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

CHAPTER 4

CLINGING TO WITLESS IDOLS IS CEASING

FROM THE CHALLENGE OF THE GOSPEL:

LIVERPOOL PLAYING A DIFFERENT SOCCER

Getting into our Stride - Theological Evolutionism

We have been considering the grace and the mercy of God as presented by Psalm 118 and its parallels. This grace is epitomised, concentrated and given human feet and hands, even human birth as a container unit, in the Person of Jesus Christ,

	the everlasting word of God,
	present at the beginning and to the end,
	equal with God  in honour and status, in form and reality (Hebrews 1, Philippians 2, John 8:58, 5:19ff., Revelation 2:8 with Isaiah 41:4, 44:6),
	being His exact and definitive expression and hence manifesting entirely the absolute reality,
	whom God calls God (Hebrews 1, Psalm 45),
	the First and the Last, our Great God and Saviour (Titus 2:13),
	the brightness of His glory,
	in whom all God's people were chosen before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4),
	who is the Creator of ALL things, so that nothing is made except He made it,
	the everlasting light which was, is and will be always the same (Hebrews 13:8), since God does not change (Malachi 3:6, Psalm 102).
	This mercy in this glorious and unchanging God is found in the Gospel, the active ingredient of which, in history, in the affairs of men as a cover for sin, a sluice gate for salvation, a ground for grace and a basis for faith, is Jesus Christ. What it gives, Christ did (Titus 2-3).

This Christ then is the ultimate reality and what He said, what He did, is the actuality before, beyond, in and over this universe, since it is one of His creations. This is the testimony of the endlessly incontrovertible, multiply presented, entirely consistent, prescient in prophecy, valid in concept, cohesive over millenia, never diminished biblical record. Of what it speaks, it renders uniquely efficacious account in logic, life and history (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7, TMR Ch. 1, SMR Ch. 1, The Pitter-Patter ... Ch. 4, Barbs ... 6   -7, CELESTIAL HARMONY FOR THE TERRESTRIAL HOST).

In this present Chapter, our concern is to APPLY this to inconsistent and invasive pollution, so that those who are seeking to understand where Christ relates to some of our modern pseudo-theology, might realise perfectly that it is just the work of wolves, or the spawn of the devil, or the confusion of corrupted minds or the abuse of privilege. It has nothing whatever to do with the Bible, and just as it always stands in test, so this theistic evolutionism, which we are about to consider, stands neither in exposition of the Bible, nor in attestation from  God's great work, the universe.

It is called theistic evolution and we have on various occasions exposed its woeful confusions. Since our task today is a specialised one, a simple excerpt will precede the treatment of the particular topic in view. This is taken from SMR pp. 180 -181 in the coverage of 179-190, itself one of the many coverages in SMR which are to be found under 'theistic evolution' in the relevant index( which cites for SMR pp.  10, 30ff., 85, 88ff., 121, 126-127, 135-151, 149-159, 179-194, 195-197, S8, S19, 303-311, 316C, 482-498, 615, 999-1000).

1. Christianity and the survival ethic

The special pleading of popularisers of the irrationalism of organic evolution makes it desirable to deal rather directly with this aspect, for the sake of clarity: you might say for clarity about charity. As the exponent of charity, Jesus Christ is equally Biblically presented as the co-Creator with the Father, to use the apostle John's words, of 'all things'; so that 'without Him was not anything made that was made.'

The crisis of collision is perfectly apparent - it is a matter of using power to protect or using power to delete (others) and advance (oneself)... and we turn to the scripture to prevent philosophic accretions posing as 'Christian'.

Apparent, then, from the Bible are a number of points strongly relating to theistic evolution. At once, one recalls that Scripture concerning Jesus Christ, which states:

"He, though He was rich, yet become poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich" (II Corinthians 8:9).

He paid a ransom to redeem those who, being penitent and having faith in Him, were n themselves wholly unacceptable.

Imagined (*42) evolutionary procedures, on the other hand, hold rather a strong relation with the doctrine that a creature, though it be strong - rich, possessed of power to secure its desires - yet will annul the life of another creature, if its own survival (or perhaps even its own satisfaction) is at stake... and this, it purports, is the way of creation! The given creature will secure itself; and the devil, or anything else that may happen to be in the rear, take the hindmost.

This amiable philosophy holds the view: the creature must survive. 'Thou shalt survive' echoes its elevating exhortation! This is the extra-Biblical commandment, here biologically pronounced. If the reason for it is less obvious, the popularity of this call with Hitler, Stalin and an impactive, large segment of teachers and politicians, those very vocal in these areas, is too well known to deserve further comment here. (Biblically, this is the creation's "subjection to vanity" - Romans 8:20.)

The two procedures, Christ's and this one, may now be related. They differ roughly as do God and the devil, harmonise 1ike plus and minus, are akin, like light and darkness. In the way of Christ Himself, one dies for the unfit (in the sense of 'deserving damnation'- John 3:30-36, Luke 13:1-3); while in the other way, the creature takes what it can get... (You might almost paraphrase the spirit of it: 'And be damned to the consequences for the rest'!)

The recent Columbian drug trade 'lords' and their attitude seems to summarise it very aptly, if rather more raucously than some seemingly unthinking academic zealots, charged with the instruction of the young, and inventing an unseen process from nowhere with such serene authority. If there be any body, any authority, any reason, any grounds, any opposition, any obstruction in the way of our survival, while doing what we see fit, let it be removed! This seems to cover a goodly part of the battle plan... We look at East and West, North and South, plus and minus infinity; ways of life as diverse as those of deity and the devil: Christianity and survival.

The one forgets itself, the other asserts itself. One dies for the deliverance of others; the other lives by and through its fitness, for itself, dispensing with life not for itself, but for what gets in its way, according as it has power to make the opposition... un-happen.

Yet even the disciples of Christ must, Biblically, follow Him:

Now we who are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves... For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, The reproaches of those who reproached Thee fell upon me.

(This is taken from Romans 15:1, and may be compared with 1 John 4:20, where to hate, not to love, means divorce from God, earning the title 'liar' to this sort of 'Christian' practitioner. In other words, such a procedure constitutes categorical pseudo-Christian fraud. One may deceive in such a process, oneself, one may deceive others; but before God, by the word of God, such a person is unmasked- cf. Hebrews 4:12-13.)

Thus in the one case, the creature is keen to continue as it may: but in the other, He, Christ, discontinued, through voluntary and indeed planned death, where He might have continued:

"Put up your sword again into its place... Do you think that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He even now will send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" (Matthew 26:53-54.)

This 'Prince of Life' then, and thus, discontinues where He statedly could rather at will have displayed power, allowing no interruption of His location in this world of so much strife, divesting Himself, at one sweep, of those intent on His non-survival here!

This however He did not; and in fact He deemed such a step a violation of scripture. True, He continues anyway, but only through the supernatural intervention of the bodily resurrection after death (Acts 2:31- "concerning the resurrection... His flesh did not rot"). "Does a spirit have flesh and bones as you see me to have?" asked Christ, returned after the sacrifice of ultimate service.

Christ dis-survived that the unfit might survive; and continued by the power of God, because this is the way God has it in terms of truth, virtue and Christianity. That is the situation in terms of that Christ who was co-Creator and does not change, that Jesus Christ who is scripturally declared to be "the same, yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8, cf. Hebrews 1:12). That is the teaching of Christianity.

One by predestinated thought proceeds to deliver those not only unfit but unsavoury ( Acts 2:22-28) by God's own standards; and the other by its own violence proceeds to deliver to death the opponents of its own mere continuance. Darkness is nearer to light than this to God.

One proceeds by self-sacrifice to enable survival of the unfit; the other proceeds by self- assertion to enforce death (if need be and as often as need be) on the unfit. (The problem for the evolutionist, of theoretical definition in the latter case - see Macbeth's Darwin Retried - may be met, though not to cover the theoretical case, by defining the 'unfit' to mean the 'dead-in-the-process'- a sort of irrelevant, pragmatic, a posteriori shrug.) Christ, by stark and absolute contrast indeed, delivers those who receive Him.

Now Jesus Christ, as we saw the Scripture informs us, is the same today, yesterday and forever; and God swears in Malachi (3:6) that He does not change (cf. James 1:17). The Psalms (90:2, 102:26-27) advise us that from everlasting to everlasting God is the same- indeed His years do not end- "in Him is no shadow of turning"- "no variableness", says James.

In John 5:19, for example again, Jesus advises us that He does whatsoever the Father does in the same way. It is all akin. As God's thoughts are above ours, so are the heavens above the earth; and as to His understanding, it is infinite (Isaiah 55, Psalm 147:5). His ways are similarly disjunct from ours (Isaiah 55:9), but are definitively declared in Christ (Hebrews 1:3-8, cf. John 16:15, 17:10).

This comparability of Christ in quality and scope with the Father implies the status of deity for Him; but that is not all. We are also told that all should honour the son just as (Greek) they honour the Father (John 5:19-23). Short of idolatry, which the Scripture excludes (Isaiah 42. 8, Psalm 89:6) with emphasis, and which excludes from heaven (1 Corinthians 6:6-9), this entails that Christ is deity. Now God is a Spirit (John 4:24).

As deity, Christ is by nature therefore that spiritually unchanging Being, who thus in redemption, and all it implies, has an approach which is ethically unchanged from that at the episode and performance of creation itself... till now (Genesis 2:1-3, cf. Malachi 3:6, Psalm 102:26-27, Hebrews 13:6).

Accordingly, we read (Hebrews 11:3): "By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the Word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which do appear."

Indeed, Genesis 2:4 tells us that Genesis 1:1-2:3 has told us just how God did it! It would seem that one reason for the recapitulation, selectively and with emphasis, for the particular focus and extension to a new thrust of specialty in Genesis 2 after Genesis 1, is precisely to remove from wandering or casual minds any tendency to depart from the specific declarations already made, like a teacher, with deft and subtle emphasis ensuring that what is taught, what is necessary, gets through...

Moreover, Christ's participation in the creation of all things from the beginning is perfectly explicit (John 1:1-14, Colossians 1:16, Ephesians 3:9).

It is thus systematically out of the question to reconcile any form of evolution and its survival ethic- or dis- ethics, Biblically defined - with Christianity or its Christ, declared in Scripture. There is a systematic, indeed a satanic contrast in view. Christ created (John 1:1-4, Colossians 1:16-17); and changeless in nature as in love (1 John 4:6-20), He does not do things that other way. Nor should His followers 1 John 4:20). Nor did He, ever. Nor would He (1 John 4:8-10, Amos 2:9-3:8, Psalm 50:16-21, Psalm 10, 1 John 1:5, James 1:17).

