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





The Productive Foursome


News 429

Are even private schools to be turned in major areas, into pedagogic prisons,

by authoritative decree ?

Christian Telegraph and CMI, 7th. March  and 9th. March, 2010





Being Reasonable About the Teaching of Creation

and its Competitors

In Chapter 8, we were in danger of turning aside from the schema of the Chapter on love, parents, spouses,  into undue detail at the level of education of children, something which might have obscured the main theme. Yet that detail is both illustrative and informative, and for many, holds a warning. It also enables us to show a challenge by which the Lord may be glorified. Therefore the issue is here given attention as the major theme. Moreover, it centres on the necessity that children be brought up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, however vast the social failure in this realm, with appalling consequences through gaping chasms in the lives of many of the young, where mountains of righteousness and plateaux of truth should  live.

Where the State does otherwise, Christians must be prepared to sacrifice as many do, in sending children to private schools, often Christian ones, though some are subdued by schools of the sects. Even if they do,  money may not be enough, with good intention; for the Government may become so  godless that in confused and obscurantist ways, it may seek to invade even private schools with its scientistic secularism, materialistic reductionism and directive  dictatorship for the minds of the young.

Appallingly, this can be done as if in terms of investigative science, when in fact confrontation with realms of evidence and scholarship are excluded by pre-conditions. In this direction, is a current event which must be considered and exposed.

FOCUS: Government and Schools, giants that kill and children who must live.

DETAILED FEATURE: NOTE 2 below, with Note 1.

The context at that point, was this.

As man gains more power by gaining with his donated intellect, more knowledge of the way in which the mind of God has constructed both his mentality,  and the world in which he lives,  things co-ordinate and mutually co-operative, the system finder and the systems to be found, the law discerner and the laws for the finding,  so does his power to create mischief.

He may create imaginative substitutes for the ideas, ideals, principles, rules and realities accorded by the Maker of man, to the family. When part of this imagination is social, then schools, built on political principles which may be related  to other 'games' than life, may both spoil and foil its outcomes. This in extreme cases, such as now found in South Australia (cf. Appendix) may come between child and parent, and tend systematically to ruin what God has decreed for the child, barging in with effervescent or even indecent thoughts,  clumsy in origin, impractical in nature, with horrid outcomes, like SURVIVAL by all means: an anti-qualitative slide in the descent to hell.

What children and youth are to be taught and have subject for examination is decreed, as it was in the USSR in its phases of inhuman atrocity.

In such cases, Christian parents have to follow the  Lord's rules, whatever man says, for as in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, if you are living in the city and confines of Vanity Fair, things may not be fair; but you dare not defile what God has created, growing from the suckling at its breast, to the arrival of the appraising will of the growing youth. This type of State misuse of force will produce tests for the parent and the people of the Lord, and may demand imaginative action, in dependence on the leading and enabling of God; but this is part of the voyage of discovery which is prepared for the Christian, and if the seas rage high, God is higher yet. Of this arena, Ch. 7 above provides knowledge! in this that it presents Psalm 107 and its teaching on such a topic, in broad outline, whatever may be the particular surge of devastation or destruction!

As to current case in South Australia, the Creation Ministries International publication on this matter is presented here*1.

But what of the teaching given to so many, based on survival as some kind of creator, as if you only have to keep going in order to build, as if keeping alive makes buildings rise and inventions proliferate! This mythical imagination (cf. Secular Myth and Sacred Truth. The gods of naturalism have no go!) is a very scene and site for the teaching of logical error, as this author was showing in a tertiary lecture course, before management cried silence, and would not listen to challenge on the topic, not even at all!

But what of this organic evolutionary posture, this naturalistic culture, set to dominate, this dictatorial theme from what amazingly, acts as if it has something to do with education ?

Ludicrous as it is, and fatal and deadly, this sort of imaginary creativity first found in nothing, or else in begging of the question, the antithesis both of science and logic, and then in lower orders of creation, which never show in any single instance the thing claimed,  visible as occurring, or its results as demonstrable, but rather the contrary, is one of a type of thing. It is simply one of the methods of seeking to replace God with nothing at all (no creativity, plus time, itself a creation, making together a nullity for invention, and an anomaly for dismal thought).

Contemptible for irrationality as these assertions have long been shown to be (cf. TMR, The gods of naturalism have no go!), nevertheless, this abuse of power, in essence precisely as was the case with Hitler and Stalin,  will search many a Christian. But why not ? Heroism is not just for the past; and the power of God is also available for the present. Such false teaching as so proliferates in this doomed and domed world (II Perter 3, Matthew 24:35), as its very due end draws nearer, and even its own  weapons grow more and more capable of the destruction for human life, will mislead many. It was to be and so it is (II Peter 2-3). But one may ask,  How is it like the totalitarian works of those dictators of horror, just mentioned ? It lies in this: in neither is contrary logical argument allowed in the spheres where these things are formulated. It is excluded by name.

Indeed, in this truculent and turbulent case, the challenge readily becomes as noted in Ch 7 above, where it was dealing with Psalm 107. It had dwelt on the adventure when a storm of great devastation was at last, past! In this matter, that is not yet, but the contrast between the enormity of the storm and the relief at its departure is instructive, as we ponder that Psalm, and apply it to other cases than marine turbulence. In the next section of the Psalm there is a more general indication of the vicissitudes to be faced. Here there is an excerpt, for the time when that trial is past, slightly extended.

The people now resume normal ways in a more normal perspective, and no more to be found are prodigies of arrogance, presumption or imprudence. Such for example is that of a body vested with control of private school curricula: they boom, they dictate in this State.  You may not refer to mere RESULTS of experiments, oh no, nor to failures of theories without preference or prejudice, awarding credit where it is due, nor may you simply exterminate a theory, as in scientific method, when its forecasts are not verified, nor may you prefer one which has NO FORECAST UNVERIFIED, as in the biblical case. You may not mention any source which works for a theory, or any perspective. Philosophy rules science's tools.


You must fondle matter as a brother, and ideas as a tyrant, and make truth your captive. This is essentially what the relevant Committee has just done in S.A. (South Australia, not South America), in a virtual buffoonery scarcely to be believed, a scientistic assault*1, based ONLY on philosophy WITHOUT warrant, and free from the discipline of what works! As in aristocracy, it is not what works, but where you come from that matters. THAT evidently means EVERYTHING! It becomes a virtual Burke's Peerage, philosophies anointed ... or not, and the desire included.

In other words, what has to be tested has to come from realms in which their philosophy is invested: exclusions therefore apply. As when Christ Himself, the Truth, came to earth, you could believe many different things (just as organic evolutionists have believed and contest various ideas without joint conviction, quarrelling among themselves), but one thing you could not follow, and that was the Christ.

In parallel now, the creation which Christ taught, while you may believe a variety of discordant evolutionary views (Nilsson,  Gould, Darwin, Simpson, Lamarck, Lovtrup, maybe even Goldschmidt), this, creation, uncrushed logically or scientifically for millenia,  in science you may NOT believe; or if you believe it, you must in scientific education be a secret disciple. Philosophy has said so, and it is riding so-called science, at the dictate of politics, which has it so.

Not only does a variety of contestants in the field of intra-evolutionary debate,  assault the faults of others of its kind, which are indeed there, for none supports itself in laboratory and history, without simply begging the question, but this situation is predictable, since failure to face the fundamentals of logic and empirical research can only lead to the doldrums typical of reductionism. There, nothing works; the choir is there, but not the music. In contrast, creation is confirmed on all sides, meets every requirement.

