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

See Update material also at SMR Ch. 2A

Some parents hope for much from dull offspring through misled pride; but it is rather too rich to hope for pure genius from inanimate matter. It lacks absolutely what it takes.

Consider first the case of Lamarck, the fallen hope for the evolutionary idol. He hoped that parents could pass on not merely, as it were, hard won cash to the next generation, but new won characteristics. It is he who gave verbal birth to much of the chaotically mystical talk of this or that creature 'managing' to create this or that organ or adaptation, even when there is no technical facility, and other absurdities frequently appearing in learned evolutionary texts.

As Klotz presents it, the second Lamarckian postulate was that 'the formation of a new organ is the result of a new need which has arisen and continues to be felt by the organism.' Despite the abandonment of this view widely, because of lack of both appropriate procedures for gaining this result, and appropriate evidence to show it occurring: the mystical language continues its inept but revealing vogue.

Perhaps it feels better to use the language of need and effort and contrivance where there is no power to analyse and so contrive, than talk of magic more directly. At least with this, there is a bottle for the genie to come out of.

Robert E.D. Clark in his Darwin Before and After, and others note the failure of this theory and cite the case of repetitively removed tails of laboratory generations of rats with no effect on the offspring. It is noted by Klotz in his Genes, Genesis and Evolution (p. 32), how experimenters Agar, Drummond and Tiegs found that rats did improve in successive generations, when confronted with puzzle situations. However, a non-confronted control group of breeding rats also improved!

This is an excellent example of the ease of error in such work. Further, both control group and the exposed group descendants deteriorated in performance, in later generations. It is not known what caused the wave in the curve, but there is nothing such as evolution would demand. The case of the flatworm, like that of the rats, requires care in terms of variations of a temporary character, when there is question of confronting a puzzle type situation in succeeding generations. Not merely is there the above noted danger of non-checking with a control, but there are possibilities of variant strains being responsible in a way which is merely a case of selective breeding; while special if unintentional food or environmental situations may activate latent potentialities in genes, or inhibit; just as people in Australia have apparently tended to grow higher over recent (well-fed ?) times, so other ingredients may stir or stimulate possibilities which have nothing to do with evolution but much to do with inciting of potentials.

Of particular interest here is Wilder- Smith (op. cit. p. 206) who deals in some detail with the concept of plasticities within limits, noting that not only does environment affect the characteristics produced by genes, but so does the proximity of gene to gene; indeed, mechanisms exist to allow a certain measure of variability in response to both what lies without, and within.

Wilder Smith contrasts the facility built in for limited response to special stimuli, with the Lamarckian vision of need stirring creation! Custance, cited by Lester and Bohlin in their work, The Natural Limits of Biological Change, p. 171, has given evidence on the effect of diet on skull shape; and again, mechanisms, used well or poorly, facilitated or impaired, have results depending on input. Such things can move in an environment of a given type, or may have differences in different cultures, merely utilising and activating potentials of various kinds, exhibiting the Creator's love of variety, without any evidence of a love of making Man his own Creator... merely a creative consequence of God's own creation. The same authors (pp. 156 ff.) note the work done on DNA in terms of general information theory, which develops for its part so rapidly today. Viewing DNA as an information code, and therefore as something with which we are becoming increasingly familiar, it becomes proper to review relevant findings, when applied to DNA.

Regulatory mechanisms - as well as genes - relate to a potential array of results, they point out. Using the (not too distant) analogy of sentences and words, they observe that notable apparent novelties become possible through the various combinations, associations and relationships of units and sub-units. It is however all contrived in advance, and the results do not create, but obey the structure, the preceding organisational structure in which it all happens. Just as words may be formed and forged into an array of sentences depending on usage and grammar, so units may be adapted to a range of possible results. It is of great interest to see what stimulus can perform, whether on eucalyptus trees exposed to fire, in the activation of latent growing points, or in the use of superior or greater amounts of good in the intake, for a given specimen; and of course selective breeding can always use use more permanently active genes (i. e. those not already defective, deficient relative to some other strain, breed or line) with appropriate results, depending on the skill of the breeder and on the available initial gene pool.

While such matters deserve interest in seeing, to use a motor analogy, which gene pools retain power steering (it is easy enough for contrivances to become inoperative! in what we create, and easily achievable within our own equipment) and which do not, this is different in kind from matters not relating to breeding and potential activation for reasons we here select.

i) Selective use of strains, intentional or otherwise, does nothing to create any brand new expression of more advanced, evolutionary design, though intriguing combinatorial possibilities exist.

ii) Activation of latent genes, whether once inoperative through loss or injury or inadequate food input, the mere securing of lost response, or restoration to view of recessive elements, or new combinations: these things do not create the latency at the outset.

iii) Even if there were some stimulation of function in a given format, this is not the creation of the facility which is what the theory of evolution is about.

The performance characteristics of a reasonably flexible function involve its operation and not its creation. They in fact show the more clearly the scope of the creation itself... as when one uses one's car in varied and international circumstances, meeting accidents and incidents and conditions, only to find (if so be) what provisions were made by he manufacturer... or what provisions! as the case might be...