 We next treat various aspects of what was PRESENTED in the Liverpool Cathedral in the form of a debate.

THE LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL – ANOTHER GOSPEL

Now that we have found indisputably what the Bible teaches, it becomes apposite to give a little further thought to the confrontation in Liverpool Cathedral between Canon John Pilkinghorne, retired Cambridge University Physics Professor, and John Mackay, International Director of the most lively Creation Research operation, which includes so much geological research world-wide, and so many debates and instruction courses on its blossoming agenda.

It was towards the end of this debate that someone asked a multiple question terminal input (or what appeared to be of this order), and included an element for which time did not seem readily to permit a pointed answer. This is here provided. With it, related issues arising in the debate will be presented with a time opportunity the debate did not provide.

It seemed, in the rather hurried and compressed sort of the way in which the question from the audience was asked, to come to this. How can you trust God if on the one hand 'day' is supposed in the creation sequence (as John Mackay rightly indicated, clearly biblically defined by the Creator of day in the Bible, so that if you want to INTERPRET it, that is what you are to take it here to mean), to be 24 hours or so^*1A, and on the other hand, thousands of years.

MAKING CLAIMS CAN BE CLAMOUR 

It is not easy to find what precisely is meant in the few words of this question superadded in the closing time, to various other questions all fired in the twilight of the debate, but one can hope to find it. It would seem that the idea behind the question is probably this. IF the day, as so bindingly shown, in Genesis 1 is of the earth rotation variety, in order of magnitude at least, of the 24 hour variety, then how is it that Christians take the 'rest' to be thousands of years ?

In fact, of course, this is irrelevant. The rest of a man from his work of writing a book, this might be one day following 70 writing it. If he said, I wrote it in one day and then rested a day, and following this wrote no more, is this a difficulty ? Is the obtuseness required to misinterpret this of almost a negative genius variety ? Do you not have a clear message, toil on SOMETHING and rest FROM IT, and wishing to specify how long for each part, say so ? Is this oddball ? If you do NOT UNDERTAKE more writing, does this mean that you do nothing ? It is the task in hand to which you apply yourself, and from which you rest. That is the relevant point.

However, the claim would be, that in some inscrutable way, it is inconsistent to speak in these terms. One wonders how then one might speak! This is pettifogging at its worst.

 The rest of the attribution about trusting God is unclear, since it was not developed, but again, one might surmise that it meant that if GOD says 24 hour type in Genesis 1, how is it that His 'rest' is for the rest of the time of our Age ? If He puts things like that, how can you trust Him ? That seems to be the acerbic criticism, as above shown, confusing the episode-rest arithmetically describable sequence, with a 'from now on I am not doing this' idea. Resting FROM a labour, in short, is not at all the same as ceasing to engage in it, and confusion of these  two simple concepts is inexcusable.

Now let us return to the biblical facts, unpopular as this is in theological debate. It is after all what THIS debate was all about, how you INTERPRET! and how you relate your interpretation to a theory that some people seem to find addictive, namely theistic evolutionism (not ‘evolution’ since it is a theory to be treated verbally as such in this plateau). It is so in this perverse seeming Age, perhaps mostly because it is rebutted in both the fields it seeks to grasp, the religious and the scientific; for it is wholly contrary to the test of fact and the Bible alike (as shown in SMR pp. 140 -150, and given some review in Ch. 2 above, and in *1A below, as indeed in TMR Appendix).

HAS GOD SAID that the 'creation day' species of day is the only one ? As Mackay pointed out, a term may be defined in a clear fashion, but in the frequent order of development, it is then applicable in more metaphorical or extended ways, based on the fact that the basis is known, and is useful for such derivations, over time.

HAS GOD EVEN USED the term 'day' (that is the Hebrew transliterated  yom) in the Genesis 1-3 context, in a second way (though there is no reason why one cannot assume reasonable intelligence in a general audience, and the ability to know what they would instantly grasp in other contexts, from the usage), in another sense ?

But where ?

It is stated that in six categorically defined days, in this commencement exercise^*1 in  Genesis 1-3, that flows straight into recorded history in the most precise and methodical manner^*1, something was done.

The heavens, the astronomical heavens and earth, the geological earth, all that is material before us, were created. They did not make themselves out of nothing, this being a contradiction in terms and illogical gibbersih. They are made things exhibiting neither machinery nor machination for such intricacies of conceptual manipulation.

In fact, laws, forms associated, codes, commands, architectural specifications, correlations of commands and executive capacities to fulfil them, correlation of these with ultimate unitary functionalities, specificities creating themselves without specifications, and specificatory commands without commanding types of source: these are things not seen in the field of logic or empirical observation, being of the nature of magic, myth, the release of distinguished results from imaginary sources not possessing definable capacities or interfaces for the purpose in view.

Such things are not empirically found in 'nature' and are not logical. Nothing cannot do ANYTHING, by definition, and SOMETHING you want to do it all, has to have what it takes for all and any of it, if you wish to ‘derive it’ scientifically; and where you want ‘nature’ to do it for you, it too has to have what it takes, to show it so that you can know it. It has to be FOUND, and the grounds have to SHOWN, and the correlation with other laws has to be exhibited; but none of this is done, but the precise opposite.

Nothing doing (cf. Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Chs.  4, 3 and 2, with Beauty for Ashes Ch. 3)! It is the precise opposite of law, logic and observation so to imagine for nothing such propensities, a fact which is so amusing in so many ways, some of which are exhibited in these references, some in TMR Ch. 1, some in Wake Up  World! …  Chs. 4-6. Background for this and the attestations that match what IS shown are briefly shown in Spiritual Refreshings 16.

Laws crawl about the landscape, like motor-mowers with drivers, and people seem to affect not to see them! As shown in TMR, they exactly cover the biblical specifications in three major areas^*2 of scientific law, as if someone had made them up from the Bible, not science. The empirical and the scriptural, in other words, agree as notable Professor Tom Barnes pointed out, with maximum fidelity.

Science has duly enshrined these laws as fundamental to it, deriving them from its own observations. With scripture they agree.

But what do we find of 'theory' by some deemed scientific, but by other scientists deemed distortion ?

What is built by some scientists on these facts ? It is a make it yourself approach, contrary to the entirety of the position. It is what is never seen, is contrary to each of the laws concerned, and is built on egregious imagination as well.

These three scientific laws, the observed ones,  have a yield  just as OPPOSITE to verification of evolutionism on its own terms, and just as cogent for refutation of it,  as anything could be. Hilariously,  they are just as opposite as the Cambrian disaster of Gould, who on his own usual postulates was asking something about this. It was this:  how  'in heaven's name', he was asking,  could there be such a thing  as decreasing design (his estimate, about 90%) spread over time, when incremental design is the thing evolutionism is supposedly about. Fancy trying to explain the opposite of the evidence! that was his little problem, and like Calvin in the cartoons, he had plenty to say about the enormity of the thing in his "Wonderful Life"! (cf. 226ff.).

Explaining fantasy with fantasy: this was real magic, a story for children, operating on what is not the case, with methods of explanation which contradict basic law, on the assumptions never found to act, in ways which contradict the paleontological and organisational evidence^*3A, as Denton so well shows: this is quite a comedy, a comedy of errors. Children are treated to this play free of charge, very often, except for that of their lives.

Amazingly, this ludicrous foible in which some who are scientists indulge,  this evolutionism is a postulate to explain fantasy with more fantasy, a movement from fact to fantasy! (cf. Wake Up World! ... Ch. 6, Secular Myth or Sacred Truth ?). As Professor W.R. Thompson, F.R.S., former Director .of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Research put it, it is a matter of building fragile towers on towers, nothing established, making a multiply unstable whole. His words,  in his Introduction to Everyman edition of Darwin's The Origin of Species:

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 on hypotheses, where where fact and fiction intermingle in inextricable confusion. That these constructions correspond to natural appetite, there can be no doubt. It is certain also that Darwin established what may be called the classical method of satisfying this appetite. We are beginning to realise now that the method is unsound and the satisfaction illusory.

It is worse. It moves away from law, empirical fact, apparent means, logical requirement, etiological reality, multiple anti-verification, to make schemas which ludicrously are contradicted by evidence, as Gould revealed and not he alone; and yet it continues like sin, irresistible to the anointed. Scientifically, in the current conspectus of evolutionary thought itself, it fails in verification so often that the concept of keeping it in mind except as an historical oddity, is indefensible. ONE failure in verification is enough to consign ANY theory to the dust. If it wants to come back, it has to change until it is NO LONGER anti-verified ANYWHERE. That is the mode of science, properly so-called, not wishful thinking dabbling in science^*3.

Incidentally, the theistic evolutionist debater whose evening we are considering,  tried to escape the second law of thermodynamics in a manner that in view of his academic training, showed how very bankrupt any such attempt actually is. The idea seemed to be this: that various sub-units of universe(s) are around, and the mere fact that the ways of disorder are so much more open, that creation, the world,  is so much more prone to them, than to order, makes it clear that what is found is indeed so, that disorder tends to increase, order to decrease. That is quite correct, and one can but agree.

Hi-tech stuff such as our underlying bodily structures undoubtedly are (they surpass the MOST hi-tech abilities of man so far shown, by a vast amount as Denton so well shows - cf. SMR Ch. 2): this is not helped by being subjected to vast and variable forces over time;  such is never the observation of man. That is one reason why there is and can be the famed second law of thermodynamics, which as Lord Kelvin showed, is applicable in the round of observation (TMR Ch. 1).

If it were otherwise, it would indeed have to be another universe; but science is concerned with the one it finds - or ought to be, before degenerating into philosophy as seen in the hideous irrelevancy noted.

Let us however pursue this point a little further. Take all our imaginary sub-units of imaginary universes, just to indulge the critic. Let them be universe A. B,  C, and so on, as considered by the evolutionary debater,  such that energy is flowing along nicely or even exuberantly, or even dynamically with express-way lustre.

Let his be so; yet it is still merely energy. Energy however is not defined as work but as the CAPACITY to do work.

Energy is in atomic bombs; it is not per se constructive. It needs to be applied; and in creation, that is the whole point. You have to have the power, the energy reservoir for its exercise; but you need also whatever else like finesse and mathematics and creativity that is required for the result, in terms of logical procedures and scientific selectivity for bases raised for consideration.

In this field, in terms at least of scientific method (cf. Scientific Method, Satanic Method and the Model of Salvation), you never say,  Now let us find something lacking everything and postulate that this is what was the reason for this action. In science, though not in evolutionism, that would quite literally be regarded as sheer madness, if not some school-boy tongue in cheek, cheeky mockery.

