Chapter 1

News 230

Creation,
Technical Journal 16 (1) 2002
 

Laughing Stock

There are many sorts of stock: for example, share stock in a company, the flower of varied colours, or in the plural, the stocks in which a person could be placed in order that mockery, filth of tongue and rotten objects, could be thrown. The object was derision, indignity, social obloquy, discomfort of mind, body and spirit, being made an exhibition.

Then there is the genetic base from which some generation can come, such as a given plant being derived or an animal, from such and such a stock.

The "laughing stock" appears to related to the concept of a person in stocks, being a source of amusement in a most public and undignified way, because perhaps false aspirations or crime based on them, were exposed. It is rather like some of the IT companies in the recent dramatic fall. They had been wonder stocks in the eyes of many, so that their failure to be profitable did not seem too much to matter. The future was wide-eyed in its presumed appreciation of their talent for COMING GOOD! They did not do so in many cases, but went bad, moved awry, were like organic evolution, pies in the earth, their contents earthy and without ground for movement.

Hence they fell massively when the people began, as so often before in so many things, to realise that the future was bleak, was like nothing.  There is a sense in which some of these poor companies became a laughing stock!

They came from nowhere adequate; they went nowhere sufficient: they were the froth of a wave of bubbling thought. They never should, in the mass of cases, have been formed; and if they COULD have been well formed, then what went into them in thought, care, government and intelligent appreciation might in the main have been adequate for the expected result, not a sort of dream hope.

It is good to dream. When however you dream about money or life, it is good to know what you are doing. When mere dream is your dynamic, then you are dead. If one speaks here proleptically, the result is no more pleasant, or for that matter inept, when it waits just a little, as here!
 
 

RIDICULOUS REASONS

arising from rebellion
and constituting

TREASON AGAINST TRUTH

The laughing stock of which mention was made in two of our more recent volumes (Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Chs.  7   and  8, Beauty for Ashes Ch.   3), and to which we now refer is this organic evolution which, like wicked Hamaan in the narrative of Queen Esther, has been plotting to remove not the race of the Jews this time (though there seem to be some still anachronistically concerned to do this, at least at the national level - an unwise proceeding! in view of two things, history and Genesis 12, 15 cf. Galloping Events Ch. 4), but to despatch the reality of the Source of all races from the culture of mankind.

It is as C.S. Lewis had it, the Great Divorce; it is moreover the ultimate sanction, spiritual in kind, the denial of the Father by the fatal and fateful frenzy of the son, mankind.

It severs man in the power of his construction from his source, and wherever some try to amalgamate the natural power with the divine, it merely adds to his logical eccentricity, this - that it assails the moral integrity of God, so making another one, who, not being there, is simply a mock-up idol, a dalliance with heathen notions, an invasions of the temple of truth, a putting of power where it is not found, and a denial of it where it is. (Cf. SMR pp. 179ff., 422Eff., Biblical Blessings Ch. 7, TMR Appendix).

In this, this dilapidated affair of organic evolution is most unkind, for the kindred of man is not accounted for in terms of laughing stocks any more than good commercial companies, from such bases! To seek to do so is merely to court making the effort itself, a laughing stock. On the stock exchange such shares share with zero. Organic evolution is, quite frankly, a laughing stock. It stocks are throw-aways, its stocking is illusion, and it is in stocks for its lack of stock of any kind from its larder.

Take giraffes ( it is not so easy to do so, as one blow from one powerful hoof can reportedly readily kill a lion!), but take them in mind! An interesting article in a recent Creation magazine (Vol. 16 (1) pp. 120ff.) considers some of their special features; but first let us look at the obvious data in the round.

What is the REASON for their existence, speaking specifically ? Some biologists (but in this, they are actually not that, but philosophers, founding their ideas not on scientific method, but ideational grabs) are of the view that the genes in some way, compete, being selfish, and because they are selfish, in some way get into the act and make things happen THEIR way, and not some other.

Now this fairy tale scene (in the precise and literal sense that magical powers are attributed to what in no way under test shows any such prerogative or dynamic, or the equipment that could lead to it) is interesting if you want to write a popular novel; for man, not only when young, but even when much older, often likes the humour and/or the pathos of such talk.

On the other hand, if science is your venue, it is preposterous, a laughing stock. Do the genes have a MIND or a PROGRAM FROM ONE which induces them to be selfish ? After all, to be selfish you need to have some kind of prerogative in your provisions, to induce 'you' to be so. Calling something 'natural' does not give a sufficient reason for its existence, but simply sidesteps science. You might as well say that magnetic lines of force are natural, and imagine that you have done anything at all to 'explain' them.

If the concept includes the mental, or moral, then you need persons for its habitation, in whom the consideration of options and consequences makes such terminology apt. As matter shows no trend towards such capacities, and genes nothing but program in its interestingly complex interstices, code pushing considerations, conceptual thrust to which practical executive power is brilliantly attached, you could only be referring then to the author of the code, that IT is selfish.

However, on that view, this is a person, in order to have this proclivity for selfishness, or for inducing it, which after all would imply a desire for a realm in which this occurred, so that at the least, it would imply a selfish penchant, one for seeing the thing in operation, and giving it enormous leash. However, if so, then you are already a theist, and you then need to talk of Creation. Since the selfish gene concept is ANTI creation, then this is mere self-contradiction.