It is therefore particularly sad that the concept employed in this control dictation,  namely that scientific method is not even interested in unselected sources, whatever the results, has annulled its famous hypothetical contests as a badge of honour, honesty and industry. It is in this way that it has left the field to philosophers. In this domain, these are unable even to support themselves.

(See Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Chs. 4-6,

SMR Chs. 2, 3 and 5, incl. pp. 140ff.,

Secular Myths and Sacred Truth,

Deity and Design  ... Section 8, with  2 and   7,

The gods of naturalism have no go!)

TMR Chs . 1,   7

Who answers Riddles, and Where He is, Darkness Departs.

What is it like ? it is like assuming that whatever else 2 + 2 may equal, they CANNOT (by academic fiat) equal 4. Naturally the results of this prohibition compromise the objectivity of research, and amount to authoritarianism, whatever the free play once what works is excluded.

It is THEN, under such duress, that science is no more science. Verifiable truth is excluded by rote and regimen, just as Christ was, by a more total death sentence, in His own day. HE was resurrected, and creation remains incapable of being held by death because in every test, it works, is internally harmonious, continually verified, incapable of invalidation, and this uniquely. It is OUT just as mankind has put certain things IN and other OUT for millenia, and paid the penalty of its obstinacy and its pride.

This is the sort of splendour of spirit without humility of heart which arrogates the powers of truth and makes short shrift of its substance. This can only lead to evils innumerable, in multiplied lives, in offence to children such as Christ gravely warned against,  in Matthew 18. As for me, not for the entirety of this world as my personal property would I join in the least part in such pseudo-scientific, scientistic, philosophic actions as have here been taken; for not only is the Lord Jesus Christ the One whom I love, and revere, but God is to be feared; for that is a clean fear. It loves truth and fears no test. What does impious fiction matter, when facts are not faced, and all things are not to be tested for effectiveness!

It is when people take off airily that they may land badly. Such is the form of the wisdom in Psalm 107 in this vignette, which one has sought to apply to a practical case, one which threatens the lives and minds of thousands of children with folly by mandate, talk by dictatorship. exclusion by decree, making truth to be in manacles, and discussion pre-ordained in direction.

But what of this misery of organic evolution, this weapon being brandished, rather than occasion for research freely, against the children's minds ?

This simply means that one of God's productions is to  esteem itself more important in continuing alive in this realm, than others, and so SURVIVE. It is then an unfitting survival, since it is arrogant presumption and ignorant dismissal of the design of the Creator, which is the precise opposite. Love is intended in the family as in the city,  to be the main regimen, and with it come the means of implementing it, with its love of the truth (I Cor. 13:6), its bearing all things, believing all that God says and hoping all things, its non-parade and lack of interest in being the main one and thing When this is corrupted in degenerate concepts, then the family, the society and the nation become more and more like the dirt of the ground, a denatured something, a basis without preparation, and crime, war, grave pride and self-propulsion become part of the energies of what ultimately becomes the very energy of despair, alternately with the sluggishness of not even  CARING for what one has been produced.

Love is not only the logical outcome of the biblical presentation, but the nature of God (I John 4:7ff.). While the Bible is not laid down by force,  as is this array of dictation for education of children, the contrast is vast. The fact ought to be consulted, not ideologies paraded as if we were present at the statue worshipping ceremony of Nebuchadnezzar, each to bow at the drums of some Committee.

In educational decline, as to the factuality, the reality of life, this becomes  a sort of spiritual illiteracy so profound that families, cities and nations built on this sinking soil, are merely constructing blindly over the abyss, irrational, unethical, absurd, rebellious, and as with a school bully, sometimes self-congratulatory as well. The way out is contradicted as a basis for correct understanding of the student, the world and life in its very construction. Constriction to the mental throat of the child is thus to be applied at an early age. It is not a thing to be desired by the Christian parent.


But you may say, Are there not Christian schools, where if the thing is so important,
the teaching about the realities of life and its construction may be presented correctly ?



From the latest report, it is PRECISELY the Christian schools, or rather the independent ones
which include these, which are being targetted for this philosophy,
where the concepts of materialism appear to rule for life's invention and kinds,
though this is not merely foolish, but logically impossible itself!
(cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7, Christ Incomparable ... Ch. 2).


Yet this is not the basic point: it is that ANY philosophy can have pre-eminence at this level,
and its mandates replace those of open-minded science.
In science, ALL things must be tested.
THIS is also the Christian mandate (I Thessalonians 5).
So far from being concerned at this,
the Bible demands it; and on what ground does a slinking,
winking philosophy become autocratically presented,

Such however is the effrontery currently sinking this mode of transparent indoctrination, into the soil of the State, like pollution from tipped over tankers, on every road. While battles rage, yet outcomes must be inspectable, and there should be reversion to the concept of education, that it is introducing you to truth, with freedom to differ, so long as you know what is going on, testable, inspectable, self-declaring for the ready mind. Minds indoctrinated become minds skewed, and to expect that the grace of God will undo all this, while it is not too much for His grace, yet such an approach becomes too presumptuous, like shooting bullets at the head, and indicating that the person can weave about. Here however for lost hour on hour, there is to be no sign of rational movement. It is controlled, strait-jacket education in an entire realm. Yet education is precisely what it could not in this mode, be called. It is indoctrination, exposure to the will of a group, pertinent response, reply, retort, factual presentation and comparison not permitted in selected areas which overpower and overcome what lacks cohesion of thought and empirical evidence.

To help others is so far, so  good.  But what help is to dogmatically orate, without grounds! With Christian education, grounds and evidences are presented, and failure is indicated in its place, to what possesses that feature, while the Bible as a source beyond all others in verifiability, validation and so in standing, has pre-eminence. Its statements to the point may be taken and considered, compared with evidence. The same may be done for the basic concept of creatoin.

As to the Bible, it is not untested and is subject unscathed, to endeavour to invalidate it; for Christianity as a resource of truth, does not NEED to prevent critique. Truth speaks. That is the point. It is open. God entreats us to put it to the test (Isaiah 41, 43,  48).  Are things open to test or mere philosophy ? Why then are debates on this topic repeatedly refused by the S.A. Government, when such challenge has been made, even by this author, over decades!

Meanwhile, so vast has the indoctrination been for so long with such duress, in the latest case simply more explicitly targetting any schools where deliverance might be hoped for, from specious and the scientistic, that you find bizarre contradictions arising in social speech. Thus you may meet ordinary people talking of applying intelligence, creativity and thought, with interchange of ideas and honing of systematic thinking, in the development of some industrial work, in terms of something that is 'evolving'.

This is malapropos; for it is in such cases said even though the development in mind contains ALL that is excluded in the normal model for evolution: namely, wit, intelligence, effort, review of difficulties, exclusion of the same by knowledge and wisdom, gradual advance towards what is desired by will and sought by wisdom. It is therefore as if the incitement to folly is so profound that not only is the term used loosely, but where, as here,  it is precisely inapplicable, and that at the very point where the illusion lays its emphasis! If this is not a type of temporary social madness, what is!

The conclusion remains as before, but with more grounds presented for it!

As to the education of children, then,  to revert to the ways of the Lord directly: To help them without understanding what they are, is to mix ignorance with knowledge, skill with dumbness, perhaps good intentions with bad perspective,  and is merely an arrant misuse of what God has given, a disenchantment with the Maker to the extent that it becomes odious to Him. It is a 'sport' , a type which may be found in  some branches in a fruit tree, a human  invention about what to do with the divine invention which is man.