Evolutionism is the inglorious and unsystematic exception where religious preference or cognate irrationality dictates  to scientific method^*3. Here, it appears the distortion must be in no small measure, for religious reasons, so great is the logical distortion, so arcane the ineptitude, so foreign the procedure as far as this world and its ways are concerned:  for although biblical religion is rigorously rational, much that is divorced from its truth is inveterately irrational, for where truth is gone, reason is not long afterwards, to follow it.

Thus the most inappropriate source for the universe is chosen with what appears either a whimsical cynicism or a driven obscurantism. It is as if,  deeming that people WANT not to have God, the point is consciously or unconsciously raised: Why bother to try to meet in such a case as this, with the required rigours of scientific method! Why start with observation ? Why not start with theory, continue with 'hope' and not finding verification, continue with conviction!

It may be this in many cases; or else it may be just a temporary loss of the senses. It is however rather widespread and its non-germane germination from the perspiration of strange mental gymnastics proceeds to exert multi-media thrust with just that missioning zeal which makes it such a destructive dynamic of  misconception,  a stress in society.

In fact, ultimately, as Romans 1:17ff. shows, the folly of seeking the  most inept ‘source’ for things, rather than what has grounds exquisitely chosen with the uttermost care and research, is a religious pathology. It is not that minds actually become defunct whenever this topic is turned on, but merely diverted, like someone constantly looking up to see the cricket, while conducting an experiment. Let us however revisit our postulated universes A, B, C, with all their envisaged energy. Let us take one of these.

Well then, let us have this imaginary, explosively dynamic sub-universe, call it B, sending out its rays to our dying one, our decreasingly ordered one, our one in which entropy's lifelessness flows on and over, and creation's liveliness suffers according, as we are 'going down please, next stop, the basement'.

There it goes, this input of energy! and in what way does more of the vast store of energy already INCLUDED (as the atomic bomb merely illustrates) in our universe, ready for release indeed, as also shown in its maintenance (for what you get for nothing, is nothing, but we are talking about something, which is the entire difference, so that it is not well to wander to the abysmally irrelevant): in what way does it change the law which is based on observation ? In no way, obviously, since the law IS based on ALL observation. Thoughts of energy surging about are here scientifically irrelevant and a faux pas, if not a total foozle. We HAVE it now present in all but inconceivable amounts within matter; it is merely one ingredient, like a fire in the sky instead of in your grate. Apt application is the point. That is what makes the difference with energy, as even a fat loafing labourer, averse to work, too aptly illustrates. You need to apply the energy relevantlyl at the right interface with the right skill to achieve a given result.

Of course, in terms of the settled character of created nature, the B variety is going down also, as it emits the imaginary help transmission to our place, so of what kind is a help in what is degrading itself, to what is busily doing to  itself that very thing : is it to make a duet of degradation ? Is in some way a creation to come from a degradation ? Not actually. For a creation you need what creates, not what degrades, so you really need a Creator. Other degrading areas do not make one. They also have first to be instituted by adequate means. Passing the buck makes nothing buck. It all has the some requirements whether you IMAGINE action or not; and staggering about with postulated universes is a multiplication of sites with no effect on the unity of necessity.

ANY number of imaginary universes (not the real topic of science which likes to find things and then interpret, rather than interpret by what it does not find, for this is philosophy, and a bad variety at that) require the same creation, and all their imaginary exports only decrease them; and in this generic realm of decrease (unless the Creator acts), sending bits of energy here or there does nothing to create anything, except an increase in the already vast store of energy in universe A, and a decrease in that in universe B, this together with a total decrement in the energy of universes, going down. The relevant creative phase is not relevant. Exports of created things are not exports of the Creator, or what creates. These are entirely diverse concepts.

You NEED THE CREATION for anything either to have or export anything, and this requires more than energy: that is a pre-condition. Creation is a specific result requiring the manifold areas of skilled application and conceptual imagination, together with all the institutions of laws for connection and causal relationship, coherence and continuity, and indeed the whole structural type of situation exhibited in some detail in Repent or Perish Ch. 7, for example. Having bits of stuff made, with spare energy export, this no more helps anything to be created than does money in the bank, when there are no shops and there is no commerce.

In this case, of course, there is MUCH money in the energic bank in our own universe; but it does not effect visible creation either of new designs and new information. It is there for another purpose.

Various books in more or less tatters in a library do not really help, if the institution is wanting a writer. Buying a new library does not produce one either, or anything else not specifically equipped with all the imagination, cogitation, conceptual facility and executive power, linked to material means which are to the point. You just get the books it happens to have: these are not ... authors!

To be sure, if you could have the Creator at some point, exporting His creative power, then you will get creative power. That is a truism, an identity proposition of no value except in illustrating the nature of identity propositions.

Let us however leave the abused realm of science, which here becomes science falsely so-called (one cannot too often emphasise that this is simply ONE BRANCH of knowledge falsely so-called, and one which happens to be in our milieu, the darling of the 20-21 century crowd), and consider the very philosophy of it.

Granted then that the second law of thermodynamics IS a law BECAUSE it is ALL that is found in a given select and discretely considered system, and that we do not find any evidence intruding itself to the contrary in observational reality INTO ANY of our TOTAL interactive system, for if we did, the law would at once cease to be a law, and become a mere statement of trend, to be considered with many equations of intrusive sort for various possible outcomes, which would then be tested as to their empirical adequacy and so on: what then ?

What indeed then ? EVEN IF you merely go on a jaunt in your own imagination, to consider what other sorts of universe, than this one, the Almighty MIGHT have made, but which do not in fact in any way evidence themselves, while cause and effect operate (cf. Causes 1, SMR Ch. 5), this changes nothing in the area of our concern to the least degree.

IF GOD wanted to make another sort of universe, God could. That needs no proof. ALL creation depends on Him, and it is the very definition of ALMIGHTY that He can do what He WANTS (as Pilkinghorne rightly but not relevantly pointed out). Certainly He could have made a cruel, wanton, destructive, pain-inflicting, torturous, hideously immoral universe where the made-stronger invest, infest and torment the made-weaker; but He is not like that. If you want to interpret, this is contrary to what is stated in so many ways so often that you would need to be immune to it, not to notice.

If you are looking at the Bible, and considering evolutionism, OR ANYTHING ELSE, this sort of creation is not a datum. It is, with some precision, the opposite. It is the curse from God on sin which biblically is STATED (Genesis 1 and Romans 8), to have brought the results of affliction. Discipline is not creation. You need to make and HAVE a creation, BEFORE discipline.

Biblically, then,  this sort of postulate could not be further from the truth. As 'interpretation', this is like a child saying, while the teacher writes one thing on the blackboard, to another student, 'but the teacher's mad.' It is total, wholesale rejection of the Bible, and thus suitable for nothing which is seeking to relate it to anything else.

Jesus Christ is the biblical definitive declaration of God (Hebrews 1, Philippians 2, Revelation 2:8, Isaiah 44:6, John 8:58, 5:19ff., Micah 5:3 and so on, cf. SMR pp. 532ff.). What does He exhibit in this field ?

The Biblical picture in Jesus Christ is the EXACT OPPOSITE. It reveals that He cares for the weak, being strong, gives Himself for the weak (Romans 14:1ff.), that He comes to the point of becoming incarnate as man to do so while satisfying the most pure and potent justice (cf. I Peter 1:22ff., Romans 3:23ff., 5:1ff., cf. SMR pp. 179ff.). He does this in order that man might escape it, out of heart and tender mercy; and we learn that He DELIGHTS in mercy (Micah 7:119ff.).

It is the good God giving the good creation, which has fouled itself, the good grace by which through His own goodness, at no charge to the creation, those who are in His image may become strong once more, delivered by His own devastation, restored by His own physical ruin (I Peter 2:22ff., 3:18), a testimony of love, of lovingkindness, of principle in this, that God is love (I John 4). We learn indeed that this is love, and here is it shown, that God sent His only begotten Son into the world that we might live by Him (I John 4:9); and we are told that if God so loved us, so we should love one another. This is the word of the God who does not change (Psalm 102, Malachi 3:6), and who commands His word so that not a jot or tittle will pass till all is fulfilled.

That is the Biblical depiction of God by God. The world ? The evidence of a systematically transmuting upwards universe is zero: that is why there is that 'second law'. You do not FIND the opposite, only imagine it in the absence of factual support. The endless, suppositious mutative failures on the way up, if they did not die, at least could show themselves; but they fail to do so. They are wall flowers without even a wall.

Indeed, in the manner of Professor Simpson's declaration, they fail SYSTEMATICALLY to show themselves. Variations are NEVER in a confirmed upward mode, and the phenomenon of sudden advents, whether of mammals or other kinds, even from an evolutionary viewpoint, is manifest and acknowledged (cf. SMR pp 106, 236).

In  fact, the Cambrian record as Gould depicted it, is one where some 9/10th of the assembled major design (as defined in Ch. 2 above) structures, as to type, are LOST in the ensuing period from this early and assumed foundational arena. On this evolutionary basis, design surges in basic kinds and sub-kinds, like a wave; and then it subsides. This ? it is calling for explanation by showing how it INCREASES over time ?

The postulates of evolutionism are not merely denied by FACT; they are derided by themselves. The imaginary efforts of what is not able to make efforts to make itself into what it is not, by coded means which constrict itself, while still operative, into new formats, without death or deletion through inefficiency, bringing up parts for a whole not yet providing the advantage of functionality is as absent from ANY testimony from ANY source as it is from logical apparatus, or for that matter, engineering testimony, as etiological or methodical means.

The case is PRECISELY as the second law of thermodynamics depicts: it is not found;  and at the risk of boring through repetition, this is WHY it is a LAW.

God then did not evidence in His word, nor has He evidenced in His works, such a universe as that. The One He made goes like this, in the manner just described, in KINDS and no advances in gradualism, without means for anything integral and operational, without attestation of it, and without logical basis for it. To say that evolutionism is bankrupt, is such an under-statement as might be made of some billionaire, for 50 years now in prison, if it were stated that there were some doubt about his cheque account in paying for a fleet of aircraft.

An energy source A, added to the present one, E, and several more, B, C, and D, would all become ONE ACTUAL TOTALITY, whether or not it could be seen, since this is now mere philosophy, irrelevant to evidence, an  excursion for wounded spirits in a disorderly retreat from the Bible, while seeking to maintain at least nodding acquaintance with that Book, which does more than nod when it has something to say, or unsay. ALL of these imaginary sources of energy would either abandon causality (which as shown means existence cf. SMR  pp. 255ff., 284ff., Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny Ch. 3), and hence not be, or else they would be liable to rational thought and to being there for it.