Accordingly, we then need to come back to earth, which is one of the chief repositories for data in the matter of science properly so-called, and ask, WHY on earth is the attribution of 'selfish' being made to genes in any case ? Is it because it appears that this is supposed to cover the supposed tendency for the more advanced to succeed, since after all, the effort is to explain giraffes and man and all that, and they are rather advanced, far more so than matter, and have been successfully brought into existence! This is one of the data asking avidly for explanation, if you will suffer imagery.

But is 'selfish gene' mere imagery ? If so, then it will not actually DO anything, any more than my reference above to 'data asking avidly' for something will do anything other than alert the mind of the reader to the fact that there is a high and dramatic scientific necessity to answer the question and not avoid it. It does not, such imagery, on the other hand, do anything either to create a stomach in the data, or give to that stomach an appetite.

Let us then pursue the concept that the selfish gene concept is mere imagery. Then it does nothing at all towards getting giraffes or man from what is other than these. It merely indicates that there is a concept that genes have a characteristic of ... what ? Where does imagery stop and fact begin when you are not merely illustrating a concept with vivid imagery, but seeking to make an EXPLANATION (let alone a SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION) for something! What then is the relevance, if any, of such selfishness to invention ? That is the point!

If the gene then is actively programmed to cast out other genes and does so with all that is in it, where is the program to show this ? Has it been decoded ? If it has not, where is the sense in using a mere metaphor for the explanation of a reality! This is too much, and deserves the best ivory stocks for its day at the fair! Indeed, is the sublime integration of the whole plethora of vital designs in life, so superb that 'integration' seems an inadequate concept; for it is in itself integral like an Italian sports car, the Queen's crown, like the sparkling magnificence of some enormous crystal.

Indeed the consummate correlation within man's vital design is stunningly simple in totality, witheringly a witness against all ad hoc bits-stuck-together, or internally adverse relationships. It would be next to impossible even to imagine a more harmonious whole, consistent schema, anything more dependent on intimate, conceptual, designated co-operation than the system and management, the articulation and fabrication, but especially the micro-biological interstices of man's design and inter-organic function.

This being an evidential matter, it is amusing to consider that now we are being asked to conceive of something contrary in KIND to this RESULT, and PRODUCT, as active and energising within it, producing its harmony by adversative action! Too much ? This is explaining romance by hate, car manufacture by union action, peace on earth by the Middle East! It is too much even for those weary of the endless caravanserai of imaginative mess which has been the lot of organic evolution since its initial slack methodology and ignorant surmisings, which even granting the lilmited knowledge of Darwin's day, still contradicted as he admitted, the paleontological evidence. Contradicted ? Yes, as Thompson noted*¹, the case is not notably different today: contradicted in the sense that what is SUPPOSEDLY the GROUND is what is MISSING, and this contradicts METHOD in science.

You are supposed to be constrained by what is there, not to ignore an anti-verification of vast magnitude as if it did not happen. Gaps, as Simpson noted, are SYSTEMATIC^*2. This is evidence. Surmise to the contrary is contradiction of EVIDENCE. It is explaining what is not there. We now know that it is likewise contradicting the evidence of intensive intimacy of coded correlation in action, hostile to insurgent alteration, and of vast deposits of enormously intricate and varied design, near what is deemed the 'beginning' rocks.

If we go back to fact, then, the concept would be left with the banal claim that things which are better equipped tend to displace things which are less equipped, when and if 'better' is defined as 'more apt in conflict or performance, to do a specifiable task or series of tasks'. This is true to a point, though co-operation between creatures can make it less so; and in many cases, the relevance of various skills does not apply since the domains or behavioural uses of them, do not make such conflict determinative.

This comes back then, to the concept that the way to GENERATE skill, is to beat other things which have less than you, or to do so to creatures which happen to be worse placed than you, perhaps through a change of climate which increases your skill adaptation without any contribution from you, and decreases that of some competitor which happens to do better in case of such change. This however is mere misuse of terminology. To DEFEAT is NOT THE SAME AS to generate!

One would have thought that obvious long before Schützenburger's relatively sophisticated mathematical explication of the fact (cf. SMR pp. 132-140). You do not become superman or any part thereof because you were more dishonest, more dishonourable or more devious than some competitor with far more flair than yourself, for example, and so crippled his commercial empire. You merely show that you are not very interested in BETTER things, do not possess more understanding and more skill, but merely are apt in getting things for yourself. In that way, better things would tend to decline, and of course they often do.

Even apart from man, where the whole notion of force is so often the abuse of the more sophisticated and understanding, by the more ruthless and less instructed, since it is obsessed with itself, whatever its warts and horrors: that there is no GENERATION is the killing concept. What then arises, or rather befalls ? It is degradation of something by something else, that is all. Now the selfish aspect in many things, like conversely the co-operative and the noble, the inventive and the dashing: it is a characteristic, a feature. It shows one moral estimate of the behaviour of something, or within its conceptual apparatus.

Is this creative ? Never has it been shown to be so genetically, for never has more information for genes been shown to arrive in offspring, than was the case for parents. In any case, what would you expect ? When you put all this into the 'clash of the genes', like the dance of the fairies - in their staggering rational symmetry and intimate correlation, you move from the irrelevant to its brother, the absurd.
 

Are we writing fairy tales, conducting research into mythology and its sources (such as a desire to do without a sufficient cause for the mind, body and spirit of man, and their collocation), or are we soberly seeking in the arena of relevant and discernible dynamics, what is happening ?