As to the case where the State*2 is intruding into the family with force, even where parents teach and know the truth, in the end, it is one that steals the life-property God has made, and even dares ignore His claims, that is, when it does not explicitly rebel. It insists as it has insisted in Germany (with physical duress) and in the USSR that was (with the same), on its will and way with  mutilated and mutilating philosophy; but here, the duress is applied to the uneducated ear, to the closed mouth of the student, and his need of education becomes the butt for a grotesque module of indoctrination, protected by Government decree, and never by truth. The end is proclaimed from the beginning, and the facts that do not fit, can flit.

It hides in its shame, even from the tongues of the students, tied by its devices of exclusive authoritarianism. No marks are to be obtained we find, for other approaches than the theme of a chosen organic evolution; for only this newly anointed  philosophic aristocrat of views is to be suffered. This is the precise opposite of suffering children to come where they will; while it is not all, it is much, and to make such demands CANNOT be in accord with the UN placement for this nation, concerning non-discrimination in the field of religion or belief. This is ALL discrimination in precisely this field, that of creation. The child is DENIED equal treatment in curriculum, freedom of speech and standing for criticism. He is tied to the views of some in resources, tests, and thus marking, in atmosphere and in the uninhibited supply of data, argumentation and diversity.

Such a family is damaged and it produces, like a river entering another in a system of rivers, much silt in superficiality,  downstream.

Where however Christ imbues the atmosphere of the family, His word is carefully understood and applied (we DO this sort of thing in income tax, or our special professional fields, and can rejoice in the liberty this gives us! is it so different when it is life itself!); where prayer and praise of the Lord are like the throb of a ship's motor,  and thus His free and  generous Spirit leads us with the companionship, power and the peace that is right for man (II Corinthians 3:17-18, Psalm 51:12, Philippians 4:4ff.) and part of provision for the design complex (Isaiah 57:19-20), then blessed family life is free to come. Then you have the scope for the fourfold family, as noted at the first, in normative conditions, the minimum, with maximum co-operation with its Creator and Saviour, and for each child who receives Him as such, its Redeemer.

It is not the Christian way to insist on such things, for it is appeal with grounds, that is made. What is prominent for us here, is the intrusion into this sphere of those who, having their own philosophic-religion, which is to have all things in this vital sphere of education, which ramifies, submitted to itself, into the lives of those who do not share this anti-empirical, authoritarian religion.

Could it not perhaps attempt to stand on its own merits, such as they are, rather than shrouding itself with an aristocratic exclusivism*3, an untouchable mandate derived from nothing, and show what it has by the results of due openness, where as in actual science, nothing is established beyond rational investigation, empirical findings, hypothesis that meets no contrary fact, where results are demanded, and shown, so that nothing that does not stand, is acceptable, and what fails is dismissed.

In electrical work, imagine the folly of adhering to, demanding acceptance of, keeping instruction limited to what empiriically did not work! Yet in this life work, this is precisely what is done (cf. TMR Ch. 1, SMR, The gods of naturalism have no go!   Deity and Design ...). Meanwhile what does work, on all sides, in the broadest of applications as in narrow ones, is neglected (cf. LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST, Who answers Riddles, and Where He is, Darkness Departs).





In the Christian Telegraph, there is coverage of an important announcement made by the South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board. It indicates  that this body aspires to undermine biblical creationism and design  approaches by authoritative fiat, confusing issues and pre-selecting candidates for teaching models. From this report, it appears that it is  acting, even in science, to apply philosophical bans in teaching, so that in practice, it is not the scientific tests which are  determinative in this case, but rather philosophic preliminaries for  selection of what will be given attention. This of course is  contrary to Australia's subscription to the UN Declaration on the Elimination of  All Forms of Discrimination ..., in the areas of belief or religion.

A spokesman for the South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board is quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald as  saying there is no ban on teaching creationism. "It can be taught in religious studies". (See: http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue8966.html.) That is like saying there is no ban on building aircraft; they can be built in the museum. It presupposes the venue, limits the licence and gives pre-selective parameters to deaden the reality of the challenge.

Following this, is an excerpt from  another body's response, CMI, and these will  give data  for our coverage of the issue in some detail in *2 below.


An article from CMI, provides interesting information on this development. A section of it is as below. This may be found in full at :




Australian Christian schools in creationism row

Many are calling this the thin edge of the wedge for Christians everywhere…

Published: 9 March 2010(GMT+10)

“Christian schools angry over ban on teaching creationism” were the headlines on the Sydney Morning Herald website article on March 3, 2010.1

The issue was a policy release by the South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board “to effectively ban the teaching of creationism.”

The policy stated that the Board required ‘’teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis’’. So far, so good. But it also said that it

“does not accept as satisfactory a science curriculum in a non-government school which is based on, espouses or reflects the literal interpretation of a religious text in its treatment of either creationism or intelligent design.”

If a Christian school has its registration withdrawn, it means that parents who continue to send their children to that school would be in breach of truancy laws. In effect, it would shut down the school.

In short, even teaching the evidence for evolution fully and fairly (which we support, especially if it is “warts and all”) would not be enough to qualify for registration if a school decided to also permit its students to be exposed to even the possibility that the Bible’s account of creation might be true. Nor would they be allowed to tell them that this is supported by highly qualified scientists who have repeatedly shown that the same evidence that is interpreted to support evolution makes, overall, even more scientific sense when one starts with the proposition of the Bible’s truth. Even those who might not agree with that assessment should at least agree that students should have the opportunity to hear about the evidence that is claimed, by so many qualified folk, to do this; how else can they say they have been permitted to fairly consider the question?


Science teachers could not even use the controversy to teach their students critical thinking skills.


Nor could science teachers in schools under the South Australian restrictions even use the controversy to teach their students in science classes critical thinking skills. They could not use the debate to explain to students how science works in relation to the past, and how two ways of looking at the world each try to make sense of the evidence within their framework.

The only mention of Genesis and the Bible that would be permitted would be in ‘religious’ classes. Consider the irony; the British Museum, for example, is full of artefacts that show the historical reliability of the Bible, utilizing the historical science of archaeology. But any discussions about that science in science classrooms could not lawfully mention that there is evidence that supports the Bible! It is equally ludicrous to not permit science students to hear about or discuss/analyze any of the evidence in other historical sciences (such as aspects of geology/paleontology) which supports the Bible’s account of creation (e.g. the evidence of ‘stasis and sudden appearance’ in the fossils; polystrate fossils, paraconformities, and so on.) Even the evidence of pollen reported in rocks supposedly formed billions of years before there was meant to be pollen, and reported in Nature2 as such—all of this evidence could not be discussed even as to whether or not it did support creation as possibly supporting creation!

But wait, it gets worse. From the Board’s statements, even schools which avoid the issue of Genesis history, creation in six days, global Flood and so on cannot even use the ‘ID’ approach. This reasons from the evidence of biology and biochemistry etc. merely to logically deduce, on the basis of empirical observations, that the mechanisms proposed by evolution simply could not have generated the vast complexity of living systems; the inference from observation is that they required an intelligent (unnamed) agent. Even this ultra-low-key approach is now made impossible in SA Christian schools, because it can be said to ‘reflect’ a religious text, albeit very indirectly. So science teachers in Christian schools could not lawfully encourage their students to even reflect on whether the awesome design in the molecular machinery of living cells might suggest that God had a hand in it!

South Australia is not the only state to have had pressure on Christian schools about creation. In the Australian state of New South Wales, there has for some time been a policy which makes it very difficult, though not impossible, for schools that wish to give creation evidences a fair hearing.