We take then the only option: they obey causation. If then the causes which demand that the many ways of disorder become the thing that is de rigueur, as it is by observation here, compared with the smaller thing, order, as Pilkinghorne rightly observed, this being the nature of a discretely created and highly specialised case in a milieu which does not entirely protect it, by suitable machinery: if this be the case, as it is the law, and the requirement of reason in any such type of entity, what then ? Then ALL of it runs down, and if some part wants to contribute, say A, to allow B to borrow, what is that ? It is merely part of the multiplied accounts, if you will, of some business operator, who in the end will find that juggling accounts will deceive nobody, since there is only SO much in ALL, and whatever you do, the only direction when you spend is DOWN.

As for making NEW accounts, that is creation. That is just to say that if God had created more, then there would be more to run down. That is so, but empirically and in terms of observation for law, irrelevant, just as it is to say that if the USA put 20,000,000 men in Iraq, with exquisite intelligence and logistics, the case would be different. Surely it would; but it is not the case with which we observationally have to do, or which reason represents,  and in no way does it differ from childish imaginations. Fun ? perhaps. Relevant ? Of course not.

Yet even if this be imagined, we need to remember as always, that it is still more irrelevant. The export of energy is not the export of the relevant feature. THIS universe has STACKS of it, so much so that a particularly small parcel of atomic kind can deliver devastatingly blasts to vast expanses of this earth. It is THERE. The question is making it available in a GIVEN way which is ORDER-INCITING and DESIGN-INVITING. Having a bank account is NOT hiring tradesmen. They have to exist too, or the money is mere talk, relative to the point at issue. Thus what is really be said, by implication, is simply this: that IF you had lots of sub-systems with sub-systematic energy quotients, and IF you had lots of creating gods around, or God involved Himself in using these hypothetical other creations with new creative energy, and so created all over again, then it would be a case where you have a lot of created universes which might interact.

That is true, and a truism. It spends time; but it gains nothing.

 Whatever then does this show, except this, that if things were different, they would be different; and if God used His creative powers in more ways, there would be more creation. WHETHER HE DID THIS, is a question found in an avenue denied empirically, emphatically, and in this sense, as ALWAYS in SCIENCE: for there is no evidence. If there were, it would merely mean a diversification of method, and have nothing to do with the mode of instituting any particular creation. It would be writing a set of volumes of three, rather than one. DOING it is in no essential way different at all. Looking for the writer is in no way advanced by considering how many books he might like to write.

The sharp definition of kind, the crusading quantities of sub-kinds with them in the Cambrian, the striking advents, the micro-biological non-correlations pointed out by Denton, the authoritative domains of type illustrated in cladistic classification^*4A: all of these things remind us, as logic independently requires (cf. SMR Chs. 1-2, 10, News 94, Repent or Perish Ch. 7),  that if you do not START with a creation, then there is NOTHING to draw on for your sub-universes that are imagined; for what is not there cannot be exported.

Nothing makes nothing; and nothing inadequate makes anything requiring more for its source. Figs do not grow on thistles, and books do not write themselves, information and meaning supplied, ex-knowing code-manipulators. You can't demand by mere imagination what causation requires adequacy to produce; just as nothing itself has no children, so nothing of a standard and kind of eminence, is deducible from what simply lacks that height and that functionality. Imagination as sole creator is merely out of its depth. You need what it takes! We must return to the FACTS, of etiology and empirical reality, and this certainly humiliates the heady, but that, it is better than destruction through wilful blindness.

If on the other hand,  you DO start with a creation, moving bits about in a way not indicated by any facts, between sub-universes, then it is still creation. The method of continuation is in general by entropy, decreasing design specificities; and ONLY by action on the part of an information Maker, a command issuer, an executive performer or moulder, can anything ever be done.

THE LOVABLE REALITY OF FACTS

(cf. SMR pp. 208ff.)

On this earth, the creation is all of one type: whether in material things, specific and arranged on plan and mode; or in living, where they are intricately and brilliantly, made by command,  and deteriorating, God is required for the creation. Something less is mere greed, causative greed, like finding gold on the road in the slums of Mexico City.

The law of conservation of mass and energy simply indicates He has finished; the second law of thermodynamics, that so far from the creation upcoding itself (in the face of information science's opposite findings), it is moving downhill; and the law of biogenesis indicates that things living being made, they continue within themselves, not from beyond themselves.

The facts indicate a remarkable coherence and unity of method, whether in code or mathematics or intricacy, underlying plans, re-usable sub-units, code language, inter-relationship in intimacy, movement about a norm, deterioration of basis, and accumulation of knowledge on this basis, while it lasts. There is in all this nothing but what creation demands, and coherent creation invites.

Furthermore if you want a motion picture sort of fantasy, without cause and effect, you simply reach an impasse (cf. SMR pp. 284ff.).  Try to make nothing your father and you get nowhere, and in particular, to yourself; try to make something inadequate your source, and to complicate it in complexly woven, imaginary motions, as in sub-universes, and you merely forget that there is always the WHOLE, and it requires AS A WHOLE, precisely what any part requires, so that the same constraints apply with no difference except that of contra-observational and irrelevant complexity.

In philosophy, there is no WAY. Plots of energy are not creators; If you have creators, you are assuming what you have to prove: that is, that without creators you have creation. If however you want a particular system which DOES create, then the Almighty COULD, in a most incredibly complex fashion, have invented one so highly programmatic that it would make this one - already in complexity jarring the human mind continually, yet astounding as it unfolds - seem simple, by comparison.

Yes, He could. That however would simply mean that the patterns, paradigms and procedures would all be presented so that not only would a GIVEN programmatic phase exist, such as we FIND empirically to be in place; but there would need to be lots of other ones or their equivalents, to be pre-programmed and enabled so that they came into operation

	a) to make changes,
	b) to work while they change,  and
	c) when they had done so, to operate.

The absence of the MEANS to do this is as notable as the RESULTS of doing it, in terms of the billions of efforts to this end, to be expected, if it were not contrary to all logic and law that it should be so. Thus law, engineering, mathematics, logic and evidence have chorus: Praise God and pass evolutionism where it belongs, into the extravaganza bin, where human plans to replace reason, reality, cause and effect, or necessary means, with all other lustful magics, are set.

Yet this garbage tin is no mere repository for ardent failures such as this absurd theory; it has set alight wars and hearts and horizons for conquest, racism and individualism of the most noxious kind, in terms of power to progress. It has made light of law, while it uses law, and of truth while it seeks to state it.

It has inflamed the world with pride, both in man as in humanism, in race as in Nazism, in class as in Communism, in religiosity quotients, as in spiritualism and New Age philosophy for mankind.

It has made of our race a thing of such obsequiousness to what is provided for our rule, and such defiance to the One who made us, that our international relationships, whether in Hitler's invasions, or Napoleon's, or Bismarck's shrewd strategies, or China's invasion of Tibet and desire to invade what is left free of it, Taiwan, or Russia's confrontation with the Ukraine, or Arab, Islamic or Iranian efforts to delete Israel, on the basis of 'superior' religion which has the disadvantage of being contrary to evidence and without verification^*4: all of this relates intensively to the pride of conquest, survival and the imagination. Scientific method is ignored, or abused, or left stricken by the wayside of foppish philosophy, religious convenience, unattested mouthings in the name of God, or man, or magic. Matters of desecration are made creative, and disciplines of folly are used as paradigms of excellence.

Reality is left out entirely.

Let us however return to our imaginary creator units, floating about in the mind of philosophers. This sort of idea is merely to encapsulate creative powers in programmatic devices to a greater extent that the Almighty has SHOWN or SAID (either, both) that He has done. What does this show ? That if things were different, they would be more complex, but we never find this to be so. What does that show ? That if you have A, you have A; and if B, then B;  but as to some nearly infinitely complex set of paradigms sewn together in the seamless robe of many kinds, ready to erupt into new kinds: we do not find it so either in observation, in controlled laboratory experiment, in the direction of the universe, the indices of the fossils as far as they could be relevant,  or in the word of God. God did not SAY He did it, creation does not SHOW He did it, and nothing cannot do it, nor anything that is as nothing to the requirements in view.

Thus, as always, these two agree: the universe and the word of God; and these two, logic and the empirical; and these four all. They do this when the word of God as perspective enables sight to be considered, rather than films of fancy, substituted for what it is to be seen in principle, in practice or in logic.

The universe and the word of God, if you actually manage to LOOK at them as THEY ARE: These are intensely and intensively clear - both. As in Ch. 2, above and the references and citations therein, it is apparent that ONLY imagination can provide either the transmutation of species or the confusion of the word of God. The actual FACTS are so clear that only unbelief beclouds them in such issues. It is not a question of which glasses you wear; it is one of whether or not you use frosted glasses!

God made kinds and they kept on after their kind; kinds appear and they keep after their kinds; paleontology weeps^*5, fossil trees going through alleged millions of years of strata, curl up their twigs in derision; experimentation shrivels before total ineptitude; but don’t blame ‘nature’, for it is just something made, made to be what it is. The curse complicates it, but not its creation! Interpretation is a concept: it has however NOTHING to do with this field. That is, nothing except where a bypass of FACT is made, where of course it has EVERYTHING to do with the WORDS, but NOTHING with the WORKS, with the world of observation, concatenation, cause and effect: in a word, of science.

God created in the time allotment men do not see, but He did, and then He rested. That rest is what and what alone is attested. It is not now going on, this creation. It does not, will not, even by appeal, by funds, by stimulation: it refuses entirely to appear^*6. NOTHING creates itself, and NOTHING is being created, except by creative spirits which came like the rest, through the technology and mental power, the executive dynamic and the coded means of life. Creation is always by what has what it takes, and man is merely an example on a small scale, one whose dimensions for dynamic we know most intimately. That is the least for this level, the construction and understanding. Man toils at its exacting specifications, providing what is demanded in every inter-related field, synthesising, imagining, using conceptual knowledge; and a greater being can do far more. Less is irrelevant, as a penny for a space-ship. It is not in the domain.

This is then the fourfold evidence. Inside evidences are more evidences as seen in Repent or Perish Ch. 7. Interpretation by contradiction is mere façade or worse.

God then, to return to the theme of the questioner whose word we noted at the outset: after creation, He rested. First it was a rest FROM the creative proceedings before; then it was a CESSATION as Hebrews 4 declares, in this field of creating our universe, ourselves. That is what HE SAID; that is what IS FOUND. That in turn is the verification you always find when anything of biblical proposition is tested. That again in turn is part of the perennial necessity for the word of God to meet every challenge which the empirical or the logical or the systematic can provide. He does not have to work at our level; but ours is minimalist for His works, for it is only sufficient for our own. It is the correlation which enchants, as when an apprentice painter sees in himself the ingredients of what the master produces, but not the quality or the quantity!