The biological position then is not, in natural practice, reached where new design form itself is achieved; nor indeed is function able to be declared as in principle new: or in fact, as permanently raised, even in the old format when all the ingredients, so misleading to the facile, are carefully removed from confusion with the initial gene pool. Like a diamond, it is not created anew when light shines now on this, now on that facet. Light varies, results vary, and perhaps notably; but the structure, whether or not it be chipped or dulled, is what is provided for the interplay.

Indeed, gene elevation is something yet to be found, relative to design sophistication and complexity; far less is it found in combinations that cohere in terms of overall new design, the mathematics of the case being as devastating as the silence of Sphinx, and as silent, to the point, as is the practical evidence.

Really, the facts are simple. We do not see complex designs of integrated circuitries and intellectually coded sequences expressed in sophisticated languages (such as genes in fact have)... invent themselves; this is not that sort of intelligently particulate universe. It has many marvels; but the phenomenon of self-contriving particles without code, which create code... is not one of these marvels! We have codes which we see not in nature, being involved in the throes of their creation; and that is precisely what Biblical creation advises and declares. We do not see codes being created. That is precisely what a finished creation says... i.e. nothing. And this the Bible declares: it has been finished, whatever utilisation may be made of it. We do see already created codes, and we also create them ourselves, at our own level. These observations and their eminently logical character make code meaningful and characterise its appearance, in fact.

Even if we did see such things, we do not see raw materials for highly complex manoeuvres assembling themselves, remaining non-spoilt while the rest come, then inventing their own codes, and the manufacturing sites and sequences for implementation of those codes. In fact, when we build, even with intelligence and directed power, taking steps to preserve in the necessary form for building, without decay, all we need: it is difficult enough.

When utterly acute precision of billions of components is needed, plus the code creation, plus the manufacturing site (suited to the creative action, as in a car assembly plant): In short the designer, the design and the assemblage of materials in right sequence, form and chemical condition... then we are really asking for the criteria specific to intelligence, as distinct from those specific to decay.

The former are not found in the relevant, the merely material universe; and the latter are. Apart from all else, therefore, evolution remains a theory contrary to experience, unrevealed by experiment, contrary to all known laws and contrary with these things, to common sense, against which it is an insult.

The mathematical fact that multiplied relevant chemical equations are poised to go backwards rather than forward (left slanted equilibrium), is merely the expression in that form of that fact that you need an input of intelligence to gain the results of it, as of manufacturing technology to erect a factory. How much more to erect that greatest and most sophisticated design output ever seen as a category on earth: ourselves.

Dimensional advance per se is not achieved by a merely law abiding system. This is what we have, except for the living: and what they create (apart from destruction) is irrelevant to the mindless movements of matter.

Hoyle (New Scientist, 1981, London, p. 527) says rather aptly:

Anyone with even a working experience of the Rubic cube will concede the near impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 10 to the power 50 blind persons (standing shoulder to shoulder, they would fill an entire planetary system), each with a scrambled Rubic cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving by random shuffling (random variation) at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order...

Fantasising about what is not seen to happen, on a magical basis of inadequate cause for progressing from nothing... is not science; and having a system which has what it takes in the beginning is merely begging the question - the only point being the particular way in which it is begged. Mathematics is no readier to such a project than logic or observation, law, means or principle.

Meanwhile, from the viewpoint of spiritual pathology, it is of much interest to see that just as Henri Bergson sensed and indeed saw that there must be some dynamic co-ordinating and creating power, and tried to have an inbuilt 'god' with that lack of success which failed experiments must demonstrate (God does not lurk: He made the materials- analogically, just as I make a poem - by creative power, not by tearing off parts of Himself, if indeed a Spirit had material parts): so Lamarck felt the need.

Each, unbelieving and unseeing, turned to some mechanism or developmental presence, and looked in vain within the realm of Nature. Nature has a nature; it does not include in this, the power to make itself, to enact its existence without being there.

Thus Lamarck was looking for some stimulus, rightly and deftly attuned to the materials in view. It was at least far more sensible than that Darwin who admitted the preposterous character of the interlocking marvels needed for the 'creation' of the eye.

And yet, for all its greater realism, the theory of Lamarck is merely one step back towards the Creator, on the part of one who was not aware of all the intricacies which present to us the possibilities we have, the microbiological gateways to life.

It is in all our ways the case, that more than wishing is needed to have results, and what we generate with our spirits is not available for mere wish-fulfilment in succeeding generations. Wishes never in and by themselves, in all law, logic and observation, create what they wish for. Power and position and knowledge is needed, in measure as the creation involves such matters in its realm of implicit intelligence. The fastidious work of financial affairs requires an educated banking mind; how much more the various and diverse realms of knowledge, seen in our bodies, need a mind fit and apt and capable in all of these, and in their synthesising.