Is man allowing the unsatisfied disconsolation, or even inconsolability of cynics, hurt in their psyches, to obliterate the non-performance of 'Nature' in performing for the performing arts section of the society, so that mere subjectivity becomes the professor, and wry distaste the god! The facts remain unimpressed; God remains in His place as creator, man in his place as creation, often miscuing in mischief, and blaming it on his cue, while he queues for yet more of this intoxicating anti-tonic, blighting brotherhood and dismissing fatherhood, until the orphaned race becomes a centre for psychiatrists and an engine of its own reckless indisposition, to certain and amply deserved destruction.

Let us pursue this matter in some more detail.
 
 

METAPHORS DO NOT BUILD

Fairy tales, then, or soberly seeking in the arena of relevant and discernible dynamics for the sufficient cause ?

Let us suppose just for a moment that it  is the latter, that science is our concern. Good: then we are not going to use a metaphor instead of a creative power adequate to invent law, order, instinct, multiple coded systematics and the most brilliant design seen on earth, beyond the greatest by vast margins, that man with intelligence can made (cf. SMR pp. 211ff., 251ff.). No GENES are found to have moral attributes, no code with this instruction is found. We are thus talking either metaphor in a baseless intrusion into science, in the way that fits the laughing stock treatment, or else we are talking about what is NOT FOUND.

That is, we say: LOOK, see this great discovery of science. We have just found that no slightest evidence exists in the study of genes, to show that the term 'selfish' is in any viable conceptual sense coded into them; and because of this, we are going to posit that t his is a major ground of what could be called creation, that is, their arrival, when before some time, this arrival had not occurred!

If the thing did not concern God, who IS adequate, and who has gone to the trouble of explaining every aspect of the matter, in carefully coded instructions in the Bible (the reason for accepting which is shown e.g. in SMR 1, 3, 10, and confirmed in SMR 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9), then one would have to rub the forehead and wonder how on earth scientists are allowed to become philosophers of the most debased mode, in order to exercise their professions in such ways. Since however it DOES concern God, then all is explained in the Bible, as we have often seen (e.g. in Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Ch. 6, *7), for then the Bible gives a categorical answer to the question, How can people of brilliant mind make such errors ? (cf. Ephesians 4:17-19, I Corinthians 1:20-31). This in turn, since it happens almost routinely, is verification of the Bible, for its analysis of the situation in a way which meets the evidential fact!

If it be said, despite the different domain,  that it is simply posited, made a putation, an hypothesis, that the genes are selfish since so much on this earth acts for its own limited advantage, then this is like saying that you make an hypothesis that nuclei are small, because they are so in hydrogen, while carefully ignoring that of uranium. It is not science, but evidential squalor. Simply put, it is not so.

Nor is it true that all is selfish. Not only are there mother's love, parental sacrifice, group cohesion as in cranes, concern to mother even orphans at times, brotherly care, love and protection based on intimate sympathies, ideological terrains or both, but there are great amounts of complex co-operation of one kind and another, as of minor things as cleaning agents for major things and so on.

• The truth is more complex than the hypothesis. Failure to realise this in any case, that constitutes one of the highest towers of failure and lowest defilements of its method, known to science.
   

Now if the idea lurking beneath this simplistic exterior is simply this, that some creatures, and some humans, tend to work together for their common weal, but all the time their interest is selfish, so that the moment it did not have social advantage it would be dumped unceremoniously, this is certainly true of some things; but again, equally, it is certainly not so of others! Mothers are not noticeably like that, and protective instincts are not programmed to be sophisticated enough to work out such theorems. Many thousands of Christians have toiled and foiled evil for Christ to the point of being wholly amazing in their fidelity, endlessly self-sacrificial in the interests of a concept, the Christ, a power, the Lord's, a person, the King, who makes selfishness seem more than puerile: a toadstool among mushrooms. (On this region, see the next Chapter.)

In all these cases: You ARE this, then you DO that.

As to the selfishness, then with men, many examples could be cited which would support in human political and social arrangements, such an hypothesis; and many which would not do so. Thus a motherland feeling is only reductionistically made to amount to no more than the expectation of help: for many feel it, even when the mother is weak, because they sense the force of tradition, the background of culture, gratitude for actions of valour, having a sensitive  awareness of the principles on which the mother country based herself and so on^*3. Endeavours to make the fat woman fit into slender corsets are neither gratifying to her, nor good for her. There is a limit to what you can do with the fat, man or woman, or nowadays indeed, child, for recent studies show that a huge percentage of Australian children (less however than half) is too fat!

The too fat condition is bad physiologically as well as logically. If it does not fit, abandon it. If not, it is poor science and mathematics; and for that matter, bad philosophy.

The Bible explains this also. The whole CREATION has been SUBJECTED to vanity, worthless values being made  inherent in much, so that it becomes a parody of goodness and a swamp of evil, as ONE ASPECT. However, it was created good, so that in MANY OTHER ASPECTS it is ennobling to watch its tenderness, arousing to see its love and undying loyalty as in some mates and dogs toward man, and a matter beyond mere sentiment to watch the hopeless love which does not under any circumstances yield where the heart is placed, for so small a thing as survival!

BOTH aspects are present, and Paley is as apt as the students of vice.

When all this is however duly discussed, it is merely to show the irrelevance of the inaccurate. Imagery does not create actuality - let alone in a different realm -  though it could be USED to do so, in the hands of one with sufficient intelligence and wisdom, knowledge and power; but only as a stimulus! False and inaccurate imagery is only worse!