The absence of such rest then, on the part of such a Being as He,  is EMPHATICALLY NOT FOUND. That is, He has not resumed creation of our entity, this universe. What other things, such as coming with redemption in Christ Jesus, raising Him from the dead, and all the other parts of the DESIGN of the plan of salvation, from the sending of the Holy Spirit to the seasons of refreshing for His people, to the fulfilment of the degradation diiplomatically, energically, botanically and atmospherically of our world, to match the voluntary falls morally, ethically, sexually, spiritually, to the enthronement of death as a lust and surging urge, from Pol Pot to Al Qaeda as foretold in Revelation 6: all of this is amongst His works. But that of creation ? From that He rested for one day, and with whatever else He desired, with this He has proceeded for as long as He wishes, just as any author could work and then rest a day, and then proceed with other labours, not inclusive of further book production!

Creation of this universe ? it does not go on like some car engine, when the key is turned off. It STOPPED by all observation, and NOTHING will induce it to continue. It is the same with any creative author: unless he chooses, NOTHING makes it simply go. Money may stir him, ambition; but all that is mere choice material; again, creative integrity may move him. But he must choose to do it. It is a personal thing, at the level of imagination, conceptualisation, construction, bringing to be from the invisible realm of thought, its visible progeny: we do it all the time.

Let us then be particularly clear. GOD did it, in the relevant realm, our universe, and then CEASED. It is the same with any 'book'. It comes, it may be in 7 days; and then it stops. That is over; it is finished. It has been done. Talk about it fluttering on is about something else. Some may produce over years; but for my own part, creation with effort, followed by rest, as with multitudes of others, is the norm. It would even be ludicrous to consider the thing going on...

The ludicrous concept that in some way God is lying about His rest from creation, His cessation from it in this field after that: it is MERE imagination and is lacking in ALL evidence, to the point that saying that 2 plus 2 is sometimes 5 does so. Worse: it is idle imagination, and in this case, as irrelevant as it is hostile, both to face and to the word of God, an interesting side-issue.

Such a concept is contrary to all system, logic, scientific method, all procedures known, all possibilities extant.

God is neither in word nor in visible fact acting now to create. It was something once done for one purpose and then finished, and with this, rested from in a discrete act of cessation of that topic. Thence He proceeds as He will.

He is not seen to be so acting; but if He had placed IN the creation a power for new kinds, things to make themselves in new styles of kind, this would involve for a Being with such power as His, in His creation a complexity which would be appalling, as if writing all books had to be done at once, and an author were not only to produce a given text, but have the publishing  to be so organised that every now and again, in some intrusive and odd fashion, this and that would change, and then millions of other things would change in concert, the theme or the topic or the sub-topics or the purpose, or the style or the language, until the simple expression of semantic orders would have turned book one into something else. Such a prodigious and appalling complexity would then be required (though it is not evident), nstead simply of simply MAKING the first thing, and then if desired and as desired, that something else, another book, and leaving the first, or adding the other.

This auto-creation is never found. It is scarcely surprising. It is horrendous to conceive, whether in terms of economics or imagination, functionality indeed, or practicality. To inscribe a program for a KIND, it is one thing, whatever modes of embryonic development may be provided. To inscribe other KINDS of program for other kinds of creatures becomes a nightmare for integrity, as for means, as for confusion.

Once more, not this nightmare, but the light of common day is found. What then ? hence the law of conservation of mass and energy is; and the opposite is not found, merely imagined. Hence the second law of thermodynamics, and information itself tends to dissipate, not provide itself as an after-thought of what does not think(); hence this field also is within that same law. Hence life comes from life, the third law of Barnes noted from TMR Ch. 1.That is the way it is; that is the way God said it was.

SCIENCE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR CAPTURE

Science ? It is happy; only some scientists, invasive of scientific method by imagination, instead of using imagination to match the facts, they seem to be quite unable to stand it. They invent other worlds with other laws and other ways for other times. Let them do it. It does not alter anything but their relationship with fact, and of course, the Lord's relationship with them. Truth can hurt; and while you CAN if given the opportunity, crucify it, you cannot hold it down. Christ was resurrected, and facts still function. Nightmares are nightmares, not what happens in the day...

If now you did find such marvels of inefficiency and complexity, like a car-aeroplane, in vital format, yes, it would be fascinating; but you do not find it. God makes what He wants and has told the procedure and the KIND concept. Things go on, says He, says observation, by kind.

God is the God of order and stages and phases of disorganisation and transmutation as a method of creating something is not His way BY THE EVIDENCE and BY HIS WORD.

Neither from within nor from without is this universe being now created, nor are kinds. God rested when He had done it; and then ceased it.

What then ? Some other kind of a god might try it, and we would pity the poor universe which would have to suffer the tortuousness of it all, both in method, so idly complex, and in pain, with such incredible maximisation that the devil himself could be proud of it; but Jesus Christ is the PRECISE ANTITHESIS of it. He does not choose torture, but nurture; and the concept that this ugly striving morass of deceit and iniquity is in some way a creative rather than a desecrative curse, is contrary to fact, antithetical to scripture (Romans 5, 8) and defamatory of the Lord.

Neither does the world of God nor the word of God SHOW it. Yet this evil misconception, this unfactual fantasy, this anti-scientific insistence, it does destroy peace, and the scope now threatens to destroy civilisation, the earth and the pride of man. In this, it is not alone; it is merely one method of putting into God's mouth the opposite of what He has not said, or putting out of His word what He has said, or ignoring in His universe what it does.

There are plenty of others. There is much variety^{* 7}; but they are all of one type: contra-factual, irrational and irrelevant. They do not work; but they DO have results! These are partly natural, the necessary results of trifling with facts, like walking fast in a forest at night. That, it is now! for this world. God Himself, however, always most patient (cf. II Peter 3:9), with His purposes and plans of goodness and grace, while testing man, and providing the liberty of options, true or false, has His own timing, and His own time for His various actions (cf. Desire of the Nations ... Epilogue and Ch. 5, SMR pp. 1175ff.).

God moreover has undertaken to judge, rule and eventually destroy what is forever preferring darkness to His light of the Gospel, and of His Truth; and Christ to come to reign,  before the place is gone, through man's absurd and multiple machinations (cf. Psalm 2, while Isaiah 2 gives the account, as does Isaiah 24, II Thessalonians 2). The wilfully blind are eventually blighted by their blindness; for sight is necessary. That of course is a generic thing, not limited to any one field; it is a matter of the human spirit, for God advises that He will not ALWAYS strive with man, since he is flesh (Isaiah 57:15); and while the scale of operations has been profound, there is a time for each part. Love has acted to the uttermost; judgment has been met to the uttermost; man is invited to the uttermost and increasingly acts as if possessed: and the millenia pass.

There is in the midst of this misty milieu, this rambunctious pre-occupation, this breeding ground for lie-plagues^*8, as Christ declared, the time when the END comes. Disbelieving what God says of His love is disbelieving the very motivation of the Gospel as in John 3:16. Defiling the name of God is not to be admired; nor for that matter, any truth.

Evolutionism is one facade for fantasy. Theistic evolution is a sub-type of it, insulting God, brashly ignoring the Bible it claims, distorting reality in things both spiritual and physical, oblivious of evidence, warrantable for oblivion.

Theistic evolution is a mish-mash of unscientific accommodation to science falsely so-called of which those churches which have indulged in it (and few seem to have avoided it) should be thoroughly ashamed (cf. SMR pp. 568ff.). Of course, if you want to make your own religion, then naturally, lest you abuse history and God alike, LEAVE JESUS CHRIST OUT OF IT. The phenomenon of making false Christs is known since apostolic days, and PAUL DENOUNCES IT, as must any sincere servant of the biblical Jesus Christ. False creators and false christs doing non-realities to slake the thirst of some for alien culture, visited upon realities both spiritual and material: this is an acme of invention, a folie of fallen architecture, erected as a proverb for contempt for all time.

What then ? This: IF you change the observed universe to a non-observed one, and change the biblical GOD to an imagined one, both lacking ALL evidence and CONTRARY to ALL evidence, then things would be different. FACT, FACT and more FACT is the Biblical basis, the universal acclaim of evidence on all sides; but it is not desired. FANCY, fancy and more fancy is the endless seeming hope for what is without hope, for it is without reason, reality or testimony of any kind. Christianity, Bible-based, Christ-worshipping, is the only factual account which can stand all the tests of reason, scientific method, validity, and comprehensively cover in cohesive fashion all things with one divine perspective, self-consistent, insistent, never varying, lasting for millenia, fulfilled to this moment.

Science falsely so-called is simply a delusive attempt to avoid the only answer, and its answers are so astute in method, and so asinine in principle that it becomes like an ever bigger bomb, to illustrate in its gaunt power and uncomprehending manufacturers, the folly of work without wisdom, and wit without understanding. In this folly, man satiates himself like little children intent on trifles, besotted with truffles, hypnotised by baubles and ignorant of life.

The wit of God however has wisdom and understanding, and His word, tested to the uttermost and valid against all attempt (cf. It Bubbles … Ch. 9, TMR Ch. 5, also Celestial Harmony and the Terrerstrial Host), contains the love without which man is merely an emotional distortion, the grace without which he cannot stand, each one the other, the mercy without which one of the entire race so much as deserves to live, and the absolute truth without which nothing asserted CAN be more than ephemeral, and no understanding can be consistently asserted^*9. We find it here; we find it everywhere in all the 117 volumes of this set.

Imagination desires its illusory desires ?

IMAGINATION IS NOT GOD

Yes, but imagination is not God, and if it were, why does it not show it by MAKING such a universe and serving such a 'God' as itself. It is without power as Paul predicted would be the plight of this end of the Age generation (cf. Answers to Questions Ch. 5). It is without power because it is in rebellion against the source of power, and its use of conduits of power is merely like the actions of children in a well-built house, deviously trifling with complex designs, in the absence of the wisdom to know their purpose.

Of course, there is always problem in that: if you displace the facts with fancies, and ignore the tested (in science and scripture alike) for the untested, and implement what you lack power to do, you become like the man who began to build a tower, and had to stop for lack of resources. The God WHO IS, and who is causally necessarily there for us to have what we have, has left in His word and in the geological record NOT evidence of ANYTHING but one creation after which He rested. The life-creation phase is in terms of KINDS, which do indeed allow considerable differentiation in terms of the originally richly encoded information, but that is the limit of it in observation and in the Bible.