Thus Lamarck and Darwin are cases of that wish-fulfilment dreaming of which Freud speaks (though one could never endorse any of his own dreaming so aptly criticised, to the point, by Carl Jung). The difference of course is this: they do it when awake, and many read these day dreams with all the critical acumen of the sleeping, or indeed, the dead.

Bergson, then, raised the common sense quotient somewhat, seeking for that emerging 1ife force, something far beyond the dead dizziness of Darwin's derelict hypothesis, which simply is without merit in its special method re creation (though meeting one point, re maintenance, it touches a wholly different field).

Henri Bergson however, even he, whilst avoiding purely evanescent dreams, fell into the view so aptly criticised by C.S. Lewis. For, in the field of practical action, a force is that which moves matter, imparting an acceleration; and you must do far more than prod to gain these results! A life force is still something with life (its origin succinctly bypassed in this point) which imparts acceleration. Do that with building materials, and see how well you build! Sometimes one wonders whether just a tiny scrap of common sense might one day enter the minds of the wilfully deluded.

But Bergson at least was beginning to see the need of a creating and developing and guiding and girding and holding... what ? Naturally, what does all that has to be ontologically capable of it, has to have what it takes to do what it does, in other words.

That merely leads us back to God. There has to be one which is there, in order to contribute what Bergson feels so rightly is needed. Never without this, then, one goes to an eternal functionary; and the functions include the power to inculcate, originate, co-ordinate and so on. It is merely a verbal substitute ignoring the implicits, for God.

Again, we must realise that Bergson was as far beyond Lamarck as Lamarck was beyond poor Darwin, whom so many others seem to have taken far more seriously than he took his jaded and frustrated self. The Bible is far further beyond Bergson than he beyond either or both; for in it, you see the composed and unitary expressions of this Being, expressed with the evidential display in covering history with understanding, future history with precision, and focussing on the Lord Jesus Christ. It did this showing Him as One to come with awe-inspiring readiness to impart, characterise and specify the things which had to be, when God showed not a creative force but His saving plan, via that Person with whom He created the worlds in the first place.

God has spoken into more than cells; but modern man is practically practised, not merely in deafness but also in blindness; though the results of his blindness, he can hear...

32 ...See *25

33 Stephen Jay Gould - Professor of Geology and Zoology, Harvard University. See *36.

34 Introduction to The Origin of Species, a survey in the field in view, written by Professor W.R. Thompson, F. R. S.. This appeared in the Everyman's Library edition of 1956, where Thompson is described as 'the distinguished Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Research, at that time.' See also *8.

35 EXTENSION J: ON THE FULLSTOP WHICH BEGINS A SENTENCE... PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AND PUNCTURED, POLLUTED YOUTH:

The Dynamics of Human Disequilibrium: A Summary Overview of the Philosophy Of Punctuated Equilibrium

Professor Fred Hoyle (see pp. 224-225 infra) in his New Scientist, 1981 article, p. 527, speaking of blind people with Rubic cubes (10 to the power 50 of them - 10 with 50 zeros), all simultaneously reaching the same and correct solution by random shuffling, to get "just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends"... is aghast. He had constructed this illustration to clarify what was in view in the making and building of life processes, regarded with so glazed a gaze by people ill conforming to the stringency of system; and he indicates the analytical result for the evolutionary theory which he so illustrated, referring to the latter as "evidently nonsense of a high order".

There are many such miracles needed, and simultaneously, together with the operating system, the code, which must infiltrate as well, to direct the materials, being on time, since it depends on them to act.

At that, as noted earlier, Hoyle comparatively has it made, in his case. First of all you have to invent the systematic groundwork which the cubes symbolise (both in form and law and order, and space and their correlation). System as a start in accounting for system is not a bad start, a fair advance since system is a good part of what is the issue! A highly schematised system is still better as a beginning; as if a shrewd businessman should tell us that in order to be a millionaire, it is good to start with a large capital base. No doubt it might help! It might not, however, be regarded as to the point by the recipients of this 'counsel'.

Hoyle then, despite starting where he does, has had more than enough, though he has hardly begun, to meet the stringency of the actual reality. Trying to get something out of nothing is always nonsense of a high order, whether taking it slowly and gradually or not. The case is only made worse when you also want to get the capacity to err out of the capacity to obey laws, the capacity to conceive out of the capacity to be positioned, and the capacity to will out of the capacity to be willed.

Fantasising about what is not seen to happen, on a magical basis of inadequate cause for progressing from nothing... is not science; and having a system which has what it takes in the beginning is merely begging the question - the only point being the particular way in which it is begged.

All this we have seen earlier, and recall it here for review and for convenience, before proceeding with the current topic. This topic 'takes off' from here, in a number of ways.

Aghast, too might the evolutionist be at the reckless refusal of the Cambrian "Age" (cf. pp. 159-161 supra, 234 infra) to conform to what is expected of it... 'Doesn't the confounded thing know how to do its duty ?' an establishment, evolutionary Englishman might ask ... appalled by its sheer dynamic and exuberance, its diversity of type and style and form, its sheer luxury of well- developed varieties in situ, as by the similar eruptive creationism that also appears to occur at the juncture, in the 'record', of reptiles and mammals (cf. p. 235 infra).

