W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
A NEW DEVELOPMENT
Creation and Evolution
70,000 and the Truth
The Advertiser, November 19, 2005
The recent Creation-Evolution confrontation focussed on the statistical urge and surge for the ideas of 70,000. These apparently would decree that schools follow their line.
This is now reported publicly as paralleled by the DECS Minister in SA with a similar authoritarian approach. Even the newspaper has now a reported quotation to make the thing very clear, handing out the unchastened result just days ago.
This politician, as reported in The Advertiser, Nov. 19, 2005, declares that neither can creationism nor religion appear in science: it will not be tolerated, for State policy 'bars' it! Such science by decree, the ‘cult of the forbidden’*1A, is indulging thereby the prejudice of pre-determining where the answer to the data-based queries found in science may and may not be found. In this, you simply mischaracterise or forbid the areas you don’t want, as if a political pre-selection. You decline to investigate and correlate in a given field because it is not to your taste, philosophically, existentially, programmatically or in whatever other way has some éclat, some appeal, some cultural cliquishness or fits into some mandate imagined to exist for organising science to some quarter of the globe of goings, deemed fit, for inscrutable reasons, irrespective of performance and result at the hands of test. It is intolerable and that is that.
Here is science by decree, answer by rote, reason by irrationality and the ultimate in knowledge by prescription. This is as disastrous for this State as it is symptomatic of the fallen state of this world, daring to direct resources, researches and even education of the misshapen young, to the fiefdom of favour. It is of course a religion rampant and out of hand, making concerns for ultimate truth, based on nothing ever shown*1B, to determine where reality to be found.
It is not experimentally governed, rationally open, empirically determined, but governed by philosophy or desire, as the case may be, where God is excluded from His works, and creation as a testimony of the empirical reality and the rational requirements, is thrown away like a disused plastic bag. To be sure, His name is mentioned, but only in terms of legends, meaning stories and untestable stuff, as if creation came out of nothing, or something inadequate for the testimony of reality even in man, as shown in SMR Chs. 1, 3, 10. Such appears the the state of governmental education in this field in this State. It is shown in the Circular to Principals of Jan. 5, 1988. For the actual document, use this link.
This is not reasoned; it is not the realisation of a program, but of a prejudice so profound that it is not even open for debate, nor may the Premier be seen on the topic, though there is no known Minister for religion, nor are the challenges met except by authority, nor is the gross and outrageous offence against what is called 'religion' met by anything but an ignoring which seems to mirror an ignorance so profound or a distaste so amazing that it will not or even cannot see what it is doing.
What other State on earth dares so to dismiss by spurious definition and philander by specious distortion with God, and make this a calamity for children bound by the State! Yes, there are some, and China at least in practice, has its little ways, as do other Communist countries when not making allowances contrary to their own materialist doctrines; and there are totalitarian regimes which stop at nothing. One had in mind, however, democracies, and the issue here is what is actually said, written in a government document for schools, about ALL RELIGIONS, and hence can be read directly as a comment on Christ and Christianity.
If this is not discrimination in the field of education, it would not be possible to have it; the term would be meaningless and the offence would be a vision or a dream, not touching this earth. If this is not denying privileges to some because of religious intolerance, what would be ? What is being denied on religious grounds ? (for these ARE religious grounds and are STATED to be so, and are made part of the later discriminatory assault on creation in the State Circular dealing so dictatorially with these matters).
v teaching of science so that all approaches to origins have equal validity until empirically differentiable, the one from the other;
v opportunities in this domain of science for the hundreds of Ph.D. scientists who have famously argued over the centuries and till this present hour, including some the founders of whole disciplines in the modern setting, to be reviewed in their contributions and argumentations with as much facility as those of other persuasions;
v provision of a critical assessment method for reviewing all these topics, not by authoritarian decree, as if this were a totalitarian land, but by logical reality;
v provision of library material readily and with apt teaching facility, and recent material in magazine form on all sides without prejudice, far less the mockery inherent in the Circular noted.
Far more is a matter of discriminatory deprivation for creationist children, and indeed for all in that they are slanted, tilted by omission. Thus, the sense of being out of the stream, socially, academically, is injurious, gratuitous and damaging, and hence discriminatory. It would appear impossible to reconcile this with "THE DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF". This was passed by the UN, or proclaimed indeed on 25 November 1981, this has been, in 1993, filed down into Australian law. (Cf. Mystery of Iniquity.) It therefore seems that this SA DECS approach to education is actually illegal in terms of Commonwealth law, so that perhaps they should avoid Commonwealth funding ?