Let us consider further the biblical testimony. God does not - as in the debate, indicated in a question from what appeared a mere youth - bless his heart! - make as a MORAL God, an IMMORAL universe in which ANIMALS which do not understand morals, have to 'develop' and in some way show the wonderful magnitude of 'God's' thought, by suffering in a realm where they cannot profit. God does not use MEANS, although many a tyrant does, which deny any good ends. He does not abuse; though judgment afflicts, creation is not judgment. It is an expression of God.

It is the USE of creation which brings judgment; and the abuse now before us is so intense, so ludicrous, so far-reaching that the end is visibly coming, as well as biblically taught^{* 7} .

God is good, and the evidence that He has used these shocking, imaginary,  creative contrivances, as in theistic evolutionism's dream,  to torture creation into higher 'realms' is as missing in His word, as in His works. Imagining different universes condemn only one thing: the imagination of the imaginers. Imagination, we must really remind them, is NOT the basis for science (except in fitting theories to what is FOUND), nor is it the basis for ethical discourse.

Further, in the Lincoln Cathedral debate, issues and points of which have been featured in this Chapter, the efforts of the theistic evolutionary speaker to fit in the fact that he had not brought Jesus Christ into the creation debate in his major presentation, were eloquent. Jesus Christ meant much to him, we learned, but did not have to brought into a DEBATE on CHRISTIANITY as a field for comparison with another matter! Christ ? He was to be acknowledged, but His word did not dig, His nature and being did not penetrate into the actual presentation. Presentation without penetration! Presentation of Christ's biblically stated WORK, creation,  without ... mentioning Him!

 It is like Einstein without E=MC² in a discussion on energy. The basic point is this: WHO is God, WHAT is He like, and WHERE does evil and evolutionism fit in. To omit the Maker Himself, in biblical consideration, from the situation is like omitting the builder, in considering how to get a house. Biblically the answer is simple, sufficient, evidentially confirmed on all sides, including the arena of experience, where evil raises its insane, or inane head with indifferent regard to any consequences, let alone such distasteful things as the sober facts.

The answer is that God is good, goodness is as defined in God’s manifestation, Jesus Christ, who is definitive (Hebrews 1), who is love (I John 4:7-8), not lust, whose is grace, not grabbing, who sacrificed Himself, infinitely removed from sacrificing others for the institution of His works, and this, what is it ? but the strong serving the weak (Romans 14:1ff., Matthew 20:28), compassion and concern, removal of judgment by self-sacrifice rather than merely allowing its application.

Did then billions of creatures have to sacrifice themselves that man might be ? Was that the work of One who had only to WISH it to GET it! Was moral outrage to be the cornerstone of morality, and ethical outage the chief builder of life ? Was life to deny itself in order to be; and what sort of life is that, which lacks the power in creation to be what it is! It is nothing to do with God, but the mere transformation of the conditions of the curse, which create nothing, into the imaginary mode of creation (cf. Beyond the Curse).

The child’s question was most pertinent, concerning morality and animals. Moral ? Such an imaginary and anti-evidential mode of creation would be the height of immorality by biblical standards, and in particular in terms of Christ’s own example, that of Him who changes NOT! no not forever (Hebrews 13:8). Trying to put a fictitious and anti-empirical ghoulishness (those words are not too strong for the attested facts of what is visible and workable) into the realm of creation, such an example of the weak sacrificed for the strong, such torture and torment instead of the biblical truth, which is to love your neighbour as yourself, and to do to others as you would that they should do to you: what is it ? it is an interpretation by invention, a comprehension by collision and a presentation by bypass.

It is antithetical to Christ, so naturally NOTHING of Christ would be brought in to such a presentation in a debate. Why ? It is because, since it is the collision with Christ at the outset, a thing to be avoided if you seek to follow Him! The collisions with Christ in scripture include those of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Matthew 22, Luke 11), and of the nails they found necessary for their ... interpretation of His teaching.

Facts are other than, alien to all of this imaginary vision of vice in the place of virtue. They will not tolerate, because they NEVER FIT, the contradiction, double-barreled, of creation and Bible.

If you want to understand the universe, you need to see it as it is. No spectacles can invent the systematically missing jumps into what Gould on his own evolutionary basis notes as not only NEW designs aplenty, but sub-designs happily circulating with them at ONCE. That is evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis. Let us keep to it with its own, and facts with creation, then, everything where it fits.

Designs do not slowly develop in evidence; torture is not slowly applied THEREFORE in observation, and to condemn God as a war criminal (or worse, to make it appear that He is one to call  'good' that sort of frenzy of opportunistic disregard of the content and welfare of creatures) on the basis of one's own imagination: this is more comedy than parody, more parody than practicality, and more abuse than acumen.

	Irreducible complexity,
	irreplaceable integrality,
	inseparable correlations of code system, the essence of design -
	and the evidence is its very definition (cf. Ch. 2 above), these things (cf. Stepping Out for Christ ... Ch. 9, Repent or Perish Ch. 7), together with specifics such as systematic uniformity not only in language for code, but in intricate dispensations of inter-connection, spheres of order within order, down to molecules with their legal features, atoms with their architectural splendour, electrons and mesons and all the rest, which are mere building blocks or their co-labourers; and all of this with the design that deposits and assigns them: these are building dynamics, the applied conceptual illustrations,  just as the cohesion of thought works in the meaning of the motions and the message of the whole,  relative to the mere dynamics of action.
	What then ? they are not variable nonsenses,
	but coherent display units of what mind does.

 In this, it is neither adding nor inventing; it is operating on the plan, specification correlatives and dynamisms and provisions inherent, co-ordinated and created. In this, it merely proliferates as it presents, and coheres in its units, in their mutual relationship, together with  the multiple vexations of the curse which mars (cf. Biblical Blessings Ch. 7).

This is the nature of creation in KINDS, by the God who COMMANDS what He wants and gets it in an assigned sequence of plan.

As it is written, so it is, right down to the billions of commands in life, and the fact that GOD SPOKE and it was done!

Then in a different language altogether, that of incarnation His infinitely intimate Word, God made this, His expression come into man's own format, even using an embryo conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1), in a humility as profound as the love which instilled it and the mercy which sought it, so fulfilling the written word of millenia from Genesis to Malachi, and doing so with the same detailed zeal that He put into the works of staggering finesse in the creation in the first place.

The New Testament Christ is the One who insists on the jots and tittles of the Old (cf. Matthew 5:17ff., SMR Appendix D, pp. 1175ff.), whom it foretold, from the mouth of the same God whose passion secured with the same splendour, love express together with power unrestrained, the redemption of this design, the coverage for this creation in His own image, man, whom He invites to share His thoughts, follow His principles and freely follow the designs of His heart. As it was at the first in warning (Genesis 2:16ff.), so was it after man's fall, in exhibit of the coming deliverance, then to be, but now blessedly come. It does not mutate: it is as in its first statement in its last fulfilment! (Genesis 3:15). It has happened, as do all of God's words, as did His creation itself.

Great is the depth of His thoughts; but His ways do not alter (Malachi 3:6, Psalm 102, Habakkuk 3:6, Hebrews 13:8), and they are everlasting

Great is the depth of His thoughts; but His ways do not alter (Malachi 3:6, Psalm 102, Habakkuk 3:6, Hebrews 13:8), and they are everlasting (cf. SMR pp.  28ff., News 122, Calibrating Myths, Machining Dreams and Keeping Faith Ch. 6 and for contrast Ch. 3, in the same work, and Defining Drama Ch. 3, with SMR pp. 413ff., 422Eff., 262ff.).

	Brilliance of thought,
	infinitude of wisdom,
	clarity of disposition,
	certitude of keeping His word,
	attestation of the same through history by words and events continually correlative -
	these things in His words, as in His works,
	in salvation as in creation,
	in Gospel foretold as well as in judgment,
	in consummation as in initiation:

they remain.

He loves order and justice, but He loves the one in His image man; and in love He has ordered deliverance from the confusion of misspent will to the re-creation of distorted hearts and the restoration of wilted, quilted or milled spirits, to the openness of His face (cf. Psalm 27, 51).

He IS kind, and He has made in KINDS, so that NOTHING is called upon to be what it is not; for rather the call, the cry is to rest in what you are, and where sin has defiled, as in this world which duly received His curse (cf. Romans 5, 8, Genesis 3), then to return to restoration for rest in what is your redemption. It is all infinitely wise, and such is the wisdom in the beginning.

In creation, there are vast hinterlands of order, sequence, system, architecture of thought and substance, method, articulation, execution and correlation that make anything other than KIND for a consideration, a night-mare that only imagination, as normal in nightmares, supplies! (cf. Stepping Out for Christ ... Ch. 9, Repent or Perish Ch. 7).

RETURNING TO REST INSTEAD OF
WRESTING FACT AND WRESTLING WITH MYTH

The hideous inefficiency of having imaginary mutative creations constantly requiring correlative design change and means change and  method change for alternative courses is thankfully as absent in any observable fact, as it is in any conceivable rationality! Information science cries: INFORMATION DEPARTS, and does not untold, arrive; but its cry is suppressed.

Entropy increases is the cry, but it is unheard; maybe it increases for reasons unknown in
ways unknown in worlds unknown and this has no known impact for observation; and this is science ? If it did, it were only another illustration, and if it did not, it would require the inwardly built construction to overcome the logical tend. It is talk. It is fiction with words ignoring disciplines of necessity in the proliferation of the irrelevant!

Returning to the fact, God rested in the CREATIVE EXPLOSION SENSE AND SETTING, for after 6 days, as defined in type, of creation, as defined in kinds, which HE created with the earth bringing forth (you create first in the nature of the case, and only then is there anything to bring forth, from the earth God created): then there is REST. ONE DAY is appointed for this. It is like an author: he writes for say 5 days in a creative rush, and then... rests.

IF now he never writes another book, does this make it a 'lie' that he rested on the 6th day, in our case ? Not at all. There is a SPECIFIC CREATION of the book, and a SPECIFIC AND RELATIVE REST FROM the book. That is one unit, a tableau, a situational totality. In tennis: one plays a match, say on two successive days, and then ... rests.

Does this mean that one never plays another match ? It is not known. It may or may not. But it DOES and MUST mean that in relation to THAT match, this was the time apportionment: two days play, one day rest. You do not make the day of rest a thousand years, just because the rest from that match is now over. That is the unit, and this is the defined course of its movement. If a match is the unit of thought, that is the nature of this correlation, this concatenation, this sequence. If a universe is the unit, then that is the declaration concerning it: six days of work, one of rest FROM THIS work. If this is the heavens and the earth, then that one is the one, and this is the nature of the case concerning the heavens and the earth. After that one day of rest, there is simple cessation relative to this field, this topic, this theme, and for us, our universe.