What seems to have happened ? A deluge of creation is attested in time focus, flinging itself fearlessly across the material barriers with the seeming abandon, or at least disregard of the imaginative artist, carving up domains, manufacturing types jointly, in even on category, thrusting without escape, providing without tiring, constructing with prodigies of ingenuity, performance criteria of the most esoteric, logic of the most profound, as if energy were the least of considerations and the sheer prodigality of enterprise were blooming in a celestial Spring. It is like saying, 10 serious volumes from a theologian in 3 years and he was merely twiddling his thumbs, to ignore the actual output which is found from what are deemed the first ages of this earth!

To ignore this deposit of fact, what it is it like? It is a monumental thrust of impatience allied with impenitence for which this generation has reaped already in two world wars, continued in the Cold War (which incidentally may prove fatal to the globe per kindness of Communism in its radioactive deposits into the Northern oceans, and seas). It is continuing in a plague of unrest, disputes about sovereignty and rights, disregard of duty and all tenderness, till the globe is becoming as hot as the hotheadedness which wants results without cause, in its own creation, which would accept with scatter-brained  and thankless absent-mindedness, the prodigious provision of styles and fashions of results which require the operation of a Being minimally so equipped with facility of thought, abundance of logic and power to render matter plastic to the least desire as a mouldable container for designs and methodological tool for outpourings of multiplicities of life, as to render man an infant of thought by comparison. And that, it is merely a beginning: there is the towering triumph of thought per se, and the overarching splendour of spirit, imagination, creativity, even though one of its most profound current performances be in the wilful deposition of double-dealing irrationality which defiles all reason, sometimes directly defying it, while using it in order to make the defiance seem acceptable! If this is not tyranny, what is; and it grasps and crushes this generation like some besotted ape, truly in New York, and tearing down buildings; yet alas, what it here is tearing is the corrupted heart of mankind, till his own deeds will render his planet uninhabitable, and the most patient judgments of God the Creator, will yet leave man's home a new contender for universal holocaust.

Let us however return to the Cambrian collection with its prodigality of form and effortless seeming arena of activity. It is merely one of the triumphs of modern thought, even when it is given its own way of looking at things; for there it is, even on its own model! Let us look further.

With, as Gish (p. 95, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record) puts it, "the 32 orders of mammals, all highly specialised so that they could be immediately classified," arriving, indeed "appearing abruptly" and ''fully formed'', for the evolutionary theorist, shock perhaps now occludes thought even more than desire did, at the first.

Seeing the disappearing dias of the Darwinian bias, what can he do ? Some proponent of the evolutionary magic might then become quite vexed and say within him/herself: "Ah yes, this is distressingly different from the implications of gradualistic evolution. Not only are the creatures numerous, but they are varied on the spot, no time for a bit of surviving and all that... it is as if time did not matter: but the theory is built on it. What a mess! Not only is there one type of suddenly sophisticated creature like the trilobite equipped, of all things, with eyes, or a mollusc with eyes complexly reminiscent of our own, but this is only one of the multitude, or these two of them! Mm! Ah well, if facts fail, use words."

"Let us see," he might continue. ''What about 'punctuated equilibrium' ? Excellent, for that stresses the stasis side, and the 'punctuation' feels, well, more buried that way in the delicious phrase-making. After all,'' he might ponder along, ''this is a literary exercise at keeping the thing going. This phrase manages to 'cover' it discretely without saying 'creation', which in any normal human usage meets the definition of what is actually happening, in terms of this rum show... this turn-out of up to half the wretched invertebrate action, in the sea around the start of biological life! What, and more life than in the modern sea, in the sea then! No, it really is necessary, and it's good stuff, this phrase: it doesn't actually say "creation"; and that is what I am against."

That is in the line, at least, of the sort of sense in which the "theory" carves out a niche. 'It' is not subject to the test of laws, of prediction, of falsification (if nothing continues to happen under any circumstances you like, that is fine) by observation; and because there is no known means anyway, let alone principle, no known observation, let alone sustainable and testable theory to explain it, it can hope to bask in undisturbable bliss.

It, quite simply - as Popper quite rightly claims - is not a scientific law, this evolution, whether indeed gradualistic, or this more recent and exotic model, we might add. Certainly it denies the principles of science and sufficient causation, and by implication does not arise to the forum for thought, but more of that anon. As to the gradualistic contradiction of logic and evidence alike, its scientific pretence has to yield to a better sleight of thought which, though it involves direct ... creation, at least deals better with the evidence. The orphaned creation at least is born quickly!

Normally, it is said: that theory is wrong; rationally, yes, but not here! Evolutionism is incredibly clung to by some, while others make the literary excursion (just outlined, or something such) into yet more horrible collision with the Edens and the Dentons and the mathematical, artificial intelligence testing Schützenbergers, the merely mathematical Hoyles and the like: violating not merely the deteriorative trend in terms of a self-constructive, auto-designer myth, but having it (not out of trend for the "instant generation"), at once!

