W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Volume What is New
MODELS, MODES MISCHIEFS
Of course, it has been said before, just as the observation has been made on occasion, that the sun is shining, or more aptly here, that it is covered by thick cloud.
Models are now very popular and common, as for example in climate prediction and the like. On this or that set of data, criteria, elements, there will be the following results; and depending on the input, to make up this or the other model, so is the outcome. Let us now use this concept relative to models of creation and the hypothesis of organic evolution, and see how it is to be applied rationally, honestly, with educational integrity and precision, not indulging fantasy or desire, but simply considering results.
It is performance oriented, this particular exercise.
Models should be presented, then, in this field, if any rationality exists in them, if you want to educate. True, there is no rationality in naturalism (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!), but that is because it never deals with the fundamental reality that logic requires (cf. Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Ch. 7, Overflight ... Ch. 8, Sparkling Life... Ch. 8, History, Review and Overview Ch. 5, Jesus Christ for the People, but Not for This World Ch. 1, Logos Uncreated ... Ch. 4, News 57, Overflight in Christ Ch. 8, Deity and Design ... ), namely, from what is the output that the input requires. The reason that this is never met on that model is simple: it is because from their model, there is no way of doing it, so slurs and stirs are all that is ever left; and talent is present there.
Have nothing; you get nothing. Have something, it must be eternal, for if it were not, at some stage there would be nothing; and that is both fatal and final, if you want anything at any future period. Have something inadequate, and by definition, you cannot get where we are. Have something adequate and eternal (normally called God), and you can get what we have, IF God is sufficient. Hence He must be sufficient. Hence from an eternal and sufficient source you have the outgoing in energy and matter and design and logic running things, and beauty and truth and methods and intricacies and mathematical brilliance and potted language as in DNA, with the added advantage that it is in programmatic form to a fascinating degree.
However, the academic world is OSTENSIBLY free, so the naturalist, with nature its own origin, though it is hard to act when you are not there to do so, can have a model too, and despite his utter failure at the first, let us see what he comes up with, at the last. Let the model arise and be contrasted and compared with the one where God is, and creates. These are the C-Model and the E-Model.
Thus, the latter model could be put because of the blindness which is prescribed and present in man since the fall, and currently in an exceedingly inflamed setting (as in Romans 5, Ephesians 4:17-19, with spectacular support from observation, becoming to science). What is such a condition like ?
It is precisely like that of someone with some disaster of the digestive system and its ancillary components, when appetite seems not to be present, and a sort of anti-appetite afflicts the willing eater, who lacks the simple desire. This is a figure of the model matter. Ingestion of ultimate truth becomes almost literally nauseous in many such cases. It is a biblically described and empirically met condition.
Because the affliction is so common in this latter phase of history before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, as prescribed (and it IS a prescription for as the Bible divulges, as its time draws near the world will be so activated with evil, enervated of goodness, consummated with false targets, empowered with knowledge, that as He said, "unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved," Matthew 24:22). That is ever more manifestly the case, and the 1945 discovery of vast scale destruction, devastation and radioactivation of the ruins was only one (predicted - Joel 2:30, Acts 2:19) kind of step in the process. It is however, both predictively and empirically a highly characterising one, stark in its singularity, as a marker.
Nor, for this period, was that all, even superficially. Diseases of the spirit were to become rampant, not only in this, that "lawlessness will abound" (Matthew 24:12), but in the WAY in which it will abound as specified for example in I Timothy 3-4, II Timothy 3-4, II Peter 2-3, Jeremiah 23, both in the exultation in "knowledge wrongly so called", which is like the heavily polluted air some may breathe, thick with the smoke of acrid flames of confusion and rampancy (cf. TMR Ch. 8, Secular Myths and Sacred Truth, Remedy ... Ch. 5), as likewise in the corruption of many so-called churches (both knowledge and many of the churches having large litanies, as of the fallen, of those who are mere fronts for some Lord other than Jesus Christ, some "other Jesus" invented by man as noted by Paul in II Corinthians 10-11. Of such promoters of fraud, he declares they are "false apostles." The point about our present era is the extensive cover to be attained by these both secular and in many cases, ecclesiastical clouds, cutting out the light, with this additional effrontery, that it is done in the NAME of the light!