It is hard, even impossible, to see any difficulty in that, except in the perversity of man's mind, that he will not take what is said AS it is said, but must as in the case above, philosophise not only irrelevantly, but impossibly, so that imagination alone is served; and when this is served up on the actualities and agents, it becomes something, in the matter of God, enormously difficult to distinguish from idle blasphemy. It is most unwise to misrepresent God, even if the intention is not there, but only the lack of ATTENTION! Bad words about Him, the source and essence of goodness, especially,  are not good!

Tautology ? Not at all, it is just that you need EVIDENCE, not imagination, when you judging STATED entities!

In the book of Hebrews (which is not Genesis, but rather later ...), there is a usage of 'rest' which relates to Genesis and applies it. That as John Mackay noted from those linguistic experts whom he cited (people such as Dr Hall) , that usage of a given term in a developed way and setting is normal in language usage over time. This is what the thing is; this is a focus derivable from it; this is a metaphor based on it. You need little expertise to realise such a sequence over time.

Is it then a fault to be normal ? Is it indeed a fault to live, one might almost ask in such a hyper-critical arena!

We are told in Hebrews 4 that God worked for six days (defined as in context of course, for that is a reference), and then rested. The topic is not here seventh day rest; it is an application.

The topic now  is resting for SALVATION, and not relying on your own works, such as your six days of labour typify. It is at this point in Hebrews, nothing at all about the sacredness of the holy day of rest once in seven, but about the holy WAY of rest for the whole of your life, BASED on the GREATEST OF ALL the works of God.

What then is that ? It is the crucifixion of His only-begotten Son for sin, suffering the strong for the weak, and the resurrection of His corpse for the display of His authenticity, the defeat of death as a dracula and the attestation of the divine sympathy, grace and power mixed, in a precise point of application to the case of MANKIND (Titus 2-3, I John 2:2). It is FOR as many as would receive Him (John 8:24, 1:12), and no more (or less).

AS God rested from His works of creation, and so displays the PHENOMENON OF REST, SO, the author of Hebrews is arguing in his application to the point in mind, must it be for the saved sinner, for the redeemed Christian. He or she also MUST rest from his or her own sort of works, all that one DOES with and in and through one's little life, relative to salvation. Works express it; they do not achieve it (cf. Romans 3:23ff., Ephesians 2). The rest that God displayed to be His, relative to creation, is something that man must find as his own, relative to salvation. This is AN APPLICATION of the principle; and it is an exemplification of the topic of REST.

There IS a rest, which God has shown; this is something which must enter the spirit of man as a DISPOSITION. Even as he works, he must not be working in order to replace salvation with what he does. That, like the creation, is over, finished. God has rested from these works. Man must learn, if redeemed, to rest from his works, as God showed He could rest from His.

God's work in creation is the prototype and exemplar, the exemplification and attestation that rest is real.

Using this fact, man must now learn that really in his own spirit, he must receive this restfulness, and not be restive about being saved, must not try to wrest the free gift of salvation into some Romanist or similar facade where you CONTRIBUTE. God GIVES rest to those who come in faith to the Lord's Christ, Jesus the Christ (Matthew 11:27-28), both from any reliance on and direction of their own works (Hebrews 4), from which they 'cease', for their salvation, and from fears and anxieties which otherwise wrest rest and make man restless in spirit (cf. Isaiah 48:17).

No! When it comes to CREATION, the author of Hebrews is being divinely used to show this: you see WORK for six days (defined type), and rest for one (defined type). That was a totality summed up in Genesis 2:1-4. When the topic is SALVATION, as indubitably in Hebrews 4, then the concept of rest as exemplified in Genesis, may be applied to this wholly different, but still highly spiritual field.

The two are closely related: Creation created the creator of the problem: MAN. Salvation created the solution to the problem: Christ crucified, yea rather risen (Romans 8:34). In this also God has FINISHED. Neither does creation add to itself; but it was finished so that God RESTED (showing the completion) from it, specifically, merely moving within the kind framework.

This is as evidence abundantly attests, adding the reasons for it continually, as more is discovered of the systematic programmatic complexities and contrivances God has used, both to conserve kind and to enable individuality, NOT as a method of creation, but an enablement of expression for what is created, so that not anguish but liberty is the law of it.

Similarly, WHEN one is saved, in substantial parallel, there is the TOTAL COVERAGE of the case in the first instance. God MADE it all, and His methods are His own, and as described.  His character and the meaning of 'good' are also as described, sin being the agent of the advent of evil, death and pain, labour and horror, as illustrated so well in the case of the Exodus and the relationship between scourge and God in the successive plagues, as required for a proud spirit of an oppressive tyrant in a ludicrously myth-minded civilisation which needed a shake-up better than a total ruin! GOODNESS acts to remove the slavery of Egypt, or sin, just as it acted to create man at all. One rests in the Lord in each mode, whether AS one of His works, sequentially every seven days, or AS ONE of the redeemed, resting on His works, which are here also finished.

The former is procedural; the latter is principial. The terminological procedure is this: the basic rest has its place in the human race of God, and the periodic nature of it is a mode of living. The applied rest has its place in the divine grace of God, and its continual nature is a pivot of eternal life.

SUMMARY

Let us sum up the application.

Thus when it came to creation of all that is, GOD RESTED after the works for that episode (like that of an author writing a particular book). The rest was comparable to the creation: days were the unit of measurement for that case. In Exodus, we are shown that this being the WAY we were MADE, it is also, for image-bearers of God, the way we are MAINTAINED. Work-rest, in correlative steps. Indeed, further, HE worked 6 and rested 1; so we are to do the same.

That is the immediate and relevant point in the Pentateuch.

In Hebrews, there is a development and application for such concepts, in the normal manner of procedure so often found in language and in the field of ideation more generally. We see a principle, and then apply it in various domains (such as that of the cyclotron in particular, then applied as a principle to quite different domains, because the dynamic of the thought is relevant, related, useful and stimulating in such address to other fields).

It is no more this, that God worked for 6 units and rested in that configuration, that ensemble, that tableau, for one unit, this completing that total episode. What happens after that is an entirely separate question and we are not invited to pry, but as far as creation was concerned, for our universe, it was done in ONE (of six units), and God rested in ONE (of one unit), and this closed the matter in view.

What then IS in view in Hebrews ?

Let us see in quickly in this perspective. This time the application is as follows: JUST AS, in the domain of creation of course, GOD worked and then rested, and the rest was real and something real for God, so in the domain of salvation, where GOD also has finished the work, and it is matter of receiving it just as really as the creation had to 'receive' itself as having been made: one must be prepared to receive the REST phenomenon.

God was willing to bring the spiritual parallel as narrated in Psalm 95, we find, which reviews the failure of faith so that the nation of Israel, having been miraculously brought TO the promised land, failed to enter INTO it! In this, they failed and frustrated themselves after the Exodus, instead of finding that quietus of content by entering the Promised Land at that time. This was an omission of their commission  after being delivered, directed, fed, watered and brought to the ENTRANCE.

Hence they did not find that rest, and as to that generation of Israel (we are dealing with particular units, not some grand and confused 'everything-portmanteau’), except for those who had believed to enter (but could not since the people refused to accompany them, like Joshua), they fell in the desert. It took another to bring them in, and that very one WAS Joshua ('the Lord saves'). Now we have another to bring all of US Gentiles in, THE LORD WHO SAVES; and this time it is not to the promised land of Israel, but to a second stage in the matter of REST.

Here is the application: it is to the rest in Christ, and eternal life is the promised land, with the bodily resurrection, like the deliverance of Israel from Pharaoh's drowned armies, the attestation, exhibit and consummation of the many acts of healing and the raising of the dead which had already made Christ so famous, before His people could no longer stand Him, and so removed Him.

This, it is just like those today who cannot stand His word (HE is no longer available in the flesh), and so use His name while defaming His testimony. .

That is the THIRD stage of application.

There is the rest AS created beings, one in seven days, in parallel to His own performance.

There is the would-be rest for Israel, coming once into the promised land, and losing it because faith did not in their case, do its work. They missed THAT (application) of rest.

There is the next application, in Christ. Now, HE has finished His saving work, and we must REST in HIM, and so come boldly to the throne of grace for help in time of need, knowing Him, the Great High Priest has done the job in totality for us (cf. Hebrew 4; 10:10-14; 9:12,28). We must cease trying to CREATE our salvation. We must cease trying to BE OURSELVES in some sense as if to create the KIND.

We are made as in the image of God, and anything and everything else is LESS. Only sin needs cure. It is not development of men and nations in the concourse of vice and war, injustice and guile, that is the need or for that matter the biblical depiction. Instead, it is repentance and faith in the living God who having made us in His image, is ready to re-create in the SAME KIND (Colossians 3:10), but with the sublime reality in view, back to the wonders of what He first did.

God acted and rested. Once again He has acted, this time to save, and it is finished. Now it is WE who must rest in reliance, just as in the first instance, we had to rest one day in seven, in parallel configuration to His work-rest paradigm, one following six.

LIE ? IT IS MORE LIKE LYING IN WAIT FOR THE TRUTH!

In vain does one look for some lie in such an application. It is absurd, like saying that one and one is a lemon or a strawberry. It does not relate in the slightest degree to the original declaration, and requirement for following the phases of the episodes of creation in their tableau; nor to the requirement of the next declaration, and the necessity to follow the provision of the new creation from the finished work of Christ.

Thus, a person should not try to be NOT MAN, in the first instance, but rest as a created human being. How ? In that regard, it is by following the one to six arithmetic, in terms of day as defined.

Similarly, one should not try to be SELF-SAVING MAN, but rest in the completed work of salvation, just as God rested from the finished work of creation, and Christ rested from the finished work which He had wrought (cf. John 19:30, Hebrews 12:1-2, 10:10-14, 9:12).

It is ever so simple. Rest one day in seven, since that is the precise arithmetic of your creation, God rested one day in seven. The creation work then CEASED in the terms of reference, of creating the heavens and the earth. That is the word which Hebrews 4 uses, and it is to be noted. It CEASED. Now we are to cease, as the application of the rest CONCEPT implies, from our works, and realise the reality of rest in the topic of application of the principle, namely salvation.

If I write a book, for 6 days, and rest from it, 1 day, and say so, do I lie if I do not write that book again ? In what way ?

If I do not write another book thereafter, but do other things, do I lie because in fact I rested FROM THAT WORK ON THE BOOK, the one in view and clearly defined in context, thereafter ? I think not.