Forget that it violates known processes in genetics such as a Kouznetsov bows to (pp. 218 ff. infra), in turning to the creation that it in fact evinces, on such a ground as that; or moves a Korochkin, with similar creationist commitment and comprehension taking up a professorship in Genetics at Yale ... and stirs an Eden of MIT to blast the language impasse, even before that flight of fancy to the creationist fact, without the creator- cause, is engaged in: this 'punctuated equilibrium'. Shall we have eating without an eater, drinking without a drinker, or even work without working, light without illumination and darkness while the light blazes ? How very odd!

One remembers the Adelaide News speaking of the coming of Dr Kouznetsov, referring to the view of the Russian triple doctorate holder, as some 'special Biblical' method of creation, instead of creation by evolution. By evolution ? That is like saying that we shall have communism by some special human method, instead of communism by individualists! To create is so to make that creative effort is expended; and what is so special about that! What is special is having creative effort expended by what is incapable of such a quality of effort: untutored circumstance! that ... it is passing strange. (It is not however that of which Dr Kouznetsov was the proponent. He was presented factual, specialised evidence for creation by the Creator!)

So with punctuated equilibrium, creation without creator; a new turn to the semantic splendour of self- contradiction. What after this...! It reminds one of the propaganda of Communism liberating, and of its being democracy. That also is some special method of being free: to be bound to tyrants.

So the "theory", unscientific entirely in its method, flows this way and that. A religion of the subjectivistic sort, it is allowed the privileges of eccentricity and abandon which are the preference of some styles of religion, at the opposite extreme to Christianity, that evidential homeland for fact and act. (Isaiah 41, 43, 46, 48, Acts 4:19-20, 2:22, John 3:11, Matthew 11:1-5 illustrate the point of emphasis, and it is a bold, unshrinking one.) The Creator moreover has created and stopped; the teaching is clear, in the Bible, for any who will read (Genesis 1, Exodus 2:4, 20:10, Colossians 1:16, Revelation 10:6, 4:11, Hebrews 4:3-11, Ephesians 3:9). The designs are here; life is here; it wears; but it is evidenced as coming, no longer: the 7th day its memorial, the rest continues. (Cf. Repent or Perish, Ch.7.)

The factual fit of course is perfection; the opposite applying to evolution. It can contrive to show nothing of itself in the past or in the present, while the Bible as ever, is sustained in fact.

Some, then, continue in dogmatic slumber with Darwin; many depart; but the broad trend of thought seems not to be concerned about the evidence, in the way which would have to happen if this were science, a discipline following scientific method. Some heighten the eccentricity as in punctuated equilibrium. Thus in the High Schools in South Australia, the teaching of evolution selectively in science, at once an abuse of scientific method both in its substance and in its procedure, is also an abuse of religion. Trebly, therefore, it is also an abuse of the child, be the motive what it will.

Various rearguard irrationalities pollute the earth, more than smog. As for punctuated equilibrium, it remains a failed model, because it is not only untestable by law and prediction, it is also unobservable ever, except where man does it, or the work is done already, beyond sight; the results however not being beyond sight.

This is known as the universe. In it, what punctuated equilibrium postulates is not observed in practice, without personality and intelligence at work. As the use of reason implies its acceptance, the failure of this variant of fibrillating evolutionary theory to meet rational criteria of adequate cause for consequences in law, in will, in order, in conceptually correlated symbols, in language, and something indeed other than nothing: this spells its rational exclusion. What then ? (Cf. pp. 396-422D; Ch. 3 infra.)

If reason be rejected, so is the power to reason; for what is invalid cannot establish validity, or demonstrate its absence. Further, since language implies logic, its symbols being conveyors of the same in order to achieve communication to man in coherence, the laws of cause and effect constantly in use: if reason be rejected, so is the validity of language. For such theorists, rejecting reason, their case is lost by double default, in language and in logic, verbal and rational powers being discarded to the point.

If however, reason be accepted as valid, so is its place in the interstices of language, both of man creating it, and in matter the deaf recipient of it, with all that this implies: in its environment, thus constrained to be that of objectively valid rationality.

To achieve that environment, you also need a sufficient cause, which institutes these results, and which gives and confirms rational grounds for their existence and validity. That is normally referred to as God. Those not knowing Him, are advised to seek Him at the earliest opportunity, rather than simply using what presupposes Him. (Cf. Isaiah 55:6 ff.; Chapter 1, Section 1, Part B supra relates here; as do pp. 252A-N infra.)

Punctuated equilibrium, further, in terms of the Cambrian evidence, requires the abrupt intrusion of a whole host of creation; and that of course is far removed from reducing the reality of what this requires for its cause, from God the Creator. In effect, it is in fact merely a trade name for creation, analytically considered, with its whole consequence merely taken for granted.