What then of this science by decree ? such as is now happening, and HAS BEEN happening ever since 1988, though few seem to care, but if to care, then not to care enough to act for the children afflicted; and amazingly, there seems a conformist mentality even in private schools, as far as may be ascertained by public statements from a corporate body involved! What of this decree, the Circular, disseminated far earlier, and still 'enforced' as one Education administrative employe recently advised us, a fiat so long operative to the shame of the State, so that one can wonder whether the car number plates could have this: State of Shame.
What of such a practice ?
This aborts the impartiality of scientific method, as the demands of logic likewise. It is also, as a political putsch, discriminatory and immoral, since it puts paid to education for some, forcing them into the mythical arena of others. This occurs in strict definitional terms (Answers to Questions 5 pp. 116ff.). Branding what is verified myth, they move to what is verifiably their own myth, so forcing mythology into science, where it never did belong. It is not creation but mythology, transgressing performance requirements, which should be banned. The opposite is being done.
What then of this misuse of scientific method*IB, the empirical, the political and the educational ? In Christ’s name and grace, this is shown at this site, with references among the 133 volumes on Biblical Christian Apologetics published on line: at our chosen site for review and answers.
In fact, it is for years that the variously named SA Education Department has jibbed at the public debate challenge issued to it in protest against this abuse, both of scientific method and of the Christian faith, which is ONE of the religions it has attacked by generalisation, and then misused. This is shown in detail, along with the very words of the assault at TMR Ch. 8. This document is to be found here, and the review throughout the Chapter 8 cited, from the first; but in detail it commences at this point. .
What then of this body, currently named the DECS and of its treatment of children in this field ? Public debate it avoids, while South Australian children become indoctrinees if not progammees of an evolutionism which multiply fails test, precisely where creationism and in particular biblical creationism succeeds in just those tests (cf. SMR pp. 140-150).
Judged by scientific method, the latter uniquely meets all distinguishing logical tests, unchained by cramping philosophies, simply facing citable facts, as extensively illustrated at this our site. Biblical creationism – in fact the BIBLE provides the matrix of the three main laws of science as long stipulated by former El Paso Physics Professor Tom Barnes. Just as some of the world's most famous scientists have been creationists, like Newton, Faraday, Boyle, von Braun, so do results attest it with monotonous regularity (TMR Ch. 1*1C).
As to the Bible, its unending, unbending, accurate and original statements are neither moved by time nor changed by the clanging of the prison doors of inept philosophies, unable to stand themselves, and endlessly refuted over the ages.
The word of the Bible endures, not for a decade, as some scientific theories, but in a way as ageless as God, who however acts as truth, in this way, since being eternal, He knows and is not caught in the limitations of time, and being righteous, He is not slanted with the engines of illicit desire. The crystalline fire of its vitality is never made drab like the illusions of Darwin, his body of thought long deceased*1D, nor irrelevant, like the more factual efforts of Harvard's Gould*1E, who at least in one book, faced actual evidence squarely with a sort of stunned bewilderment. Moreover, the necessities of creation are not limited to this empirically incomparable book of the Lord, for they are required by reason itself*1F.
As indicated by Russian Dr Dmitri Kouznetsov, there is a certain preference for freedom in education. In fact, education is to be preferred to science by decree. You must be willing to check for yourself, test, annotate, correlate, ponder, consider, relegate and start again where anti-verification occurs (as normal in evolutionism - cf. SMR pp. 140-150, a flirtatious religion of hope, always hallowing what is never to be found.
Triple bio-science doctorate holder and Lenin Science prize winner, Kouznetsov once provided this correct analysis, in an address at Adelaide University. His advice: Let the students think! Indeed, one must say this: Don't draft their doctrine by exclusion from the processes of science. Let them be fed the food for thought. Stressing that people must be permitted to think for themselves, Kouznetsov advised that the scientific data forced him to creationism years before he became a Christian.
Sadly, unsustainable religious prejudice appears rampant in that infamously derogatory SA Circular to Principals, January 5, 1988. In assaulting the status of all religions, this notoriously defames Christianity, with neither warrant, nor ground, nor any hope of success. For this, both retraction and apology is mandatory for any government which wishes to command respect and behave conscientiously in the interests not of cult, but truth. From a government which is not a political papacy but an agent for liberty as is supposedly the case in a democracy, so that all such things may be tested, such must be the reversal of tactics witjh the opening of the mind in teaching for the children; and for science, there is to be liberty to look, think without baseless limits, and to study results in their own right.
The totalitarian path in academia is very popular and makes a mockery of academic claims.