If I then tell someone that just as I wrote in 6 and rested FROM THIS for 1 day, so they should publish in 6 and rest in 1 day, or follow that paradigm if it takes longer, I promote a principle, that is all: like it or leave it. If then I help a child who is suffering from leukemia in 6 grand days of inventive medicine, and the child is healed, is it in some way wrong to point out to the child that I would like this principle to be applied here also, so that the concept of a rest of a relevant order, would prove helpful to health ?

I think not. Whether I were right in such a concept or not, this is not the current question. It is mere analogy. The POINT and the PRINCIPLE however is this: that a principle can be established, and depending on the case, can be applied aptly to other realms as appropriate. If inappropriate, the thing is not a lie, but an error.

However it is not at all inappropriate in KIND to realise that just as God created in a given time, and then rested, it is His Creator's handbook manual position, that we should do the same. HE ought to know, and it works sublimely in practice. Nor is it inappropriate in kind to find that if Christ (as He states) has FINISHED His work (so that we obtain ETERNAL REDEMPTION as a GIFT NOT to be worked for) as in Hebrews 4,9-10), so we should rest from any concept of trying to make ourselves into saved people by some creative work of our own.

What is FINISHED can have no wise addition. What is GIVEN, needs no useful additives. As GOD Himself rested from creation, so we must rest from miscreancy, EITHER by violating the day of rest towards and for Him, the MAKER of our units, our persons indeed, OR by violating the WAY of rest towards Him and for Him, since He has GIVEN salvation, and it cost Him an infinite amount.

Imagine the pure hideousness of having a father send his son to an expensive school at a total cost of 100,000 dollars, and then finding it said by his son at the school, that his old man was so broke that he had to put 5 cents of his pocket money into the school account every five years, to help! It is foul.

THAT is then is the matter of rest and the matter of its applications. God is TOTAL creator and TOTAL saviour, put MUCH WORK into both, has FINISHED BOTH, the one in its day, and the other in its way, and requests us to act in terms of the underlying principle of rest, in the particular ways where He makes application of it.

What then are we to find ? Will it next be suggested that because 2 and 2 make 4 and 2 and 3 make 5, that there is some lie, because in the first application of numeracy you get one result, and in the related but different one coming next, you get another result.

In philosophy, which much of the debate in fact was, you can expect ... yes, even that.

Coming back to the facts, however, and Christianity unlike all other religions as a matter of EMPIRICAL FACT, is a religion BASED ON FACT, since God Himself INSISTS that this is so and goes to great pains to make it TESTABLE (Isaiah 41, 43, 48 repeatedly show just that), we find here as always that the word of God is gloriously consistent. It is also marvellously intricate, applying things with all the flair of a profound lecturer, a meaty thinker and a marvellous orator.

It is ABOVE all, found that that its truth and incapacity for refutation over the millenia proceeds inviolate among the violators, and that is as it must be,  ONLY because it has proceeded, as Christ told Satan, every word of it, OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD (Matthew 4:4).

THE DEBATE AT LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL - ANOTHER CHRIST

There is another mouth. It is that of man.

Let us then look at one further example of challenge at the Liverpool Cathedral debate.

Thus, also in this debate, during question time, there came a  challenge directed to the theistic evolutionist. It concerned Romans 5, which states that  one man who brought IN the curse, and one man who BROUGHT OUT the curse, and cured it. In reply to this,  the theistic evolutionist debater admitted that he was not saying that what he had in mind is just what Paul had in mind, but merely that there was some underlying way in which he could take some of what Paul was saying.

As interpretation, that is non est. It does not exist. If I told my commanding officer that his command that I take hill A was understood, and I was indeed a follower of his, and then took hill B, what then would I say when he advised me that I had thereby lost the entire campaign through a mixture of effrontery, presumption, superficiality and taking over of his command, occasioning the death of millions and the compromise of the nation in a way worse than had been the case, for several centuries...

That is the RISK you take when you COUNTERMAND by using your clear eyes to see clear words and speciously talk about 'interpretation'. Clarity is the distinguishing feature of scripture, as much as any (cf. Proverbs 8:8 - something found startlingly true as you work on that basis and examine the results as so often done on this site); and when you ADMIT that you are ADJUSTING IT, then interpretation of course at once ceases.

	You and God, the author of the Bible
	(in biblical terms, and this is significantly the context of this chapter, consistency of various kinds)
	are then at war.

Let us face it. In such a case, you are then USING HIS name for YOUR thoughts. Talk of the relationship between His and yours does nothing to alter what you have done, and the presumption you create, indeed the malfeasance that would appear.

ONE MAN brought on the curse. ONE MAN brought its remedy. The latter is Jesus Christ. The former is named in context, and in a sequence involving another one man, namely Abraham. The context defines what Genesis states, that we are dealing with named persons, each of them specifically ONE. The concept that sin and death preceded the cause of sin and death as specified both here and in Genesis 1-3, is mere contradiction. It has nothing to do with interpretation. The emphasis during this debate on interpretation was entirely misplaced. As to the Bible, it is a non issue. You can contradict it, but that is your interpretation for YOUR religion, not of the Bible. That is irrelevant when the ISSUE is what the Bible teaches.

As to nature, its case is just as clear; and if you want to imagine, once more, and make a non-bible of your imagination to match a non-nature of your imagination, you are welcome; but it has nothing to do with anything but the concourse of imagination, interesting perhaps to psychologists, but without any relationship to reason in the issues at hand.

Trust man or trust God; trust the proven Bible or the reprobate ministry of fiction.

Do what you please; but first consider this, that if you want to mock God by defiling the name of Jesus Christ, the Biblical Creator (Colossians 1:15, John 1:1-3), who as shown above in the Bible, is no one less than God Himself, the Almighty, and by making into something heinous,  the One who gave Himself, the strong for the weak, and who is LOVE, who saves and redeems at His own entire cost, so showing WHAT LOVE IS, as I John repeatedly shows: then what are is your ways, and to what do you look to inherit ?

Then blasphemy is your pasture, imposture your procedure, plagiarism your fault and imagination without reason your resource. You may neither know it nor mean it; but facts do not change for lack of understanding. The truth continues, incapable of defilement, the constant judge of its enemies.

If then anyone would have Jesus the Christ, the Saviour of the Bible, to be the author of creative cruelty as a principle: then you stand before God and reason alike, guilty in this, and there is but one advice:  Get out of it, while you may.

*2

See in TMR, these sites.

*3A

See SMR pp. 108ff., 153, 199-200, 217, 227ff..

*3 See on scientific method and its abuse,

SCIENTIFIC METHOD, SATANIC METHOD

AND THE MODEL OF SALVATION

*4A

Consider here, the authoritarian, ideal correlation, the hierarchical pattern realm, in terms of cladistic classification, when it comes to living things,  as displayed by Denton in his Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 128ff.. This merely illustrates, at one more level, the impact of thought, order and concept, correlation of realms in ways precise in methodology, format and focus. Nowhere in ‘nature’ does it exhibit any other source but that of impact, precision, direction, command, designation, codal (TM) or other.  This has without harassment a minimal nature, as has been traced in SMR Chs. 1,3,10, and confirmed in Chs. 5-6, verified in Ch. 4 and applied in its direct verificatory pattern, in Chs. 8-9.

The concept of NO intelligence producing the most challenging of all exhibits of what are definable as intelligence products, design exemplars, is more ludicrous than expecting it to be done by a moron, for of intelligence, he at least has SOME! (cf. Impossible to Man, Open to God Ch. 5). But who would consign it to him!

	Neither programmatic system to create from a stored or frozen intelligence;
	nor non-inventive materials to exhibit in a system, itself calling for creation because of its rational rigour, what is the acme of inventiveness, call it 'chance' or any other delusive substitute for thought (for that is merely a system working what it has, without intrusion by contemporary purpose - cf. Ancient Words, Modern Deeds... Chs.   9,   13);
	nor any other sub-moronic basis, is even relevant to what is here, justly therefore called creation.

As for the CURSE, in terms of which for example the marvelously diligence and awesomely complete apparatus of the mosquito, programmatically, like birds, a thing of amazement for its ingenuity of flight
and function, in multiple layers of specification and power, this does nothing to suggest non-purpose. What it shows is a purpose not tasteful to rebellious man. If he were not so rebellious, the consequences would not be so profound as such creatures as these illustrate, while he fatuously imagines he has a dream world. The dream is this, that its source and Maker may be ignored, and the creation of the acme of brilliance seized, as if by some kind of Cultural Customs, in the greatest theft of all time. Justice ? It impends.

As to mankind, in his cultural kingdoms, it is hardly possible for him to be more rebellious; and the curse is astonishingly mild, though fearful at  times, compared with the provocation. Love is like that. In the end, however, where mercy is despised, truth will out, and judgment will occur.

On Denton, see also News 57.

*4

See More Marvels ... Ch. 4, SMR pp.  380ff., Divine  Agenda Ch. 6.

*5

 SMR pp. 106,  200, 236, Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 13.

*6

See for example,  Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Chs.  4, 3 and 2, with Beauty for Ashes Ch. 3, with Secular Myths and Sacred Truth, Earth Spasm ...

*7

For this end, see Joyful Jottings   8, A Spiritual Potpourri Ch. 18, Repent or Perish Ch. 6.  

For its visibly coming, see Answers to Questions Ch. 5, SMR Ch. 8.

For illustrations of the casuistries and contempts for the facts of man as created, in his culture, his concepts and his crusades of confusion, calling for judgment as a cockatoo for attention by its raucous shrieks: see for example

Acme ... Chs. 1,   9 - Repent or Perish Ch. 5, News 97, Tender Times ... Ch. 8,
Delusive Drift ... Ch.   3 (shrieking for their idols, but in vain),    7  ,
The Bright Light and the Uncomprehending Darkness Ch.   5, (myths and 'nature', and religion), Earth Spasm ... Ch.     7, Stepping Out for Christ Ch. 10.

 

*8

For example, ponder the ruinous horror of TMR Ch. 8, and consider the wreckage wraught and the wracks taught in this solemn fantasy, forced into the maw of the young. See also SMR pp. 126ff., y.html and the sheer rampage of false teaching, even paid for by tax-payers, many of whom have then to seek a private education for their children, in independent schools, which however in this State are required to follow the 'curriculum' (read philosophy) of this derogation in fantasy of the facts, abuse of scientific method and all the ethical and moral abuse to which it naturally tends. THIS, it is the cyclotron which the older generation is inventing for the next, the cyclotron of charged depersonalised particles, which should have been man. If some escape, it is by courtesy of miracle, grace, as in the Flood!

*9

See REASON, REVELATION and the REDEEMER.

See also CELESTIAL HARMONY FOR THE TERRESTRIAL HOST