This is then covert creationism: the concepts, and the power, the language and the symbolic logic all being implicit at once, and requiring a due source: Not nothing, but God having these ingredients, qualities, powers; a source which is similarly required by the less visible but still fully operationally in force, law of matter. Even if you postulate areas where, unseen, this does not occur, you are not merely abandoning science with its insistence, as a method, on observation, but postulating with reason what excludes it; which renders the process invalid in principle, and so inoperative in making the assumption.

If you attack what you use, as invalid, then invalid it is, and no one else need show it of you. You are thus rendered rationally dumb. So be it. This is the self-contradictory price of such escapades.

Evolution is accordingly non-scientific, lacking in rationality and rationally excluded. Other than that, well if magic is the desire, this land is for the time free enough to let you practise it; it is a gross and sad shame however that high school students are forced in science to study this failed theory.

To be sure, it might be considered as a literary exercise for grade seven, to discover what free imagination can do; or as an exercise, somewhat later, in the history of science, to teach safeguards against tenacious prejudice, such as here. It could be set conveniently in a broad category with the famous case of the much touted, non-existent phlogiston gas, one dispelled not least by the experimental approach of Lavoisier who, using mercury calx, showed the absorption and restoration of the gas in a clever experiment.

As serious science, however, the dogmatic fantasies of either lighter-than-air phlogiston or flightless evolution are simply imposture. In its recent format indeed, of punctuated equilibrium, it is a sentence beginning with a full stop... and here, not only by lore, but by something akin to law! Politics is about as near to law as it gets.

Now what does come suddenly is the law, the political law! Man spoke... and it happened... to the children. One does not object to a proper review of the evolution of evolutionary theory at a suitable level in schools: it could, if aptly done by one cognisant of the sphere, be refreshing and an eye- opener to the history of desperation in thought; and it does have very humorous aspects. An illustration of this, elsewhere noted, is the case of Professor Nilsson, where, after a life-time of dedicated research, and of frustration with non-existent transitional evidence for life-forms, he made his coup. Yes, he said, orchids in his view came all at once! no preliminaries, not stages: voilà, creation! Yet he was not a creationist.

It is indeed marvellous how like creationists the more realistic and factually inclined evolutionists can sound, when like a schoolmaster finding them without homework, Evidence confronts them. This it has long been doing, and increasingly with withering gaze, so that now this noted school of thought, 'punctuated equilibrium', is making its solemn obeisance to fantasy. The adverse evidence, as elsewhere noted, was excellently reviewed by Professor W.R. Thompson in his introduction to Everyman's Origin of Species, at the Origin's centenary. If Thompson was ruthless in his exposure of this absurd theory, at least he was factual and realistic. It did not perform, never did perform, and taught bad, illusory if not illusionist habits... theory first in the face of facts, not following them. This summarises much of his (detailed and closely supported) message.

No, the fact is that informed, historical review of the writhings and twisting of this unhappy theory would be in order, if the matter is to be treated in government schools at all. It is not to this one would necessarily object. In principle it might be done. What is obnoxious, as well as erroneous, is what appears the dictatorial intrusion into rational debate, pre-judging by a mere wave of the educational hand, with no valid or even plausible grounds adduced: a régime utterance with the mandate of authority, yet without any relevant, rational support whatever; and this in the face of reason, as readily demonstratable, and shown in this work.

That such religious bents should be so indulged with such educational adventurism as the South Australian  Circular to School Principals seems to provide, and should be so propagandised with such monopoly on teachers, even Principals subdued by this 'mighty word': what does this recall to the denizen of the twentieth century ?

Objectively, it is reminiscent of Hitler youth days, and it reminds one of Mao. In Germany, equally disastrous theories, with backing in Hegel and Nietzsche and epilogue by Darwin, were put forward. The studies of eugenics, how to make the best, most 'evolved' race were no mere chatter: the wrong line... and the weak, were not smiled upon, as the Jews and the undesired discovered. In Russia, the Communist 'new man', who never made it out of gestation in 70 years of 'trial' - and trial it was for millions whose famished bodies the graves covered, attested by mass graves: this was the evolved, the Communist contribution to an evolution which worked for them as well, no worse, as it has worked in more conventional laboratories: that is, not at all.

Here was the 'progressive'; the date with evolution, with the forces of evolutionary theory which Marx depicted, but which history ridiculed and now mocks satirically from the stench of Eastern Europe.

This 'advanced' man was dead before birth, a costly theory, a similarly blind, authoritarian requirement of man, to this dogma of the S.A. government.

In China, what appears the same inane dedication is notable, that towards various thoughts, State determined, authorised, controlled and State required. They too have no option; and indeed, they must bear with this atrocity against human freedom and rational thought, because of authority and power... or if not, they risk horrendous consequences. South Australia is in bad company. It is time for therapeutic action, before this State disease brings to these shores, more horrendous consequences. In N.S.W., at one time, there was already effort to control substantial matters in private school curriculum... Developments could occur here as unthinkable to many now, as may have been the thought in pre-war China, that their land could ever be one where the Chinese loudspeakers under Communism could so often blare pitilessly, even in rural areas. Just so do the Schools act to engulf the quiet of genuine thought, and of what Dr Kouznetsov calls 'open education': by courtesy of their tax-paid static.