In the state of Victoria, while no such formal restriction has yet been issued, it has long been an open secret among Christian schools that school inspectors are applying informal pressure to individual schools on the subject of creation, hinting about how their registration might be under threat if they teach it. The tactic has been described by some as seeking to ‘pick us off one by one’.








Let us now take the reported statement of the Board concerning education, to which reference has been made.

The policy stated that the Board required ‘’teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis’’. Added, were these words, that it

“does not accept as satisfactory a science curriculum in a non-government school which is based on, espouses or reflects the literal interpretation of a religious text in its treatment of either creationism or intelligent design.”

Now strictly, you could say that in view of Hebrews 11:3, Colossians 1:15 and John 1:1-3, Revelation 4:11, Romans 11:33,  and Romans 5:1-12, with Isaiah 40:26, 44:24, 45:12,18-19 and 46:10, to say for the moment no more, the creationism of the Bible has nothing to do with some literal interpretation of something. Firstly, absolute creation by God without matter as a precursor, is continually affirmed directly. That modes of matter are not determinative of God's creation is constantly made clear. That is the biblical position. He did it by Himself by the mode of creation, so that nothing else in the whole realm of what is visible, was constituent of His work, as Creator. Someone might like to obliterate this, another to bypass it; but it is there past any rational interpretation.  He made what is visible not out of what is visible, the phenomenal, but from invisible reality. He further specifies that this source is Himself. We find therefore that the mode is creation, the usage is the invisible and that the actuating Being is God.

 Hence the case about interpretation, re creationism and design,  is inapplicable and one teaches on a factual basis, relative to this source, , noting of course the age-old source (as one normally does in treating new developments in terms of past findings), as surely as the empirical results show this, as to the point. In this case, the Bible figures distinctively.

Moreover, there is no problem with the apparent direction of the Board, merely with its presumption about results. IF the results are foreordained by the Board, to permit one thing and not another, then of course this is not science. If they are not, then there can be no exclusions in advance because of an a priori point of view.

What is  "accepted'' is irrelevant if we are to be in scientific discipline. What is FOUND is crucial, empirically, in terms of the results of whatever is presented testably from any claimant source. Of course, we might not consider a drunk, since this is an objectively assessable case, in which coherence has been voluntarily depressed. Without such a thing as part of the demonstrably relevant definition, based on tests, nothing can be excluded in terms of preconceptions, for example about religious materials, in this discipline called science. It is not, properly speaking, that this or that CANNOT be allowed, being proscribed, but that ANYTHING is permitted if it works, AND what does not work is NOT permitted.

In this way, the Board makes two three basic errors.

Firstly, it parodies a religious text in terms of its concepts of understanding it, without warrant. Secondly, it brings in the SOURCE as if this were the end of the matter. So long as the basis is responsible in language, set in ways testable, it has as much right for approbation or the contrary, as any other presentation. To assume materialism, for example, is not only irrational as shown above, but irrelevant. To assume this or that about any source, including a religious one, is merely an exercise in prejudice, an affront and effrontery if produced under the authority of a government, directly or indirectly.  In scientific method, you are not in the business of flouting objectivity by having philosophic ideas as a basis. You look for results.

The source can come from anywhere, but if the thing is testable, one must watch the results competitively, with fair play, for ANY hypothesis. One must remember that to make an estimation of all religions or any of these, without demonstrable constraints forcing one to a certain position concerning all that it presents, is an unwarranted extravaganza disruptive and dispersive of scientific discipline. The biblical position for example, makes the most robust claims concerning its prescience on a rational basis, and the rejection of that claim cannot be a priori, without its being part of some contrary religion, where truth is felt to exist, whether this be anti-religious humanism, or any other extremist philosophic position.

You cannot start, in science, by excluding what you do not, in your own approach, like to have up front as a tool for  perspective. Frequently, perspectives in science have been issues, resistant to advance, whether the case would be phlogiston, or attitudes to certain types of skeletons, in the view of Oxnard and Lord Zuckerman, the latter in his work, as one of Britain's Chief Scientists in World War II and beyond, Beyond the Ivory Tower. Having a degree in science does not exclude from a prejudicial approach, for as is more and more pointed out, scientists as such can be prejudiced like others. It is only when its METHOD is followed that we look for better things.

Here the better thing is not to judge in advance, but to test any type of declaration affecting the topic in question, as an hypothesis, consider its possible implications, try these out, adjust the proposition if needed, or reject it if apparently beyond adjustment,  consider it in conjunction with allied propositions founded on rigorously tested evidence, especially if there is no other known interpretation of the same, and reject ANY hypothesis which fails to meet any requirement in the verification realm. It has to be changed, then, or rejected.

This is precisely why there are so many evolutionary theories. They compete. However each presentation has to be treated with the proper rigour, with no allowances with a fond sentimentality for humanism, rationalism, evolutionism, secularism, breeding prejudice. It is not that it is impermissible here to have different views, for after all it is not the Board Member or the school which is the subject of the science; but it is impermissible to thrust that view in the way of the evidence, by way of preconception; let alone to reject something that meets specifications, despite the presence of confirmation, verification and correlative confirmation from  other experimentally testable laws.



It is true that a humanist,  an evolutionist, may wish to cling to that philosophy more than life or evidence, and that a religionist may feel the same. This, in the field of science,  gives no ground for deciding what is in and out, ahead of this rigorous testing, and respect for results. One may believe this and that, and some  are well logically founded in their beliefs, as for example the biblical Christian, as one has found in 175 volumes of a theological set including much work in these fields, and as many who specialise in science have found. Some are not. Our special interest here is the biblical Christian school, though much of the considerations is applicable beyond this, for testing purposes.

Strictly, then, there should be no problem. Christian schools have no necessity to present some literal interpretation of some text. Efforts to interfere with what is written can be noted, but they do not overthrow by reasoned detailed grammatical and hermeneutic force, the integral sense found in the consolidated sequences of Genesis 1-11. You can never transform a straightforward, far less an explicative text, into various kinds of imaginative reconstruction without irresistible and irrepressible warrant. Otherwise writing becomes by definition, unclear; and that is merely a negative assumption, which in turn would need a warrant, rather than being allowed as a fitful piece of fun for the saying of it.

Indeed, a day in Genesis 1 is defined as morning and evening, in terms of physical light and darkness (1:5), as well as presented in the normal diurnal sequence, as normative in ordinals in Hebrew, in such deliberate and repetitive format. The generation of the universe is followed in sequence by the generation of families, and a more unified consideration of creation and continuation it would be difficult to find. Light, creation, time,  sequence, history's initiation, continuation are the scope of terms. To  depart from this, as in any literature from a constantly codified, normatively presented array, would require grounds of the first order. Not only do these not exist, but continuity in terms which are explicative, as in normal history, is the emphatic impact of the text. This does exist. We deal with what exists and not with the mind as the source. It is the writer who is being understood, not the mind of the reader which is being the new source.

Efforts to show the contrary never succeed, because the idiom and usage in Hebrew exactly conform to the clear teaching, as might be expected of exact writing (cf. Proverbs 8:8). Metaphorical or metaphysical assumptions always need justification, and this entails impetus from the text: here not only lacking, but defined out of existence at the first, and excluded in the continuity emphasis, available in repeated summaries expressed in normal history, in unifying terms.

Furthermore,  total presentation of creationism is not an interpretation at all, but manifest and substantial throughout the Bible. Creation is the mode; this is disjoined from fabrication from ingredients. What is moved into being is by a power which creates time and space themselves, and arrays them as He will (Genesis 1-2, Romans 8:39, Colossians 1:15). The categories of what is made and what is not made are integral. We are biblically told that as to the category of the made, everything is in it, except God. That is the one which He made; and that is why it is there.