At present, the amazing thing is this: that this government, headed by a Premier who has publicly stated that he desires South Australia to be a free-thinking State, will not even face open debate, between the Department responsible for this outrage, now of 19 years standing, and creationists who meet evolutionism with reality. The challenge has not even been acknowledged; the offence against religion has not even been met with relevant answer concerning this assault, in any correspondence with this Government.
The matter is put to governmental advisers, to this or that Department, and the answers in writing skirt or ignore all relevant issues of the three-fold challenge: debate, answer to the religious outrage in a way which is rational and detailed, with the removal of the offence because of its unfounded character and dictatorial duress, and the opening of teaching to the realities of science, not to a philosophically unbased and empirically outrageous exclusion policy.
A free-thinking State ? This is in fact its outrageous opposite: it is, in these respects, a prison camp in philosophy, an assault force in religion and a breach in the uttermost discrimination even of UN provisions, which alas are little enough in themselves, and sufficiently prejudicial in their own religious preconceptions! (cf. Mystery of Iniquity).
Meanwhile, what is the position ? It is that the children are being drip-fed this disastrous emulsion of secular myth*1 by concerted compulsion, when the energies of science should be open-minded and developmental, not absurdly repressive. God Himself in the Bible makes it very clear that He is open to test, indeed strongly encouraging it; and faith finds not some substitute for truth but what meets its every demand. Indeed, this is what God in the Bible demands that we do, instead of acclaiming our own ignorance and self-sufficiency: to check it out. He did not give minds in order that they should be ignored, but exercised; and He has not made Himself obvious in order that the facts should be obviated in sullen or sequestered thought, stricken from what happens, but that the realities should be appreciated and found.
You see this challenge repeated in Isaiah 41, 43, 48. The FACTUAL TESTABILITY of the Christian faith as in Luke 1, again, is one of its cardinal features. Who is this, then, who dismisses ALL religion in terms of the non-testable and the scientifically irrelevant ? Who ? Why it is this Government, intruding politics into science and philosophical preference into education as its very basis! It has even dared to do this in writing, in a Circular to Principals which it seems to hug to its bosom, while thrusting its baseless propaganda into the bosoms of children, whose arms have not first warranted such devotion.
Nor is it in science alone that this indoctrinative intolerance is made feisty: but because of this political pseudo-papacy of the most extreme character, we are told in the Circular that there is to be no debate with assignable outcome in the religious field, even outside science!
This is rather like setting up an experiment and excluded observable results. It is all the exact contrary configuration to the method of science (cf. Scientific Method ... ).
What sort of a philosophy is this, except that of the surreal, of fantasy, of dream; and because it makes alliance with non-creation an a priori factotum, it becomes a religion of myth, of presenting grounds that are neither stated nor statable, for the exclusion of all available realms for testing. Reason itself explodes when it is removed from language, and it requires God as surely as it is valid (SMR, TMR Ch. 5). If invalid, then argumentation is removed from those who hold such a view, and the debate is already won. Yet reason points in one way only, that of creation, as these references attest. How then exclude it, in the interests of unsustained myths, worked on philosophical bases which find no warrant from the empirical realities of life. As Dr Michael Denton sums up his amazingly detailed treatise, as a micro-biological professor, Continuity exists only in the mind of man. Discontinuity is the testimony of evidence.
It was noted above, that the pre-selection of truth-by-preference and its enforcement in schools, is repressive and it is the more so when its own basis is mythical in the strict sense of providing 'explanation' which is inadequate for the task, and using symbols and ideas which do not show their force in objective, empirical reality, as if they did.
This IS myth*2, the use of an effect without cause adequate for it. In being introduced by an inability to 'tolerate' creationism, by some sort of unassigned constraint, the dictation approach to this domain of science moves from the repressive to constitute, however unintentionally, an atrocity which in its creationist aspect, is to be found in much of the Western world, often seeking by law to implement its dereliction into schools, or its fraudulence into campuses. This is political, not scientific method.
Blindness may remove the moral aspect of such abuses directly, but there is no ground for making it a constitutive right for government in democracies.
As to this widespread atrocity, it one for which the Western world (distinctively, since it claims something very different from what it is actually doing here, in a gross falsetto of foolishness) is paying successively. This it does as the social inanities aroused by such abuse, yawn, stretch and explode rankly into life.
Taught the sacredness of survival, the myth that getting there is advance, many just do that, and seeking to outwit rather than outdo, to void morals and to find a baseless life in a baseless education, explode in psychic depths long before some of them find attraction for more chemical varieties of explosion, whether in drugs to destroy the sanity, like marijuana (cf. The Australian, Nov. 21st., 2005), or in Islamic or other terrorism, providing in its very rankness, a thankless attraction.