Since a lad, one has noticed that whereas once there were the black sheep in the congregation, or the city, and these were the exceptions in regard to an apparent norm, now there are those who are NOT so, and these are the exceptions.
It is for these reasons, that an historic coverage of naturalism's fantasies might be made; and this, not because they measure up to scientific testing, as shown in TMR Ch. 1, Ch. 7 (including updates), Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Ch. 2, Scientific Method ..., and the volumes of "The gods of naturalism ...", as in The Biblical Workman Ch. 7, but as an educational element in contemporary history in its setting.
Indeed, because of the pathology which romps around precisely as predicted, this is not likely to be omitted but rather blasted into the public ear, just as Chinese Communists at one stage had loud-speakers even in some country areas, broadcasting to the ear not closed, its wares. In fact, not only is there likely to be such an abuse of the human ear, it is unlikely that ANY coverage of the actual issues would in balanced mode be provided in any series of educational units, since as antipathy grows, so suppression soars. The expectations are amazingly well met. This is precisely the case with many peoples.
More also: at least in this and many other lands, even in private schools (drugged by governmental pathological requirements to CONFORM without scientifically oriented enquiry, the paradigms of culture inculcated like a drug), as in public, the aural drug is not only supplied but required irrespective of the desire of the victim. Vast is the atrocity (for it is nothing less) of having bright young minds (some are) covered with the tar of untruth, monopolistically and with the force of law taught things... what things ? Those -
NEVER found in practice, while experiments have proceeded which
NEVER show the categorical necessities to be seen if the MODEL were right,
This proceeds while the curriculum is ignoring the experimental and observational evidence, not to say the logical necessities, of that other MODEL, the C-Model, which does meet rational criteria (cf. Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Ch. 7, Overflight in Christ Ch. 8, SMR pp. 140ff.ff., TMR Ch. 1), particular challenges, and match testable elements with theoretical basis, germane and adequate. Despite this triumph, it is sent out, sent slithering away.
It is sufficient that the above data and references concerning the efficacy of the two models, is readily distinguishable, for our present purpose: comparison. On the one hand, there is the model of a sufficient cause, eternal (lest nothing every be all, and so always), verified in all directions, which as evidenced, has both acted and in testable words attested the act in the institution of this constrained and contained universe. On the other, the E-Model, in essence meaning that you just have to have it there, in this or that form with this or that potential to activate it all, and find some way of deluding the public into thinking this is not begging the question. It is to be admitted that this is not the way it is put, or even always realised; but it is earnestly contended that this is precisely what the basis for this model is caused to do; and indeed, there is no other way to begin (things that are running down overall), or to account for them. This is the more obvious when one realises that this is all ABOUT accounting by REASON with due reference to sustainable cause! SMR pp. 140ff. gives just a short review of some of the sheer suffusion of prejudice required, in order to ignore the evidence and present irrationality as science, while dismissing what wholly satisfies scientific method, with an increasing rancour. It does in mood, seem to resemble the mood and action of a man, fallen for another woman, becoming abrupt and dismissive of his wife; or the opposite, equally contrary.
It is not a matter of blaming this or that body in particular (though very many are to blame), in this that it is a predicted and necessary state for this world as it ages and comes nearer to its time, when the remedy in Christ for sin and rebellion from reality, from God its source, reaches its climax, both in presentation and rejection by authoritarian misrule. Though it is impactive in the extreme, it is a pandemic. It is a matter of seeking deliverance from this monumental oppression which meets the young, who do not in this State at least even have qualified instructors posted in the actualities if the matter, in all their detail, and able to refer to relevant literature for the creation model.
This blinding binding of the student mind to fantasy where fact is available (in terms of method), is most clearly contrary to the UN Declaration against Discrimination in all matters concerning religion or belief. The religion of the Cult of the Forbidden (SMR pp. 150ff., 330-331) and the Nature that makes itself, even when it is not there to do it (cf. Department of Bible... Ch. 11), with various variants, is in vogue, though normally unnamed for obvious reasons in this context. It has nothing to do with reason and is contrary to it. It is enforced, selectively slithered in, enforced, while the students' woes grow worse in this, than vassals of old, since they might at least THINK freely as they learned whatever they could.