Inclusively, all things is the scope of what He made, Exclusively, NOTHING is the field of what was made without Him. If a thing is made, He made it. If it is not made, it is Himself. Such is the teaching of John 1:3. Again, in Hebrews 1, if it is in the realm of what relates to visibility, it was not made through that realm; it is an instituted realm, derived from what by nature is invisible.

That invisible creative Being has the name God. It does not have another name, as for another being. It is unitary, original and exclusively the source of creation; and the means were speech, articulation of command, the power being sufficient for such performance: even with CEOs in industry, this is taken for granted. That is their position. With God, this is the source of all positions. The teaching on creation is not at all unclear. It depends on no interpretation; and one notes that repudiation and insertion of alternative concepts is a form of piracy, not interpretation, as it would be if the name of Shakespeare were used for indefensible abuse of the originality of his work and its meaning, by the use and insertion of concepts not found in his work. For departure from the word of Shakespeare, as of God, you need warrant from the text itself to show that this must be done, to be fair to him.

Such warrant is not to be found by producing one's own ideas, from other domains, and insisting on eisegesis. What the text warrants, stands; and this is what is found by consultation with all of it.

It is very much moreover, as with the resurrection clash between Christ and the Sadducees, who had a religious bent for departure from the clear text into various clamorous preferences. Trying to make 'resurrection' a laughing stock, they asked Christ whose husband would stand in heaven, if a woman had several and each died on earth in turn. His reply, apart from noting the relevant fact that in heaven reproduction in this fashion is a thing of the past, was to point out that they understood neither the (unique and distinctive) power of God, nor the scripture, the Bible as at that stage. Their stress with the text, which could not in its own terms be warranted, was actually based on an inability to grasp the basic themes of God and His power. They felt a need to trash power, to moderate the text, to thrust other ideas into it which abased both the power of God and the text of what He said, by ideational addition and subsumption of what God said, to what THEY said. That is clearly illegitimate.

In the present case, creation is by the word of God, by command; it does not involve existing materials; each part of it is by creation, by directive word: and while results flow (water spreads), all origination is of,  by and through Himself.

The position is not unclear. It is readily tested with contrary positions. There is no need or warrant to alter it in order to talk of something different. Let the contesting parties contest, then, in assessable tests involving laboratory exhibition, detailed verification, assessment of implications of these highly diverse positions, consideration of relevant laws of science, experimentally verified, logical aspects, since the reasoning always has to involve logic, and let results stand. Making them stand in advance by selection is a woeful failure for the discipline of science as such, and a worse one, when the results of it are to be felt by children, who are not permitted to deal, in the science section, with the issues, even if they were comparably educated to their teachers. Verboten is written on that grass. In this, it becomes rather like a religious and pedagogic prison, where a belief system being preferred by authority, it is imposed rigorously.

It might be added, outside this basis scope, that detailed data that are in Genesis 1-2, which in point of fact, are not at all divorced from the rest of history as there presented, but integrally related, are a separate issue; but once again, whatever the source, these can in a more minute study, be considered with nothing but confirmation, precise and multiple (as it is in SMR pp. 482-498, 179-197, cf. Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, Ch. 2). It is all testable.

Thus in a strict sense this requirement of the Board would have no impact on the teaching of creation and intelligent design. These firstly, stand on the evidence empirically, and relate to the hypothetical medium or arena with all the rest competitively. Secondly, the distortion of concept contextually undefended about interpretation of a text is both intrusive, irrelevant and prejudicial to thought. What has the source to do with it ? If this is science, it is the RESULTS whatever the source which matter. Additionally, the source as noted above, in this case has no room for refutation empirically in this area. If it had, this would have to be established without the use of mere unwarranted presuppositions, of some religious or belief system on the part of few or many.

In the Christian Telegraph, we hear that a spokesman for the South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board is quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald saying there is no ban on teaching creationism. "It can be taught in religious studies". (See: http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue8966.html).

Of course it can, but what has that to do with it ? If the concept of creation is validatable, verifiable, it can be taught anywhere, based on its performance criteria in scientific testing. This then follows the line that what is presented by the Board has the intention of excluding creationism and intelligent design concepts from the teaching in schools, even though strictly, the wording does no such thing,  merely in a loose sort of way, implying this possibility. What it does however is exclude certain things as sources for something, so that if it be true, they might be said to be based on such things, as well as confirmed by other things such as verification and the rest as noted above.

To be sure, the wording is strange. Teaching must not be based on, espouse or reflect a particular thing. This certainly is an unscientific dictum, for it goes far too far. If a school considers that the Bible in this field is distinctively verified, as do many Ph.D. scientists in this field, then what has to be done is simple. In debate, and contest of a rational kind, it is SHOWN that this is not so. This has never been done, but in all but countless cases, debates have been won frequently, world-wide, on the ground that the propositions proceeding from the Bible in this domain present a  position that is true, empirical and logical, distinctively beyond all positions, regardable for scientific method, as hypotheses.

It is far worse than that however. Leaving aside the Board's flirtation in the realm of hermeneutics, done in a most unscientific manner, which strictly makes it all irrelevant, but seeking nonetheless to understand their import, we find that not only must the science course not be based on a text (it could not be based on this alone: how could it be, since science as such has an investigatory and empirical basis, whatever be the source of hypothesis!), but it must not espouse or reflect it.

If however a text as a source of a view is confirmed, or some portion of substance in it for the testable review, then of course it has its place in the basis. Einstein is not forbidden a place in scientific review, although it is of course true that the pith is confirmation by evidence. It is not based on Einstein, but an approach may be based on the assumption that he is right, or the best going in a field, and this may unblushingly be asserted in the sense that that is where the idea came from, and in this case, his particular formulation is the one in precise view.

Whether the source of his understanding be directly understood or not, it is the result of it which comes into the arena of science. We may not, moreover, assume a humanist philosophy, when it comes to the means; for to do that is not scientific. ONLY by testing shall propositions be accepted or otherwise. In this case, as shown in SMR, it so happens that it is shown to be in accord with reason, and required by it; but this is not a necessary pre-condition, so that all simply have prior understanding about how it is known. We do not, for example, delete God a priori, or what claims to be His word and in it (SMR, esp. Appendix D), claims to have both grounds and testability, asserting truth concerning practical reality; no, we do not so assume systematically, in order to hold a scientific view. We consider the claims evidentially, and build up reputations, as well as ponder test results, competitively. What fails, fails.

We test it, rigorously, and APPLY scientific method, not philosophic presumption, as if to make of science a plaything for people of this or that notion about things.

Certainly, any scientific dictum, idea, hypothesis can be based on what is stated somewhere, if that something is shown in the relevant feature, to be empirically supported to the detriment especially of what is not shown in the same manner, to be supported. It is based on it BECAUSE, in this specialised setting, it happens to be distinctively confirmed. To exclude it as a source in that sense, would be to re-write the history of science, so that Boyle's Law must by no means by so named, lest we think it is Boylism. No one misunderstands here: he showed it, and it is based on him as the SHOWER.

Moreover, as in all science, it matters not at all who is the scientist, and what were his methods before presenting his hypothesis, whether in abstruse realms of mathematics, accessible to few at the time, or otherwise. Science is about checking truth, not vetting sources in advance, in some peremptory manner, let alone mischaracterising them in some irrelevant and derogatory manner. These are merely some of the reasons why this Board for independent schools has erred profoundly in this case.