Since then a concept that genetic information is selfish and in some way advances its cause against other genes and so displaces then, is not only contrary to behavioural evidence as a generalisation, lacking evidential support at the specific level at which it is being asserted to be true, the genetic, but likewise lacks applicability at the higher level, and since it is without any operational observation to exhibit it, it is simply a case of

• literature without licence acting as creator.
   

Imagine if you ACTUALLY found a program which directed a gene to be selfishly vainglorious, seeking to have its own domain above all others! Imagine if it were found to be endemic! Imagine the trouble you would have, if you found what is relevant for a change, and then had to account for its being overturned so often, anyway, in its eventual result of another kind and in another domain!

The old idea that science has to explain what is FOUND would soon re-appear.

• Science ? It is not really to  show why what it is not there, is so!
   

It is not any exaggeration at all to deal with these things as myth, magic and the extraneous. It is like some red-faced husband trying to 'explain' to his wife where he was for the last three weeks, without notice. There is the same lack of verifiability, verisimilitude, actuality, force, explicative power. It is all talk, and imagination, and lacks what it takes to explain what is there! It is not in the least simply that
 

	erratic non-science = nonsense,
	but rather this, that
	non-science in the realm of science = science falsely so-called.

This, it is simple fact, and apostolically condemned fact as we have seen in many places, not least in Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Ch. 7.

Now this brings up at once the misuse of imagination. It is important in science, but to find what explains ALL the facts; not what is without any testable basis, any observational exhibit or any site-bound investigation whatever!

This said, the least is said. The worst is perhaps this. The concept is irrelevant as well as a misuse of imagery and inaccurate.

Being selfish, as some things undoubtedly are (part of the curse as specified in Biblical Blessings Ch. 7 cf. Romans 8), can act as a parable, a parody and a rebuke. One way however in which it is not specifiable as acting, in any scientific sense, is in CREATING STRUCTURE and INFORMATION which is not there! Lamarckianism could have tried to use it, in suggesting that if something selfish tried to do some selfish act, then some structural change might accommodate this, and that might be 'translated' (note the imagery again) into genetic change.

As to the view of Mr Lamarck,  he has not fared well at the hands of science, which in its philosophic irregularities (that is, those of some who bathe in the stuff) has neither found popularity for his cause (the social side of science), nor evidence for it (the scientific side of science, properly so-called).

As Dr Jerry Bergman points out in the Technical Journal (of Creation) 16 (1), p. 121, Lamarckianism REMOVED from Darwin's work, is what is now called neo-Darwinianism. Small wonder it was present, since the trend of Darwin's work is so simplistic that the magic has to come from somewhere! Science falsely so-called with its ally, romantic philosophy, is forever trying to invent, insert with or without notice, some wily stage-craft to cover the lack of actors adequate for the play, in its scenes and especially, its scenario^*4.

On this theory of Lamarck, then,  the reader may care to examine SMR pp. 222ff., 252C-E, 225-226. Magical means of making a need which the animal may or may not be aware of, for example, and which lower orders might not even be ABLE to be aware of, lacking the conceptual apparatus for even their own use, turn into the new equipment to meet that need is too just-so stories-ish for words! If you prefer it, one could say that it has a neo-pseudo-just-so-stories comic character to it ...

Yet it is precisely this illicit smuggling of the power of God into 'Nature', the capitalisation of which can help create the metaphorical illusion, which verifies yet further the Biblical analysis noted above (as in *4).

This is so profound a logical error, to use what your opponent HAS, without acknowledging it, in order to make your hypothesis SEEM to work, that it is quite spectacular. No 'Nature' does not exist as some thinker, striver and occupier of itself with concepts and the structural imaginative and engineering skill with which to meet them. If it were, it would be with a mind, with survey and observational capabilities, code-writing capacities, facility within the discipline of comparative anatomy and the like, with fascinating additional power to implement these things chemically and bio-chemically, as well as neurally, physiologically in all the facets of that discipline, with provisions of course for new generations, code-copying maintenance and all the rest of the exquisitely crafted and necessary criteria with which life from the simplest levels, tends to abound.

No neither metaphor nor personification will really go from the literature class to science and engineering construction with any real facility! No we must, if we are to have due discipline of thought, abandon moral issues and metaphorical ones, for the moment: it is not that they do not matter, but when dealing with the modes of matter, we need first to consider these, the proper area of study, themselves.

Morals are most important; but they do not per se create structures or acquire physiological brilliance. They rather - assuming that present - are directive for the person who has the basis for action in this present world provided. How ... the question remains, absolutely untouched from all these cases, really of ignoratio elenchi, of ignoring the issue:  how did this structure, this complex contrivance of subtle design, deft mathematics and remarkable coding conceptualisation, find a sufficient source ? Better: how did a sufficient source find it; and how do we find that source!
 
 

MORE RIDICULOUS REASONS REVIEWED
FOR WHAT IS NOT THE CASE

The next kind of reason is more relevant, but though less absent from the point. In this case, we have the Darwinian effort to have new information intruded, extruded, mobilised, sent, disseminated into the genes. This is never known to happen. It is just the same with my books. I NEVER find new information in what I have written. If a file is contaminated with something carried erroneously from something else, yet it is not new information. It was on my system anyway. It is found universally that code, invocative of concepts, explicative of aim, endorsed with contrivance for its execution (like actually building a factory as distinct from possessing a genuine copy of the plans - fairly important if you ever want to get the thing or its products!) is not to be found writing itself.

