinacy; it was wrongly identified as source, being mere repository of what it might obtain...

Parker puts some aspects well (op.cit. p. 108) in dealing with an abrupt approach to change:

• "This new concept of evolution based on the fossils we don't find and on genetic mechanisms that have NEVER been observed. The case for creation is based on thousands of tons of fossils that we HAVE found and on genetic mechanisms (variations within kind) that we DO observe and put into practice every day."

On ANY theory, transmutation, radical change to advance the design complexity, is not found. NO theory is dealing with facts which so hypothesises.

The Biblical view, and Edwards was an exponent of the Bible, is confirmed by scientific means, as noted in the earlier letter to you ; alternatives are not. Logically, they look for results without sufficient causation; the latter however are what is foundational to science, and necessary for thought (see "The Shadow of a Mighty Rock", Chs.2 Supplement, 3,4 and5, esp. pp.. 7-10, 284-294, 307ff., 418-421, 424ff.) - even that necessary for the expression of a theory at all. Do then the books of both the men posed for comparison show evidence in their books to make them "synonymous" ... "in their respective searches for the meaning for purpose of life" ?

Do "fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses, where facts and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion" (to recall Professor W.R. Thompson's description of it), the whole contrary to the requirements of reason, EQUATE at all with evidentially based science, confirmed in religion by extraordinary concordance from both spheres!

·  12. Much more could be provided, but this must for the time suffice; as it should be enough for you to ponder as you consider your course. Incidentally, let me stress that at the World Wide Web Witness site, there is another book, "That Magnificent Rock", chapter 1 of which has a lecture style presentation on Creation in Ch.1, obtainable by hyperlink direct.

Chapter 6 of the same work deals with questions of meaning and purpose, in relation to your theme. You may care to compare to this, SMR Ch.3, esp. pp.259-270, and also to look at the allegory of the Two Computers in Conversation, pp.271-284; and then, with the delicious personal precision available for us, revert to Ch. 6, where this historical provision and wonder is regarded.

Now for the general surfer, there are two final features, the list, and then the suggestion.
 
 

A Quick Look at some of the Notable Scientists,
Many Epoch-making or Outstanding Scientists, who evidently believed in Creation

This is not intended to do more than to help remove some of the cultural conditioning, well apart from logic, to which Dr Denton rightly refers. It is often used in propaganda infested TV and other waters. Creation has always been an option, its basics thrusting themselves with logically irresistible force into the face; evolutionary nostrums have been around in various forms for centuries.

·  Johann Kepler, Astronomy, innovator extraordinary

·  Francis Bacon, Scientific method, towering thinker

·  Robert Boyle, Chemistry and Physics, determined experimenter - his name conferred on Boyle's Law (physics)

·  Sir Isaac Newton, Physics, Mathematics, Theology - famed for physics and mathematical pioneering, calculus and systematising thought

·  John Dalton, Prototype work in Chemistry

·  Carolus Linnaeus, Biology

·  William and John Herschel, Astronomy

·  John Dalton, Prototype work in Chemistry, famous in the development of modern chemistry and atomic theory

·  Humphrey Davey Chemistry

·  Georges Cuvier, Biology, Geology, outstanding name that marks an epoch, founder of modern comparative anatomy, co-creator of modern palaeontology, unimpressed with riotous ramblings amidst the facts

·  Louis Agassiz, Biology, Geology, a man of extraordinary knowledge: in some ways, a sort of intellectual world event, of great zeal in exposing intellectual fabrications, ardent creationist

·  Charles Babbage, profound professor, far ahead-of-time in Mathematical Applications, after decades passed, leading towards computing today

·  Samuel Morse, Telegraphy fame

·  Michael Faraday Physics, Applied Physics, innovator extraordinary, zealous Christian

·  James Joule, Physics (left his name for a basic unit in physics, a real jewel)

·  Lord Kelvin, Physics pioneer, man of resource and work on creation in particular, esp. in heat

·  Lister, Surgeon, Medicine - indefatigable medical hygienist, researcher, reformer: his name adorns an antiseptic

·  Douglas Dewar, Biologist

·  Joseph Clerk Maxwell, Physics pioneer

·  William Ramsay, archeologist extraordinary, converted to Christ through his scientific studies as one input

·  Lord Rayleigh, Physics, innovator in method

·  Alexander MacAlister, Anatomy, a man of enormous creationist conviction

·  John Fleming, Electrical Engineering

·  Tom Barnes, Physics, magnetic insights and theoretical impact, a leading world specialist

·  Von Braun, Rocketry a primary name in the field .

 

Quite a number of these people were professors at outstanding Universities. Others were world leaders of enormous stature, keystones of endeavour.

Of interest is Paul Lemoine, President of the Geological Society of France, a chief Editor of the Encyclopédie Française, 1937, who proclaimed - as Morris noted - evidently without contradiction: "Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for the people." Quite simply, he said that - "The theory of evolution is impossible."

The priests in his parallel are of course metaphorical as office holders, being those who maintain what is, in definable aspects, tantamount to 'religion', in the case of some scientists. This statement has since been confirmed to a significant degree with the explosions, expostulations or satire coming from growing numbers of outraged scientists. These may be either caught in the forms and philosophical formulae that banish thought, or merely declamatory in negativing the theme, the theory or the attendant follies that create fiascos that make it like a sort of Mardi Gras. {On this religious side of organic evolution, which is both grave and amusing jointly, since it is ridiculous, but those caught in it are people whose lives do matter: see The Kingdom of Heaven ... Ch.10, Part 2. In fact, the whole of that Chapter relates to our area, and you may find use for Part 1.}

It is however no festival in its setting. Amongst such are: Nilsson, Løvtrup, Denton, Hoyle and in one lurid flash of candour, Stephen Jay Gould. Some like Pierre de Grassé, Past President of the French Academy of Sciences, and Schützenberger, Mathematics Professor of Paris University, have untangled particular follies; some like the notable Dewar, have gone further and perceiving the necessity of creationism, have crusaded accordingly, which was also the practice of extraordinarily famous empirical naturalists (not philosophically naturalistic!) Agassiz and Cuvier in their day. Some practitioners piously, if you will, cling to the memory of the form of this magical theory; some, wearying, detest it; numbers do not find the arena ravishing any longer.

As anodyne available for religiously inclined scientists without the God of their creation, the fantasy of organic evolutionism appears for many to be becoming more painful than the pain of being adrift from God.

The Suggestion

If you like bubbles, as a surfer, or seeing how hollow the waves are as you career through different angles of the deep, look at the Index of SMR on Evolution, and some of the sub-headings there. When you go just a little deeper, you see some of the subterfuges in their fantasising hilarity. It is good to see Laurel and Hardy at times; not so good to be like them in real life...

For a relevant allegory, outside the allegory section of Ch.4 in "That Magnificent Rock", where there are several available,
you could look at Allegory at the Computer Interface, in SMR, shortly below the hyperlink entry point.
 

For peace and truth, see what God has provided in Christ Jesus, the Lord; for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which they must be saved (Acts 4:11-12) ... from sin, from its erosion and judicial results, from its alienation from God, man and the world's true purpose, from its dynamic and from its delusion, from its starvation ration which gives scarcely a drop of truth, seeking to strangle it even in its most pious aspects, since it is and must find severance from God, by its nature. Now read Jeremiah 2, John 1-3, 14-17 and consider these things. On this, hangs all your own harmony; and in the end, only one harmony endures, that with God who made you, without whom, your harmonies are merely discord revamped (II Cor. 5:19-21, Isaiah 26:1-4, John 8:34-36).