But should the presentation not find basis in, espouse or reflect a particular source ? Is there perhaps some reason for this exclusion ? If a teacher presents in a university class, some presentation of his own, is it wrong to ponder and teach, if it be shown to be in order distinctively, such a view because it reflects or espouses what he has said ? Is this to be all about a virtual aristocracy, in which a type of Burke's Peerage becomes a new scientific resource, the basis of all, so that what is not found in it (here, materialism, reductionism, prejudice, empirical failure), is not permissible. 

Are we to have a Wodehouse comedy in which the aristocracy of birth is to reign beyond criticism, in terms of assumptions made about their  worth ? Is this to be simply assumed, when other performers may be available for some of their functions, and the House of Lords can have some people selected because of attainments of a practical sort ? In other words, Is the empirical to be present in word, by assurance, but never subjected to the careful assessment of deeds, in strict accord with scientific method, before gaining prestige, reputation as operable ?

Yet, we are informed by the Board, there must be no basis which even reflects a particular source, which presents a particular view. However, this is precisely what it is doing.

Take the result of checking a given source in its prescription, hypothesis or statement in this field, one not desired by some authority. If it is right, then too bad for that authority;  but it CANNOT be impermissible, because it reflects as work, or an aspect of this work, the design aspect or the creation basics. Why can it not reflect such a work ? Is there some scientific work which shows that atheism is a pre-condition of procedure ? If so, many of the most original and accepted scientific thinkers of all time were enemies of science! How far must such a farcical delusion go!



We must go further. If a view is of long standing, such as creation in the Bible (it has a particular presentation which is important, and relevant, but the basis is crucial), then anything which presents this may be said to reflect such a view, and the more so if those who present it are Christians who base their understanding on the Bible. Obviously, they will base their science on its truth; which includes the command to TEST ALL THINGS (I Thessalonians 5, cf. Isaiah 42,  43, 48). The Bible, so far from being contrary in character to scientific method, is contrary to atheism and naturalism, to getting something from nowhere, and of course any logical presentation will reflect this. It will, if following the biblical model, ALSO reflect stringent testing of all propositions in the realm of science, where this is the milieu, an independent check on what is presented from ANY source, independently of philosophic preference.

It is well to be based on what is empirically shown superior and has long been of this kind, and has further qualifications in being in a book which is in all things testable and seeks that one do this testing. So far from being a liability, this is an asset. Imagine if Einstein had made his conclusion available in 1000 B.C.. It would not be the less impressive, but the more. What matters is that then or now, the thing stated works, is verified, is not invalid. He would have been far ahead of his time in that case, but to exclude on that basis is a work of authoritarian ignorance if tests may be made.

To decide who knows anything, and what is to be tested, in advance, is certainly not scientific, but in this field, simply an exercise in presumption and prejudice. It denies the field in which it works, and brings in a degree of philosophical  totalitarianism which should be resisted by those who prefer truth to decree of man.

In all these things, this emphasis on knowledge and testability is precisely the biblical position, which in essence is simple and clear, and in detail, should not be subjected to unbased abuse by those who wish to disparage it for some reason of their own. Where the phenomenon often found, of reactionary resistance to new discovery, exhibited by Lord Zuckerman in his work, Beyond the Ivory Tower, or a phase of reactionary resistance to existing truth, as appears here, the mode of operation is unscientific,  specious, meretricious and unsound.

Once then, we avoid the irrelevant and inept disparagement, and turn to the facts, we can find only prejudice and error in the Board statement. If the source has demonstrable superiority in test,  at the scientific level, in its STATEMENT of a position, then of course a student course should reflect that and espouse it. If it does not, then what has it to do with science ? The same applies to any other source, whether atheism, materialism, reductionism or humanism. We  do not judge in science, on the approach of what or who is making an hypothesis, or disregard systematically what he finds rational and right as a basis. We judge one thing here, IS IT RIGHT, as far as all tests can go, and is it so DIFFERENTIALLY relative to other statements of hypothesis, whatever their source.

This is a tool, and it is to be used as such. To be sure, it exists in a broader logical milieu of test; but in its own domain, it has a place, and must not only keep to it, but be stringent about it. It is like decks on a ship: to have them scoured clean is not the whole need in the ship; but it is a part in the eyes of some, and if it be a part, let the part be done well. We do not want the equivalent of some officer declaring, Clean! Don't be ridiculous, how COULD it be when that sodden alcoholic did it! It is better to inspect.

If now a mathematician comes with assurance and declares that such and such a position is correct, we test him, and do not exclude him on the basis of his being so sure. Only when God is removed by illicit and prior abstraction out of prejudice, does the point that something claimed in His name to be true, cannot really be pertinent at all. But is the science course to be based on irreligion, or anti-biblical conceptions, and hence NOT on testing ? Why precisely ? Is someone's system of belief or religion to become the paragon, and what rejects this the parody, and is no one to think of testing it ? Is this to become the German or some other Democratic Republic, irrespective of what it does with politics, to put a parallel!

Thus the protestations of the Board about their method are irrelevant. It is a false dichotomy, a false dilemma. It is not the case that either God and the Bible are to be accepted, let alone some approach to this on the basis of an indefensible excursion into hermeneutics, largely irrelevant; or else scientific method is to be acceptable. The case is far other: it is whether something is to be excluded from being relevant as  source of a statement for testing, because of what that source is. In other words, is prejudice to rule ? In fact, in its dictum, ruling or whatever the Board's opinion as expressed, may be termed, it shows in the strictest sense of the word, an im-pertinence to the point.

Whatever makes for such errors resembles precisely what is found in the earlier requirement in a circular to Principals in South Australia  (1988), as examined and exploded in TMR Ch. 8 ? That is in line with the ludicrous and pompous arrogance displayed in the Russell Report, as shown in the Diploma of Education thesis on that topic, presented to Melbourne University in 1977 "Lead us Not into Educational Temptation."). This is a system of belief indoctrination, intent not only on changing culture, but disengaging from a chief source, the Bible, with neither rational ground nor viable logic of its own.

Martial arts of this irrational kind have been practised for some time; and it is well to expose their trumpeting, for subjectivity and meaninglessness can come into this field on the basis of assumptions so untenable, that merely to enunciate them is often sufficient. Like other armies, it has various divisions; but they relate in what they disregard, and the inadequate means by which they seek to accomplish this

(cf. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Chs. 4-6,

Deity and Design  ... Section 8, with  2 and   7,

The gods of naturalism have no go!).

One practical point that IS relevant is this: that because the evolutionary hypothesis fails consistently, persistently and continually, so that not once is it shown to act, to be visible doing so, is the machinery for it found demonstrably operative in a relevant mode, is information found created by non-intelligence, as previously attested, while information is the basis of physical life in the DNA;  and because on the contrary, creation is confirmed consistently (cf. SMR pp. 140ff. in a brief,  summary review, within Ch. 2), therefore there is a problem. This is admitted; but it is for those who endorse the said evolutionary views.

One way is to change them as required by scientific method. Another way is to exclude what shows them up. This at least is in line with what the Board prescribes, just as the preceding Circular did. Whatever the purpose, this is the result in such statements as those reported of it.

To be sure, the Board STATES a relatively sound method, in the prelude; but it is not APPLYING it here, but in practice, falls into the errors which its method, if it were applied in this case, must prohibit. It is not its statements about what it wants which are the problem; it is its notorious failure to act in accord with them, while ignoring the activities of those who DO act in this way at this level. As to these, this is so, whatever their reasons may be for their understanding in various other aspects, which are comparable in type with those of the Board - that is, matters of conviction. As to that, this is a separate issue, but the work on this site has shown what is the most reasonable conviction, and indeed a warranted one!