When you write you need a mind, power to manipulate, understand and control code, and if you want action, then power to link the code to a separately contrived implementation device, such as a robot, a maid, a manual labourer, a builder, electrician or whatever other being or body has power to implement. It doesn't matter who you are: you need the power to do it.

These things do not kick about. It is not their way. They have to be POSSESSED of the relevant powers and ORGANISED to recognise the code (such as a curt 'do this!' or a kindly, 'I wonder if you would good enough, Mr Smith, to do this for me' or other variants), or else multi-programmed to integrate with the directive program.

Whatever is, does according to what it is. Mind speaks to mind or to program, which - if the speech is apt and associated with appropriate power at the interface -  forces non-mind to do what it is told.

Now since these things are our universal discovery from infancy, and do not at all vary, and since what does vary is our growing awareness that in this world you need the MEANS if you are to get the GOODS, intelligence for contrivance, method for program, understanding for use of natural laws and so on; that specifications of data relating to different kinds of action sites (such as atoms, genes, minds) need to be as exact as the task is exacting, and sequentially adequately envisioned: then the Darwinian idea was just a fiasco. It is not worthy of serious thought at all; and that is possibly why it has taken hold so that it took nearly one and one half centuries before it became routinely debunked as simple folly, apart of course from the traditionalistic die-hard mentality for which fact is irrelevant.

As we have seen, it lacks exemplification, evidence, at the machinery level: it does not work that way when you are introduced to what controls this phase of things, genetically. In practice and in principle it is defunct. Then it lacks exhibitive evidence of having done in the past, what it lacks means to do in the present, as shown in detail in TMR 1 and 8, and SMR 2, along with other chapters^*5. It is contrary to everything from the Cambrian suddenness to the transitional evisceration which is so systematic, and so often acknowledged even by evolutionists.

It is not because they were stupid, but willing to think once more, that such as Stephen Jay Gould were willing to note the concept of gradualism did not exactly match the evidence, so they invented a phrase, yes another one, to do it.

Before we explore that a little, in our current context, let us note the latest admissions of Eldridge, which are far from novel, but interesting because of their source! In Technical Journal, his work, Re-inventing Darwin - The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory p. 96, he is cited as follows:

• "I simply thought that the time had come to take the fossil record - the patterns of stability and change - a bit more literally than had traditionally been the case. George Simpson had begun the process when he insisted that gaps do not explain away the abrupt appearance of large-scale taxa- meaning, large-scale events of evolutionary change. Simpson was perfectly content to blame the absence of examples of gradual change within and between species on gaps in the record, but found (to his everlasting  credit) that the argument could not be stretched to encompass large-scale evolutionary change, such as the derivation of whales or bats from terrestrial mammalian precursors" (from pp. 78-80).

Naturally Eldridge still uses the magic-word evolutionary, but the factual record and means alike, do not appear! It is rather like someone in the end of the Nazi era, from a Berlin bunker, declaiming that yes, there had been some unanswerable problems, but still, the general idea still stood. It is like saying that when Berlin has fallen. In fact, nothing of the concept to account for creation stands, outside itself and causation at its own level.

Eldridge's words about the 'selfish gene' concept include this (p. 169): It means that

" genetic information viewed as the instructions for constructing an organism is more important that the system it builds - the organism itself. Evolution is strictly competition among genes for representation in the next generation. This is the ultimate reductionist scenario yet concocted in evolutionary biology."

This is Eldridge's approach to Dawkins' concept at this point. It is certainly a good exposé in this, that it exposes something of  Dawkins'  use of reductionism, the agility and facility of its deployment,  and that it harries the metaphorical imagery misused,  in passing.

Mini-systems of information are deemed to compete with each other. Apart from all else said earlier, this competition is without known rules, known methods or known procedures. It is a thing of the mind. A magic competitiveness, from 19th century America it seems, more than this present world, is supposed to imbue, endue, stir, simulate, propel the gene-information zones, one by one, to grab more power. It really does remind one of the early days in dentistry, when children's books would show the naughty microbes trying to storm the select ivory castles of one's teeth, and indicate how to make it harder.

Alas, here, there is nothing objective to make harder, since what is not there cannot be made more difficult.

However the Eldridge-Gould type of punctuation procedure is no better, except for one point, it may well be noted, it does take account of some facts. Thus the sudden, elaborate, multiply equipped series of some creation that appear in the Gould investigated Canadian deposits noted earlier (SMR p. 234 at *36), are faced. They and not something else, are what current geology thinks it is seeing. The only trouble is this, that in acknowledging (to his credit, this time!) such a thing as a fact, and so being startling novel in approach at the logical level in this field, for many of its exponents, he also presents merely a phrase to deal with it.

What is the good of a phrase ? Will literature build buildings ? It is more to the point if it is coded programmatic material, which however is not normally viewed as exactly literature! In any case, the Gould presentation is not code, but phrase. Will a punctuation point or mark erect a citadel like man ? Will a cessation notation give ground scientifically for the activation of marvels which no mere man can compare to his own products, to this day ? Is to end to begin ?

Do we refer to stasis in an effort to ignore the directed dynamic that is the POINT! Is the reality to be scarfed up with the cloth of irrelevant variations within kind, while the issue is sent into the too hard
box ? Is ignoring inspiration ? Is omission of the beginning an avenue to the end ? Indeed, is to end what is the thing needed, any explanation of the thing needed ? When will facts begin to make adequate re-appearance, and theories to match them ? (Cf. SMR pp. 315Aff. at 17).