It IS a matter of avoiding mesmerism. Thus IF you want to have the mystic irrationalism of naturalism, the organic evolutionary proposal, then that is yours. That is the way God made us. You have a will, and it is a mark of the greatest human dignity that this is so; and it is movable in terms of thought and reason, unreason and treason, hatred and self-fulfilment, or any other just or unjust transfusion of desire. If you want that, then STICK TO IT, and ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR NATURALISTIC MODEL.
Thus do not simply re-state it, as if that were a reason for believing anything! Repetition is not reality but a mode of propaganda. The Harvard Professor Lewontin goes further, and it is more direct than many and more realistic; for he declares this to follow.
FLAGS TO THE MAST:
DO NOT ALTER THE SLIP OF THE SHIP! SAY THEY
Following the interesting admissions of Professor Stephen Jay Gould (cf. Wake Up World, for Your Creator is Coming! Ch. 6), another Harvard Professor, Lewontin, makes his admission belligerently, like some solider in a defeated army (as in The Splendour of Biblical Coverage... Ch. 3, this chapter entitled The Morbid Fascination with Myths). This is found, for example, in The Way of Truth and the Way of Error Ch. 8.
Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
("Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997 - emphasis in original)):
This fabric of philosophic imagination indeed reminds of the crisis for predecessor Stephen Jay Gould (cf. Wake Up World... Chs. 4-6, esp. Ch. 6), and of problems before that in the area of logical consistency and relevance.)
In other words, if you are going to believe such things, then at least not only acknowledge it, but if possible more importantly, do not simply repeat the fallacy, regurgitate the preference as if THIS WERE SOME KIND OF REASON FOR ACCEPTING IT!
if on the other hand, one sees what is called a convergence (a descriptive term referring to allied, parallel, and basically rather similar structures, used in various types of creatures), that is the fact. A wing and an arm have not too dissimilar functions. But this is utterly irrelevant to evolution, as evidence, and the very term tends to imply a MOVEMENT from the one type to the other, as if two lines were converging, and hence in motion. It COULD refer to the convergence of ideas in the mind of the Creator, but linguistically this is rather distant from the term employed.
The FACT itself, of parallelism for similar functions is FULLY in accord with a Creator, like an engineer, fashioning things of a type for diverse yet discernibly similar needs in creatures land and aerial. It tends to support this, in terms of the equivalence in CONCEPT which is normal to our minds in their creative work, because we tend to think in concepts and apply them. It has nothing to do with the E-model, since there is no REASON for things to be structured comparably, all such things being on that basis, happening in terms of the whole range of complexity and happenstance.
However, the term is often used as if it had some type of connection with a rational relationship to its putative source of the E-Model, when in fact it is a very strong index to conceptual manipulation put into practice, as a norm for mind. It is a norm for the C-Model, in terms of expectation, facilitation and cohesion of concepts.
If one were to use neutral language for the test phase, it would really be parallelism, rather than convergence. That is the second evil (from a rational point of view). The use of terminology which presupposes the magic of having nature so inventive that it can invent itself (you CANNOT remove the original necessity), and then going on doing more of the same, often with magical modes*MM, or else a mere begging of the question, remains. The acceptance of the opposite of a coherent explanation for a model, either in general or in particular applications, is inaccurate, unscientific and both obtusely and obversely intrusive.
It IS NOT the pre-model expectation from the naturalistic hypothesis, and it is in PRECISE accord with the intelligence model, the things following functional need with excellent inter-relationship, mirroring the sort of processes normal to thought, and to engineering in its multiple-purpose mode, each one be distinct in manufacture, from the other, yet with parallel, in application. To ignore such things is a third harassment for the student.
When, to take the generation of light as such, initially, the expectation on the creation-model is that the source of intelligence and sight and light, being one, matches the facility to see with the facilitation of light, so that the two in EXPECTED correlation. When, secondly, it is indicated that the light was set in place, swiftly functional on earth at the first, in the creation, rather than having to travel relatively slowly to that place, this is part of the very nature of creation, not as some unknown oddity, but as something which we, the observers, observe to be IN OURSELVES as a mental method.
What is this method so common IN us ? It is to place the components of our creation (be it a hose or a pipe) WHERE and HOW we want them, in the first place, irrespective of the way in which they will WORK after they have been set out according to plan in the first place. We go right on creating and placement and connecting by might and main and method and thought, until satisfied that this SET UP, is the way we want it for the start of the program. THEN it is started, becomes functional, fulfils the ingenuities of design and the facilities of placement. Thus light so placed is eminently apt for any creation as mode.