Yet here, this is not the thrust of the issue. Rather, it is whether there can be convictions about anything, which are excludable in advance, because of ill-defended prejudice, or depreciated, by undefended assertion.

In fact, his should not even enter into the issue. It is the fact that it does, and the manner in which it does, which provides through its implications, this whole illicit issue, in its profound gravity. To espouse liberty was part of the USSR machinations; it said it, however, INSTEAD of doing it. There was their problem at the practical level; and it is parallel in type with that of the Board. The protestation about what should be done at the outset, this is not a problem; the pursuits added to it have the implications and the irrelevance and, indeed, manifest a confusion which is disparate not only from science,  but from reason and from truth.

Whatever lies in the intents of their hearts is unknown, though there have been in South Australia, clear preliminaries of dogmatic intrusion into science, at the government level,  by empirically unsound assumption and preference.




What has been  wrought in this Board statement, however, is seen; and it is assessable for the sake of the children, to say no more.

From what is said, one finds a position from the Board. It becomes a display of derogation, irrelevant, in contradiction to the mode of science, provocative and imperious. It should certainly not be impervious as well, to just criticism as here, since thousands of lives may be affected by this misuse of prejudice, presupposition and pre-emption.

In reality, both the Bible and the intensive use of the intellects which God has given man, are in one domain, for        the hypothesis' source (if you take it thus for scientific method),  and the method's findings (if you look at the experimental and evidential facts observable) speak in one manner: and neither is found averse to the other. If it be felt otherwise, then this must be established, and then the state of the case compared with each of the options in varied evolutionary assumptions, current.

Here, what follows from biblical creation, and distinctive creation in general, and the empirical facts are distinctively in accord, and decisively so, relative to other options. THAT is a matter for study, whether a person accepts or does not accept the position. Such studies are wide-ranging, involve many areas and arenas of thought, which is another area of test; but nothing removes the arena of the verificatory. Thus, if a school in science takes the view that the biblical statements concerning creation as a mode, and in a model,  are in accord with the demonstrable reality of pertinent tests and empirical findings, then nothing of authority is even relevant here. All that is needed is to show, coherently, cohesively and conclusively, that this is not so; or at least, that some other hypothesis outdoes the biblical position on the point.

In fact, as shown in this site, there is not even a contest when the facts are investigated. The Biblical position that the thing was created by the Creator, whose powers then worked in this sphere, and now do not do so at this creative level;  that creation was the mode and the world is a result, with the life in it: this fits all facts. If in anything anyone contests this, it should in any school be an open matter, since the actual facts are not in general, difficult to consider.

The Bible sets us to thrive on testing; this we do. That we believe it by faith says nothing of what reason does to confirm this faith, in this and all other fields. In the field of reason, it has no competitors, and this is eminently so in the field of creation. Hence a science course has as part of its basis, in a Christian school, this source of this concept, this eminent source, being the first of this direct kind, and the sustained one in its formulations. In insisting on data and empirical positions in all the scientifically relevant flow-ons from it, and noting carefully each result, this position is in precise accord with scientific method in a way which the prejudicial and derogatory words of the Board are not. Moreover, such a position, that of creation by a competent intelligence, is the direct result of reason

(cf. TMR Chs . 1,   7

SMR, The gods of naturalism have no go!  

Deity and Design ...,

Who answers Riddles, and Where He is, Darkness Departs

Hence this criticism by the Board, this limitation, is not only wrong: it is not only intrusive: it makes a false dilemma. You do not have to either take a scientific method approach OR a biblical one. You can take the biblical one on many grounds, or as you will, and then test it with a rational ground to expect results. You exclude nothing in tests; for that is the nature of tests. You exclude nothing in noting the nature of results, for this is part of tests, to think things through.  Hence a school not only could but should, if a Christian one, have a basis for its science course which both reflects and applies the biblical position, and the empirical one, and what the relationship is between them, as part of a rational and reasonable position.

However in view of the underogated realities of Christianity, it should not prevent or seek to prevent others from having a desire to show something else, PROVIDED it also is put to the test, rigorously, and allowed to stand in the sense of science, as far as the tests show; and to fall if it does not. Why many of these competing evolutionary hypotheses, excoriated by one here or there amongst evolutionists, are not permitted to fall is one of the mysteries of our Age. It is not, however, an edifying one, or instructive, except in terms of man.




There is no need for intrusive, far less abusive statements by any Board. There is no need for this or that position, not subject to competitive evaluation with other positions, to be touted directly or by implication; or for certain topics like creation and design,  to be limited to religious studies, when in fact, it is from that domain that there emerges a position which has the categorical advantage, when pursued in terms of scientific method, and not presuppositional anlaysis. Even if it had but parity, it would require a wholly different approach from that of the Board, the discriminatory character of which is in major confrontation not only with fact, but with the commitment of this nation to the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination, in matters of belief or religion.

Even this secular approach speaks of the need for "equality before the law and the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief..." in its prologue. Article 2 proceeds, "Discrimination between human  beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ..."

As shown in the above, and in the references therein made, there is nothing short of discrimination based on religion (the concept that religion cannot relate to scientific fact, even in the form of basic propositions in kind), in the Board's statement currently in view. First of all, it makes an assertion about a literal interpretation, as if this were an assured fact for the purposes of creation and design, versus chance or nothing basis, for example. That is the first intrusion and prejudicial action. Not only is this without warrant, as to interpretation, it is not even relevant to the issues of creation, design and verification of hypothesis.

Secondly, in speaking in this manner, the Board adopts at once an authoritarian tone, based on nothing known or presented, and a derogatory attitude, as if there were something unworthy of science in such things. This is a peculiarly religious attitude, and is discriminatory. The precise opposite position is taken on this site, and its grounds rehearsed, in terms of logic, text, scientific method,  verification and validation, both rigorously and repeatedly. This same position is taken and has been taken by large numbers of distinguished scientists, both past and present, leaders* in fields of endeavour in science.

Where without Kelvin, without Faraday, without von Braun, without Newton, foremost originator of calculus, physicist of profound genius, without Maxwell, Hooke in physics, Boyle in chemistry, to name merely a handful of the great inventive generators of scientific thought, in history, would we be!

What profound omissions would have been made without their testimony as indeed, that in realms like the area and arena of Shakespeare, whose works are almost a living glowing sermon in morals, and exposition of doctrine, apart from their famous drama; of Browning, Wordsworth, Tennyson; of  Bacon moreover in his instructions on scientific method itself, of Kepler, Herschel in astronomy, Gladstone in our history, Carl Linnaeus in plant classification, Pasteur in bacteriology, Dalton in chemistry's atomic theory, Joule in physics, Babbage in profound mathematical and engineering preliminaries to modern day computing, Lister or Fleming in medicine, the latter in his amazing work in penicillin.

Their talent and testimony have contributed to understanding, and that in science has been here a major feature.  Others notable not only for their Christian testimony, but for its relevance to research or presentation, perspective, have included William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) in his elaborate and fascinating researches, James Maxwell and James Joule, who like Kelvin, left his name to a scientific unit.

The point is merely illustrative; but it suggests some ground for restraint, before making pedagogy a captive of philosophy.

Let us however return directly to our theme. The Board is acting by religious assumption in so derogating the source of such propositions.