If in the England of the Industrial Revolution, the young also might suffer, at least their parents did not so grossly have to pay for the oppression! Nor is it merely that some point of view, with freedom for objection and argumentation, is being put: in 'science'- actually misnamed philosophy classes at this point - creation is forbidden.

The parallels therefore are all too apt; and if even outside Science, the School Circular predetermines that religion is non-rational (in an area outside the data-graced science, indeed), involving no solution or result, therefore, in such a little point as creation: then the parallel is still more fierce and perilous. So in Marxism, you were told not only what to think, but the parameters of thought! In this, the cases are identical, and each does violence to the nature of man, of evidence and of scientific method. Training in this way is, in large measure, its opposite. Further, example continues to be one of the most impressive ways of learning, just as mis-teaching by its means, can be eminently effective. (Cf. Chs. 3-4, 10 infra.)

Thus does the way this area is treated, grossly aggravate the folly of the content. For sheer mesmeric mistreatment of the mind, it deserves a standing ovation, this magnificently conformist, constantly continued, aggressively thrusting push and putsch for evolution, embraced so widely by media and misinstruction alike. It would appear to this author that Hitler would have had little to teach this joint-operation, in the techniques of inculcation. In this we recall, the motive is not to the point; it is not assumed: it is the results which cry for remedy, and create new surfaces for the multi-faceted social problems which exercise the mighty.

By this method, whether in Russia of old or South Australia in this year of grace, 1991, education is cheapened, appearing very hard to distinguish from oily propaganda; and those of us who have lived long enough to retain memories of the reek of dictatorship which was so evident in Germany in World War II, the State-authorised delusion for which the nation was to pay in billions in East Germany and in millions dead... we do not savour this pseudo- democratic oppression in our own day.

As our work on theistic evolution also exhibits (pp. 179 ff., infra): where some sort of God is permitted to stroll round about the 'real' action, and this is the evolutionary fantasy: his moral markings in the setting of normative doctrine, are those of the devil. This is, in the way there shown, simply an analytical fact, when all the ingredients of Biblical teachings are compared with those of the State dogma, including its licence for some god-who-can-fit into their irrationalistic authoritarianism. Thus it is that the government of this State, whether wittingly or not, is mocking God, the God of the Bible - a ruinous pastime, a posture of foreboding (Galatians 6:7).

A RIDER ON YOUTH AND SOCIETY IN DYNAMISED DISEQUILIBRIUM

As a rider to this aspect, be it noted that those students in the S.A. public secondary and educational regime (cf. pp. 109 ff. supra), who receive the indoctrinative bias, may well show its ethical fruits. Suffering to have a conformist 'god' to lackey the hapless hypothesis of evolution, they may indeed utilise this fantasy... in fact, Biblically, an idol. This case, of course, is merely a particularly spiritually virulent example of a world-wide trend, and as such it is focussed for convenience. It will serve two positive functions for our apologetic task: first, it surveys the implications of what is happening, and then it relates this to the Biblical prophetic base, for which it serves as a verification.

If it enables a pre-view of doom, and an exhortation to many involved, to avoid it, so much the better.

Let us however pursue the point of the idol, already mentioned. Like other idols made by man, the cost to the soul may be total; to this life awesome and to the nation, a matter of vast financial loss as well. In fact, the State by these propagandising means, is spawning a good-is-bad generation (cf. Isaiah 5:20-21), one for whom the moral attributes of this spurious 'god' allowed to lurk in the sidelines, realised or not, may be followed to personal and civic ruin.

So does that State destroy itself, nurturing with poison rather than milk, the generation to come, while adding such force-feeding to the list of inhumanitarian follies with which the world has burdened itself.

Not merely is the world of devious, amoral survival opened up by this unholy week-day Sunday School, but the jaded, unvisionary, ideal-atrophied youth who has imbibed this poison, may revolt. Youth has world-wide shown much mood for revolt, and this is not the least of its grounds, morals antithetical to truth, based on metaphysics enshrined in evolutionary teaching (and indeed transcending it) injected into the blood, from an early age. By personal observation, I have found this to be quite capable of being a strong injection well back in Primary school, as to type.

Revolt ? Against society ? Possibly. Ever new follies seem to occur, for the exercise of self-expression, or the attaining of self-esteem, or the flaunting of personality, without esteeming what is far more estimable, and finding what is worthy of esteem, being estimable(*47).

Poison of mind may attract poison of body: there is a certain match which is more than one of words. More pathetic - for this generation of youth is grossly maltreated in these ways - may be the response within. Drafted (the intention may not be so, but the result is justly available) to this idolatry, the soul of many a youth may instinctively revolt. In such a state, secondary shock and grief can be numbing, anaesthetising yet more of the soul through such means.