But we have not done yet. Let us imagine these selfish genes in their various levels, the principle of the thing. Thus a finger might be engaging in 19th century diplomatic deviousness in trying to undo the priority of another. After all, if it is, so to speak,  atom by atom, not molecular, and if more generically, it be partition not whole, then why not let us conceive of consequences of such a principle ? Let us make this selfishness endemic, and give it rein, if it be there. So the finger seeks to grab the priority. One has not heard of the imagined means, but perhaps it could deploy a bacterium or two to grab some gene information, transfer it to itself,  re-program itself to incorporate it, making all necessary highest level adjustments of the program, to enable the felicitous incorporation ... and then pounce!

How ? It does not spring. How does it ingeniously perform this intricate work of multiple accommodation with such flair!

As soon as you become practical, you are in fairy-land. Before you become practical with such concepts, you are in mythology and metaphor. It is a fascinating land, but nothing to do with biology.
 

• Ah but think again! Perhaps some sinew is wanting to do more, so it uses its mind (let us be frank and tell the means) and thinks about its desire, and then seeks, strives in some Darwinian illusory way, to get what it wants, devises, in conjunction with perhaps some devious pals in the cerebral region, not of course a mind for we are thinking giraffes, not space scientists, and finds the way to key-code in its wishes and get the results out, perhaps like wasps using aphids for milk, but rather more complicated.
  
  
• In due course, the cerebral researchers (the little men in its brain ? ) come up with a plan, involving new knee joints (to cover the need to straddle when the neck is so high, to eat low food), matching pairs of sinews on all sides, and of course, articulations of adjusted joints (it is VERY hard to concoct a new car from an old one when all sorts of correlated new requirements have to quantified, concretised, and integrated, and then the system needs of the underlying computing re-set), while the neck itself with the additional vertebrae comes spilling down from the somewhere or other where such things are made. The sentence is growing more than the giraffe, but let us persist in the next paragraph.

Now there has to be devised a new heart, for the blood pressure at great height is a tremendous technical challenge, and this must have walls of such a such a thickness (as is the case in the stout-hearted domain of the giraffe's cardiac equipment), while to cover the need to prevent strokes when it stands, various valves will need to be devised, and implemented, in the neck and head region. The nerves will of course have to carry revised messages and devised data to enable both organ renewal, in whatever stages are apt, allied to and aiding waste management and energy transmission in the new amounts, while the brain itself of course will need not only new programs but new material, fitting to the new tasks.

If you want genes just scale down in size to relevant directors' meetings, multiply inter-active, and proceed with whatever procedure you may wish to imagine. It is a novel, but not a very novel one.

This challenge, surpassing what man can now do with intelligence (do not talk of copying please, for this with which we are conceptually concerned, has to be made without material from which to copy at all, in order to get the first giraffe), is to occur by means which, though they may be metaphorically expressed, do not have the advantage of physiological representation. What we SEE is the program and the means to implement it. What we do not see is the program to make the new program and make the new equipment and provide the new executive abilities to make it run, and to do this on the basis of a system which RESISTS change vigorously, in its editing program.

We are asking for what is not seen, contrary to what is seen, and what requires more than we have in intelligence, from what is profoundly lacking in it.

It does not matter in what stages the thing is to occur, since
 

• 1) the whole point is the SUDDENNESS of the FACT concerning the basic types. They come in numbers very often, and with variabilities of type, just like a KIND! That of course is what God said in the Bible in the first place. Full marks to Him, infinity minus to the gradual alternative.
  
  
• 2) new information is not found to 'arise', at whatever ground level.
  
  
• 3) the means to make it to so do not appear, only the means to limit variation.
  
   

This sort of theory means simply that one is NOT, repeat not providing any reasons at all for organic evolution, since ALL science and ALL law actually found to be operative is against it. This is not a good beginning, and if God were not involved^*6 it would not rate a mention, except perhaps as the endeavour of some exotic 'teen-ager wanting to fight the system!

We are considering the ambit of the phrase-for-fact substitution^*7 which is going on. When one does so, the results are ridiculous, the reasons the same, and the attribution of such things to reality so misguided that it is not just a question of disabling it as anything to do with science, on the normal grounds as so often noted (e.g. pp. 140ff. SMR), but removing it from rational thought altogether.

It is magic strictly so defined: the attribution of qualities and powers to one realm, region or domain, which are those either of nothing at all, or of some other region, domain or realm, without making an interface.

There is of course an interface which needs to be invoked.
 
 

REASONABLE REASONS FOR ACTUAL EVENTS

That interface is what is naturally NOT  with our 'nature' which insists on being sudden, diversified in kinds and vast in design (as Gould attests of the Cambrian era, having far more active designs than is now the case). Our 'Nature' not merely contradicts the concept but laughs uproariously at it, presented the Cambrian and flood deposits (cf. News 1) with equal disdain, as if being sardonic as well.

No, the interface required, and what is beyond it, requires an adequate nature.

As this underlying one, visible on earth, is material, physical, limited and delimited and refuses to adapt, it is to the spiritual, immaterial, not so limited or delimited that we look. It is to the domain we use continually in our minds, when we argue, in our hearts when we love, in our thoughts when we decide: the invisible, where quantification is ludicrous, since quality is the consideration in view (cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 9).