Thus it is no concession to have light so organised by the light-maker, but natural, to be expected and in the fullest accord with the model, wholly consistent with it; and it should be made in any expert teaching, be made to appear so, because it is simply the case. On the other hand, the failure to have such dispositions based on need and facility with no intelligence, form or functional information, is equally obvious. Every time such things are found to be operative, this is evidence for the C-Model, and against, in bulk, the E-model. It nestles in creation, not co-incidence, contrivance not intrinsic oddities and oddments, thoughts of mind not multiply aborted thrusts of undirected power.
We are not here considering the oft-considered fact that whatever is formulable by us, is a formulated type of product, cohering with certain rules which are exclusive to mental action, as distinct from material movements without such coercion, or mentally produced consistency, balance and functional correlation. Our concern is not primarily here with that generic and large-scale fact. Rather the concern is with the whole matter of models, not primarily their internal inconsistency, which is another topic. Such topics are abundantly treated in the references given above.
Instead, again, of declaiming that
such and such layers of assorted strongly characterisable debris
are evidence of a gradual process,
it would be better to face the face of the evidence.
Even if some vestige of any reason can be found for so profoundly slight an imaginary accumulation of materials with such a unitary type, over many years, one so aggregated, compressed, cohesive and large, yielding such conformity to alternate expectations, the more so with multiplied cases of such an intensely varied assortment of components, as Nilsson*1 points out, often from different parts of the world, and proponents still claim they really show different ages (an amazing proposition): yet it would be better to say that on model-E, this is the interpretation. It does not have to be fluted in, or given a marching tune as it meets continual, coercively contrary evidence. In comparison the case is as it is presented, and language should accord with the comparative reasonableness and rationality of each step, whether for E or C models.
Without empirical faithfulness, we are not facing facts, or anything remotely like them; the issue is ONE fact and VARIOUS interpretation, one eminently reasonable (flood origin of such world-wide debris in such depths as to be supportable instead of readily swept away and subject to various and disparate forces), and one an outrageous supposition.
Model-E would indicate that ... and Model-C accounts for this in this way. That is beginning to be relevant to science; except for this, as shown in the above references, so many things anti-verify Model-E that it has no scientific place at all for any consideration*2. Yet, for the reasons stated, if this is to be treated in terms of models, and so given some status at least for examination, this would be a model-evidence approach which would not be so utterly disgusting to the alert mind, which seeks truth and not its vanishing point. Far less does it wish to see failure exulted to the heavens, fantasy multiplied required*MM, without having their capacities, or the conclusions which flow naturally from them, clearly depicted in straightforward relationship to the impact of fact on model.
When a thing is made, and subjected to stated forces for stated reasons, and the evidence continually points to this, this is by the nature of the case, constant verification (cf. *2).
Again, when as in Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (colour and bold added), we read of certain findings concerning biota that
"these results showed that not only did organisms vary at a morphological level in terms of their gross anatomy, but that they also varied at a molecular level as well..." , we read with interest, not unexpected.
And indeed, later we find a crucial point:
"the new molecular approach to biological relationships could potentially have provided very strong, if not irrefutable, evidence supporting evolutionary claims. Armed with this new technique, all that was necessary to demonstrate an evolutionary relationship was to examine the proteins in the species concerned and show that the sequences could be arranged into an evolutionary series ...However, as more protein sequences began to accumulate... it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature ..."
DentonMM probes further:
" However, the most striking feature of the matrix is that each identifiable subclass of sequences is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. No sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups ... Transitional or intermediate classes are completely absent from the matrix."
With this potentially clear result available, it is apparent the C-model was potentially up for anti-verification, being testable, a quality of a good model or hypothesis (though this is more than that, it is not less in its testability). Isolation of sequences, on the other hand, is the PRECISE opposite of the supposed randomness of the provisions to come in their order from no logically stateable source on the E-model, gradation both in the living and the other available items, being not to be found. Life is LIKE THAT.