Scientifically, it is the proposition's power, unaided by prejudicial preconceptions,  to prevail empirically and logically, in verification and correlation with other known propositions which claim due acceptance, which is to the point. Nothing is given favour in testing, as if on some kind of aristocratic basis,  and as if it were not what it IS, and how it WORKS, but where it COMES from, which is pertinent. This is not so,  for the power to prevail is not a matter of preference, but observation; and exclusion in advance permits no test or contest, but becomes quite simply, authoritarianism not only at work in education in particular, without regard to the method of science, but this in particular in this very subject. It is like putting a cart-horse in the ball-room during dancing instruction. It not only is unfitting; it seems almost frivolous.

Thirdly, the Board's statement makes a false dichotomy between biblical assertion, to name but one source, and scientific relevance, as to force a confrontational collision. This is a religious attitude, since it is based on assumptions about God, and about His power and interest in speaking, and in the subjects He may wish to cover. In enforcing the results of such conceptions, it is behaving as a religious entrepreneur, and its pronouncements in this vein are unscientific, philosophic and represent a discrimination, for the third time, against students who do not share their religious presuppositions.

Fourthly, at the social level, such approaches, so stylised and implemented, represent a slap, affront, degradation of the religious aspect held by some students, relative to that held by some others, and so is discrimination.

Fifthly, at the academic level, the preliminary and artlessly unscientific exclusions noted, present a discrimination in that the subject matter and conclusions to be drawn from it, are not objectibly rewardable in markings, since some sections are exclusivistic, no-go zones, and hence there is favour for those who agree with the discriminatory position to which the Board so commits itself. This is professionally unfair, as some of these matters will enter into marks usable for entry into professions.

Sixthly, the very concentration on exclusivistically prepared zones, in this way, is a constraint that binds down instead of freeing up the minds of students, so representing a virtual harassment, at the psychological and academic level, the latter in the additional sense that it curbs thought by insisting on exclusions in advance.

Seventhly, there is discrimination in this, that creative activity on the part of students, possibly by long practice even internally, may be blunted by the sheer authoritarian clamour of the Board, its singular direction, its insistence of exclusion from presentation. Indeed, while some may feel free enough, the actual freedom is fit only for what might be called in parallel, party members: except that in this case, it is a religious party and not a political one, which is favoured. It is however by political action that this is made possible in the first place; for authority does not come from nowhere. Results, whatever the source of the discrimination, accrue therefore in various ways, the very quintessence of discrimination.

Eighthly, there is abundant discrimination in this: that even if the student desires to go to a Christian School (for example), and even if the parents pay a great sum to enable this, at great loss, the  enthusiasm in the area of religion or belief, on the part of the Board comes as a precursor, even in such a School as that. It becomes the equivalent, in some ways, of a witch hunt; for not only is the undesired approach not permitted in general public education, it is to be extirpated in the systematic arena of science in ways which are not mirrored in the professional world, where all may be argued for and presentations made, however unpopular they may be some circles, with RESULTS presented as verification at length.

This is a case of secondary discrimination.

Moreover, are the resources for the zone excluded by religion or belief systems, on the part of the Board, equally available to students in Libraries, in the impartial, serviceable and knowledgeable hands of trained teachers, aware on all fronts of relevant data and argumentation ? If not, as is the case where exclusion means not only verbal discrimination but all that would go with the case, were the lessons themselves not so inhibited in method, then there is textual and professional discrimination, in loss of services on a religion or belief basis. In fact,  in the Circular to Principals of 1988, this was ludicrously made into an extreme at one point, books with creationist content to be kept in the Principal's office.

What has Communism, Nazism in its educational programs to  offer more intense in procedure, except for the use of more physical manipulation!

The above is enough to indicate that this represents discrimination to the uttermost, should be discontinued, is misconceived at best, intimidatory in emphasis and exclusivistic in style, contrary to the spirit of research in science and injurious to the children and youth of Australia. Its extension into realms paid for by parents who often seek to avoid the artificiality of the presumptions so made, has almost an air of disregard to be heard to be believed. This appears that desire for control which has ruined system after system in belief patterns, and which Christianity as in the Bible, stringently prohibits as a method. Exposure is the method, light is the instrument, logic is pertinent as is perception, and what is found testable in and through man, is to be tested. WHEN you test, you do not omit the actual test, and pre-announce the results by a philosophic megaphone. That is the nature of a test.




This is noted in Ch. 7 above, the context hyperlinked.

What has to be tested has to come from realms in which their philosophy is invested: exclusions therefore apply. As when Christ Himself, the Truth, came to earth, you could believe many different things (just as organic evolutionists have believed and contest various ideas without joint conviction, quarrelling among themselves), but one thing you could not follow, and that was the Christ.

In parallel now, the creation which Christ taught, while you may believe a variety of discordant evolutionary views (Nilsson,  Gould, Darwin, Simpson, Lovtrup, Lamarck, maybe even Goldschmidt), this, creation, uncrushed logically or scientifically for millenia,  in science you may NOT believe; or if you believe it, you must in scientific education be a secret disciple. Philosophy has said so, and it is riding so-called science, at the dictate of politics, which has it so.

Not only does a variety of contestants in the field of intra-evolutionary debate,  assault the faults of others of its kind, which are indeed there, for none supports itself in laboratory and history, without simply begging the question, but this situation is predictable, since failure to face the fundamentals of logic and empirical research can only lead to the doldrums typical of reductionism. There, nothing works; the choir is there, but not the music. In contrast, creation is confirmed on all sides, meets every requirement.

It is therefore particularly sad that the concept employed in this control dictation,  namely that scientific method is not even interested in unselected sources, whatever the results, has annulled its famous hypothetical contests as a badge of honour, honesty and industry. It is in this way that it has left the field to philosophers. In this domain, they are unable even to support themselves.

(See Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Chs. 4-6,

SMR Chs. 2, 3 and 5, incl. pp. 140ff.,

Secular Myths and Sacred Truth,

Deity and Design  ... Section 8, with  2 and   7,

The gods of naturalism have no go!)

TMR Chs . 1,   7

Who answers Riddles, and Where He is, Darkness Departs.

Sometimes, evolutionists try to go a little further: after all they have no ground for their ideas. You have from big-name evolutionists therefore extreme and wholly unscientific measures, not verified, most bizarre, where every now and again some intense concentration of some kind of rays, it is felt, maybe, just maybe play the builder, and new organisms arise with vastly different construction, involving masses of new information. Perhaps, it is felt, these happen to come, though science in information theory, disavows such experimentally; or a spectre in some ghostly format, is, rather like a dog's owner, leading creation up and on, almost as if cajoling it, but this fantasy like the other, lacks all evidence. Nothing is categorically moving up, or even displaying new information without intelligence at work. Then again, you have a set-up where things pause, are punctuated in their delicious enthusiasm, for no known reason, to make life and make it abundantly, and then go for it. It is not found, this something... God never is by any other name.

Some like to think that if you could fiddle things at the embryonic level, it would be easier to get great big results in due course. That may be so, like 'fiddling' your small wrist-watch, but it is even harder to do it, when it is so tiny and so intricate. It is moreover never experimentally verified; nor do any of these arise from scientific data, such as what really IS there: that vast creativity has sprung huge numbers of designs suddenly, on this world, and neither does it continue to do so, nor can it ever be induced to do so now. And it is in this muddle and miasma of oddities that the scientific idea is to be abortively wrapped while creation, which answers all empirical questions adequately and well, is ruled out. 

What is it like ? it is like assuming that whatever else 2 + 2 may equal, they CANNOT (by academic fiat) equal 4. Naturally the results of this prohibition compromise the objectivity of research, and amount to authoritarianism, whatever the free play once what works is excluded.