The derivative must invoke the actualiser, the delimited the delimiting. It is not little men or little director's meetings, specially connected by electronic means, for consideration of inputs, outputs and the meeting of multitudes of revised specifications. It is simply the Creator who made it one and whole in the first place from His own will, mind, for His own purposes, and with His own methodologies, of which we find more and more, but always with this limit, that we see WHAT came to be, and some of the paraphernalia of brilliance, but do not see IT COMING. Even with genius, there is some wonder here, but with the Creator of genius, there is a delicious field for consideration and delight!
 
 

REPENTANCE IS BETTER THAN THE SPASM THIS WORLD FACES,
AND THE CHASM CONSCIENCE READILY INHABITS

We in our own thoughts can act in this way in measure and in degree, being original in literature, or mathematics, engineering or in idea. We however are transcended in this, the creation itself, not entirely as to type of procedure, for we ourselves as human beings deal extensively with the invisible and immeasurable continually (cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 9); but in power, productivity and perception, ultimacy and originality. MUCH of our work in science is copying,  finding what to copy, and having found it, finding how to deploy it best, given what it is.

OUR perception requires the perceptive capacity sufficient to create first of all, the concept of perception, let alone, some derivative exponent of it, so made that it can first perceive, then conceive, then co-ordinate, then logically review, then apply perception of whatever realm.

In ignoring the actual exponent of these things, and trying to invest the powers where they fit, not even  as well as a powerful farmer's hand into the intricacies of a fine lace mat, it is necessary for man to repent. It is not at this point a theological point, but logical.
 

• The effort of naturalism is wrong. It is wrong-headed, and headed to the wrong source. It is rejected in every field (cf. SMR pp. 316Dff.). It is a dead-end, and that is why its exponents are more and more at each other's ideational throats, as is Eldridge against the relevant ideas of Dawkins and co., for example. Both sides, and indeed all sides of the naturalistic hypothesis merely show their error the more thoroughly as the evidence mounts. Each thrust justly attacks the other: WHERE is your means for the SUDDENNESS ? says one to the other. Where is your MEANS for ANYTHING ? says the other. Where are ANY means in ALL that you say! replies the first.
  
  
• Certainly it is hilarious, one of history's most profound offerings in the disease of the will, that of obstructive obstinacy, which neither yields nor fields the questions with viable answers.
  
  
• Neither is the MEANS found in nature for the suddenness, nor is the FACT found for the lack of it! The only way stock could be gained by such means as these, herds or flocks, it is by the laughing stock: and that, it is for a mind, a fun, but for the cow-yard, it is zero! It does not make cows, any more than does poetry!
  
  
• What would you expect ? What is not there does not produce! Imagination in such a case may be comforting to the mind, but it does not produce the goods. Alone, it is like an ice-berg sailing happily (or even in grisly mode if you prefer a polar bear on it) from its source, separated and lost. It merely melts.

 

Imagine our famous 'chance'
having a conversation with the needs area.

Ah well, says need, you see don't you that if I do not extend the neck, there will be no new tips to reach ?

True, says chance, which of course has no mind, but for the purposes of the charade, it is given a virtual mind, since it is frequently spoken of as if the relationship between it and need had a vast mind watching ready to implement the need from the feed area, mindless though it be.

True, then says chance with virtual mind, but what can be done ?

You ought to know that, says need, for I just am here, while you are the great source. You can see that from endless text-books.

Can you now! says chance. Let me expostulate here. I am weary of being maligned. I am simply the roll of the dice, the happenings IN a system which is NOT programmed to perform like some performing seal. I merely am the word for the events which do not conspire with some particular purpose. There is nothing magical about me.

I don't care, says need, about the magic as you seem to want to call it. I just want action.
 

Well, where on earth do you get the sort of hi-tech design action which you want, from stuff flying around, says chance. Try it in any other field and take as many generation as you like!

Experimentally it is a no-no, not an as though ... (cf. TMR Ch. 1, End-note  2).

Listen! it pursued the point. When things duly built up in their day, then change by use and age, according to their laws, their inherent construction and design, in conjunction with the laws that relate and are discernible by their OPERATION (NOT by their contradiction in observable affairs!), it is rather like a former manufacturing site which was in its day, a wonder and a joy, because it was the result of intense, immense creative thought and constructive finesse. Now it is seen meandering alone, leaving its former glories to the various chemical and physical laws of degradation.

There is nothing hi-tech about the operation of disintegration, the variation which is undirected as to purpose, except that what is not being built, is being exposed to what is contrary to its perfect continuance. It decays. Its day passes, slowly or quickly, depending on the purpose and the power of its initial construction. Don't let us confuse creation with its opposite, the second law of thermodynamics.

Creation is creation, desecration is desecration and degeneration is degeneration. Mixing up the words will not change at all, the facts. Each thing has the power of its construction and maintenance, and attests itself by what it is found to be, and to do. That is all.

You must admit, continues chance, remembering for the nonce that although it is only virtual, it is mind of some kind or other that it for the moment using, for how otherwise could it register and respond with acuity and precision ? You must admit, it repeats, that it IS difficult to make decay create ... I mean, you might get nice little eddies in the water when it rains, as it works its way over the former gleaming machinery, but create!
 

Stop blithering so! expostulates need. You act like some of these evolutionary debaters, caught in the corner. If it is so difficult, what about the past ?

It is you who are caught, says chance, for your method is to use degradation for creation: not very bright if I might say so.