It would be appropriate in reviewing such material, to note that this is the predicable (according to Denton in effect) result for the C-Model, and has no immediately obvious relationship to the E-model, except to be prima facie incompatible with it. There are kinds. Inventions bear the impact of mind, and measure, method and placement; they are not like spewable materials; they are served.
SURREPTITIOUS RELIGION, DEMANDING HOPE
BUT PROVIDING NO GROUND
Then, what appears to be close to the norm for teaching propounder of the E-model comes into play. There will be talk that perhaps despite the years of research, as with Mr Micawber, " something will turn up." Things cannot go on being as bad as this (though the word 'bad' would not be good propaganda and hence not used). No reason is given. No example is found. It is based on hope.
This religion, that behind the E-type, whether or not realised consciously, has its own features - and NEVER finding confirmation, it lives by hope. If you watch the news, almost always there is the possibility, the hope, the expectation, the sense of nearness in the things looked for, which might happen; but they NEVER do where they are decisive, verificatory in a specialised sense, confirmatory in a predicted sense. Faith is large in this religion, but it has no competent object for its trust. It is pure, subjective faith, like a tendril not finding something to which to cling.
It is accordingly simply a fact in view of NO verifications of specific REQUIREMENTS of the E-model, that it lives on hope, comparable in kind to the religious. It lives in inapplicable philosophy, also often religious in kind, in this, that it designates what is believed to be the way and nature, of ultimate things, with outcomes in many fields of academic discipline. That is faith. This is certainly a religion, and compared with that of Jesus Christ, it is singularly unsuccessful; yet it is taught, despite the prohibition on the same in the Commonwealth Constitution, and the requirement of no-preferential treatment in the adopted UN Declaration concerning Discrimination in matters of religion and belief.
thing about the T-model Ford: it worked. This imposture and imposition on
afflicted youth, subject to a profound discrimination, lacks decisively in the
E-Model; and it fails before
the C-Model, which in all tested phases, works. If you want transport, choose
what will go, do it; If you want a model, seek one which works in its projected
sphere, finds support empirically, and not me rely in the imaginative mazes made
for and by minds that rove there at large, without actually getting anywhere.
STRANGE THINGS AND PECULIAR PROGRAMS
and the TESTIMONY OF TRUTH
It is so strange to hear the (just and righteous) calls for (political) liberty in other lands coming from this one, when in its own backyard, its classrooms, reverberating in the infiltrated silence which boasts big things and provides small, there is this gross and religious discrimination. It can only aggravate the situation when in this respect, it is almost ironically called 'scientific'.
For some 15 years, to Government officials, to Opposition official, in the Web, in book format, this challenge has been made in character and in type (cf. Government Submissions), and challenges made both for debate and in writing (cf. TMR Ch. 8). Never therefore let it be said, though I have often been betrayed by those who might have helped, that the issue has not both been raised politically and brought to a head personally, nor unavailable in support (as in many of the 228 volumes in this Web site, starting from 1996 cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!). Nor let it be imagined that there have not been many other exposures and exposÚs.
The responsibility of continuing this seductive slant with the minds of the young, right up to tertiary where it can affect employment, rests squarely on those who impose it, whether directly in government or by any mode of influence which is input for the governmental decisions.
Truly it is well that in His time, which draws nearer (cf. Answers to Questions Ch. 5, and SMR Ch. 8), the kingdom comes when this will be not only past, but passÚ. It is at that time that it is said:
"The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ,
and He shall reign forever and ever!"
In view of the ways of this present world, and of His own works as the way, the life and the truth (cf. SMR Chs. 3, 5, 6), this is not at all too long!
See in this regard, at another level: News 57, Overflight in Christ Ch. 8,
Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Ch. 7. Magic and myth have things in common: inadequate cause or no cause, with results thrown in from a wholly unverified and jejune basis, not subject to conscientious and continual test. Myths, as now verified, are predicted as in conjunction with flood denial, to be components of the approaching end of the Age (II Timothy 4). From time to time, they take on new forms, or formulae or functions (cf. Spiritual Refreshings.... Ch. 13).
See for example SMR pp. 108-111. See also Diamonds of Divine Divulgement in the Bible Ch. 8.
See for example,
1) TMR Ch. 1,
2) Deity and Design ...,
3) LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST
WHO ANSWERS RIDDLES
AND WHERE HE IS, DARKNESS DEPARTS,
The gods of naturalism have no go!