Current society illustrates the disease while paying the State which provides the philosophy - masquerading as science and sniping at religion - which helps to produce the sickness.

Thus you see the spectre of youth.

Is this to say that this pollution of youth is caused by the indoctrination in organic evolution, and by this alone ? Not at all; we have already touched on that. It is to say that this is one of its causes, advanced by society (which suffers its just backlash) and supported by the monopolistic ministrations of miseducation by State-run Schools. Nor is it they alone which are at fault in this matter; but they proliferate and oppress citizens by their mandatory intellectual manacles for many who are not free to avoid the benefit.

You do not have to plan to pollute, to perform pollution. It comes with what goes. Tolerated by many churches, it is in fact a religion. It also mirrors the folly of ancient Israel (Deuteronomy 32:17) in ways wholly conforming to Biblical prediction (Daniel 11:36-39, II Timothy 3:1-5, II Peter 3:3-8), attributing power to creation rather than to the Creator, in the face of the facts and in denial of the faith. With this, the power of God Himself is soon forgotten, even in many religious bodies (II Timothy 3:5,7 predicts this type of situation).

The cause is the same as for Israel: failure to face this one God, the Creator, whom the Jews also as a nation, forsook (Deuteronomy 32:17) in ways that culminated with the killing of Christ, as their own prophets also predicted (Isaiah 49:7, Zechariah 13:7, 11:11-13, 12:10, 3:9). These are the ways of either active disbelief or cultural idolatry(*47) into which the much vaunted 'Christendom' has fallen, following the Jews (as one nation). It is not new, then; it is both old, predicted and predicated as the time draws near for Christ's return, of the Gentiles, with a generality reminiscent of that for the Jews in their day. (Cf. Acts 20:20-32, II Peter 3:1-10, II Thessalonians 2:1-8, II Timothy 3:1-7, Luke 18:8). As this last text shows - "When the Son of Man returns, shall He find faith on earth ?" follows an expression of His faithfulness in answering prayer, with the word 'nevertheless'- Despite this reliability on the part of God, when Christ returns, shall He find faith on earth ? Matthew 24 illustrates in great depth and detail, the answer!

Faith, then, is no more to characterise this earth when Christ's predicted return to it occurs, than did it characterise Israel as a nation, when His first coming occurred and they killed Him direct.

Jew and Gentile alike fall, and have fallen (cf. Romans 3:22-23); and this to the uttermost. The Church of Jesus Christ, like those early Jews who believed at His first coming, will continue one way, on the highway of holiness, while the world continues another, till - all preliminaries perfectly fulfilled and mercy abundantly ministered by God through the gospel call, amplifying its profound expression and format in the Cross of Christ (Galatians 6:14): judgment rolls in like an army of tanks. It will roll on with steely facts, to those who rejected a living and historic mercy (Romans 2:2, James 4:4-6, Hebrews 2:2-4).

What then, of this 'god of forces' as Daniel characterises the spiritual dynamisms coming to fruition in the last times (Daniel 11:39), so well illustrated, for example, by the doctrines of organic evolution (and by much else, seen as we explore it in its place in this work, with such as Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx and Communism) ? While this 'god' is pampered by the State, not only is scriptural prediction fulfilled; in addition, the world like a revolving laboratory, illustrates further the power of the word of God beyond its worst imaginings.

Christ's coming offered peace on earth to men, at the outset (Luke 2:14), as was announced at His advent; though this peace was particularised to the feet that would be guided by Him (Luke 1:79), the "dayspring from on high" having no interest in penetrating by force.

Since now the world so manifestly rejects its King, the Creator, Jew and Gentile alike, the offer of peace (cf. Luke 13:34) has through its rejection, become the assurance of its coming removal (Luke 19:42 may be followed through in relevant sequence, to Luke 12:51). This leads in the end to "fire on earth". (Luke 12:49).

The 'god of forces' which Darwin introduced in a form for his day, has been adopted with some zeal, if only in preliminary form by many. It is forwarded by many a government, not only with the philosophy of evolution but with amoral 'power- broking' techniques among the nations, ways that merely spoil a nation's stature, despise vision and erode capacity, resorting to naked force as a countdown, very often, if thwarted: this has indeed led to "fire on earth". Monumentally (a gaseous monument, itself, as noted in Ch.s 8-9 - pp. 718, 790-794, 803 infra - a sign or prophesied signal of Christ's approaching return) and literally, this fire came from the New Mexico desert, where 'the bomb' was made. Fire is intended at the last, as indeed both the final and the semi-final divine comment on recalcitrant, unrepentant man (Ezekiel 39:6, II Peter 3:10-13). It figures already as a symbol and symptom, both, of this generation.

These predictions, both their cause and consequence, are all being devastatingly, decisively and categorically fulfilled: the inventions of man merely fulfilling the predictions of God. The unattainability of Peace (it will have its proud moment, but only a moment - 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3) is as constant and consistently a confirmation of Biblical prophecy as is the way to this turmoil, and the reason for it.

Page 234 continued in the next section