See Deliverance from Disorientation Ch. 7, as marked. See also Stepping Out for Christ Ch. 9
On this topic, see:
TMR Ch. 1,
SMR pp. 931ff.
and the work, Scientific Method, Satanic Method and the Model of Salvation.
John Morris' book, "Men of Science, Men of God" lists in creationist scientists, many names, such as those of Robert Hooke, Tycho Brahe, Carolus Linnaeus, Humphrey Davy, Georges Cuvier, Charles Babbage, John Dalton, Jedidiah Morse, Lord Kelvin, people who have been innovators, some great ones, in science, while hundreds of current Ph.D. scientists who are creationists, many of whom write substantially in their field, are listed, their names to be seen. A list of many creationist Ph.D. scientists is to be found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp
Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Ch.
3 (shrieking for their idols, but in vain),
DDDD 4 (and Darwin dead), Earth Spasm ... Ch. 1 (laughing stock);
Stepping Out for Christ Ch. 10 (the witness of the worm);
News 84 (broad setting, as in Spiritual Refreshings ... 13).
See also Beauty for Ashes Ch. 3 on the virulent endeavours to apply the arm of the corpse in the land once notable for freedom of thought and speech, Great Britain, in exercises horrendous to behold, in the field of education. The use of cultural force instead of academic precision in education where the range moves into some of the fields of religion is becoming endemic, growing through epidemic to approach pandemic in some of the lands once renowned for Christian liberties and fearless precision in religion, being Protestant in much of their basis and happy in its dynamics.
See Wake Up World!... Ch. 6 with the preceding Ch. 5.
SMR Chs. 1-3, 5, including pp. 251-252C and 305ff., with Ch. 4 at 422Eff.;
TMR Chs. 1, 6, 7, 8;
Repent or Perish
Secular Myth and Sacred Truth Ch. 8 (free among the dead, philosophic necrosis), cf. News 94;
News 59 (naturally 'nature' does not invent itself);
Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Ch. 2 (drifting doesn't do it);
for Christ Ch.
9 (tesselation and its tassels, concerning the truth). See also *1
See for example, the volume Secular Myth and Sacred Truth. See also Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic Ch. 2, which deals with erratic new movements even in the definition of science, as if to make it in selected areas, evidentially immune! Such is the vacuity of the rearguard action against God! and to this may be added DDDD 7.
The materialist preconceptions, whether direct or surreptitious in making of God some kind of illusory or existential or even shadowy format for symbolism, are an impossible and seething morass of irrationality, as seen for example in SMR Chs. 1, 3, 5, 10 and Repent or Perish Ch. 7, for example, with TMR Ch. 5 and Barbs ... 6 -7, Lead … Ch. 4, Swift Witness 6. See on the 'ghostly spectre' of Hoyle and the principle of Denton, Overflight... Ch. 8, Journey to God, or Fantasy's Flight to the Infernal Ch. 5, What is Life For ? as marked.
This trend, fashion and educational decree together, with the long history of the nebulosity of the Circular to Principals as a prime exhibit, and the Russell Report of Victoria as an earlier parallel, fulfil the biblical prediction for this time (cf. Answers to Questions Ch. 5) that they "will be turned aside to myths," their ears "itching" while they "heap up for themselves teachers," along these lines. This is found in II Timothy 4:2-4, and II Timothy 3:3-5 amplifies this!
Lead us Not into Educational Temptation, a thesis written in 1977 for Melbourne University, deals extensively with some of the features of this parallel performance from another State, in its various chapters.
The author of the Bible always has the answer for His enemies, and foreseeing their actions, as in the crucifixion of Christ, foretells them, meets them, often declaring in advance how it will be done; and then He does it, the very paragon of performance for scientific method, the works both published in advance and performed on time, stretching over the dynamic line of their duration of some 3400 years, including many humanly impossible tasks, simply done: and this, both as to the forecast and the performance.
These are multiplied in their various contexts of varied phases of history, the end times of which have with excruciating accuracy, because of the pathos, been shown for us now to read (cf. Answers to Questions Ch. 5, SMR Chs. 8 - 9). We can digest, with the times themselves, the forecasts in detail.
Answers to Questions 5 pp. 116ff.,
Lead us Not into Educational Temptation
and Chapter 4,
TMR 8, pp. 254ff.,
WAKE 4, 5, News 82,
SMR 374-385, 252H-I, 422Eff., 999-1002C,
A Spiritual Potpourri 1-3,
The Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 8; News 90;
Refreshings Ch. 16;
DDDD 2, DDDD 7, CASCADE 3,
Deliverance from Disorientation Ch. 7,
The Defining Drama Ch. 10
cf. SMR pp.