You may not! erupts need. And anyway, as I said, what about the past ?

The past! expostulates chance. That is another abomination of mine. Look, I go around being merely the name for the normal operation of some system or other (if there is no system at all, then there is no chance of naming any component at all! you've surely seen that in SMR Ch. 3 haven't you) -

Look! says need, now thoroughly roused. I do not read books.

No more do I, says chance, it is just a matter of my secret intelligence. It is all secret with me, for you see, I am only a name, and can be given ANYTHING!

You will get SOMETHING from me if this failure to be conformist continues much longer! says need, reminding one of those academic authorities who speak such sweet words to Staff who will not conform to the conceptual powers of magic, and who,  instead of dismissing such vain thoughts, dismiss their lecturers.

I am only exercising my virtual mind to help play this game, retorts chance witheringly. We both know that there is nothing corresponding to our talk, or mind, or conversation, in reality, in this world. It IS what it was made, and does not move from it for the very good reason that it does not have the power, the method, the generative equipment or the mind. That is why there is this continual, this constant, this impervious refusal from 'Nature' (which does not exist of course as a being)  to be co-operative with intelligence cum imagination driven philosophy in having extra-terrestrial intelligence, life on Mars, missing links between genera found, gene generators which make them thoroughly different de novo,  the necessary equipment, and so forth.

You seem sad ... muses need for once taking its mind off its imperious desires.

Sad! says chance. NOTHING EVER WORKS in this domain. The only thing in the field that works is the tongue of the propounders which, with never a blush it seems, continue to wag as if being a wag were their profession.

A blushing tongue! shrieks need, for it remembers it 'plight'.

Mixed metaphors mix well with mixed literature posing as answer to the ruthless removal of God from the minds which He made! declares chance^*8, sick of the imposture, the endless seeming and equally ludicrous imaginings which embellish or pervert its position, weary of it all, once and for all.

Look here, says need, becoming practical, how on earth can I find the requirement of my
need ?
 

WHAT need ? replies chance.

The need to advance ?

Oh dummy, says chance, now thoroughly roused in the light of the plight of need, don't you know, haven't you heard, lift up your eyes to the summit of reality, and you will find the need from the first. (Cf. Isaiah 40:26ff..)

What! exclaims need, humiliated.

YOU, says chance, do not even EXIST. You are a fairy story in reverse. The fact comes and now you want to exist in order to induce it to come, which is here from the first. By no chance does chance create design. It is merely the operation of design without reference to ulterior purpose.

Couldn't I exist then in man, concerning HIS NEED OF GOD ? asks need, touched a little.

It would be a good idea, says chance, and then you could stop abusing my name.
 

We leave them to their various devices (cf. Ancient Words, Modern Deeds Chs. 9  and 13, Spiritual Refreshings...  13, Beauty of Holiness  Ch. 7, Divine Deliverance Chs.  7 and  8, News 132 ).

What then would you expect ? Things on such a basis do not work in principle^*9, in precept or in practice.

When you are wrong, things, after time is given for due discovery, simply do not work. The more you do, the less they do. This is the current situation in the devastated discipline of biological thought concerning organic evolution.

There is indeed NEED, that of repentance!

Such repentance then is better than the earth chasm which the moral evacuation resulting from naturalism is digging, and that with more and more powerful weapons, so that the world is already shuddering with fear for the things evidently to come, as worse and worse madmen, satiated with strife as if gods, work more and more follies with more and more acrid weapons against many. It is as if grave-digging were the only worth-while pursuit in this world. This type of pathology, often religious as in the religions of force in the domain of faith, it follows: it is strife, trying to be selfish, successful in overthrowing whatever, at whatever cost, is in your way. It does actually follow from such bases as those! and it is doing so like some lion on a leash, put there by mistake.

Repentance is the code word needed, not selfishness or punctuation. What needs punctuation is the soul of man, which needs a full  stop put not at non-existent development of super-men, but at the very much existing presence of sin, snide remarks enabled by means of God's creative brilliance, and used against it with now blithe, now debonair, now murky flesh in its luxuriant self-indulgence, now by false masters, conceived in the mind, given voluntary obedience. It is repentance which is needed for the ignoring of His own moral code for persons, and of His spiritual destiny for His children, as if being a spiritual vagrant were the only thing anyone enlightened soul should seek.

Repentance ? It is far better than earth spasm, which is coming of course, but such spasm need not be hastened, or used as an ally!

It is better also than a conscience chasm, which exists where hardy souls make themselves into their own gods, or invent ones to do it for them vicariously, gods without power or glory, gods which have not created the heavens and the earth (cf. Jeremiah 10:11, 16:19), thought-up gods, with false prophets who do not have the presence of the testimony of 3 and one half millenia of their words and deeds, in perfect harmony.

Indeed, it is necessary to repent of this conscience chasm, that man in millions is ignoring all of this, like some foul young person, insane with paranoia, intoxicated with guilt, hollow within, denying anything and everything rather than face the internal spiritual need, filled with reductionist ignorings of whole realms of things, such as he habitually uses anyway, and hiding in the darkness below.
 
 

RENEWAL OF LIFE IS BETTER
THAN ITS BEING IN THE
STOCKS OF SHAME

The alternative is renewal of life. This is not a new KIND, since the old kind was fine, but needs renewing (Ephesians 3:10, TItus 3:5-7). It means removal of the traffic jam of sin from the communications arena, acceptance of the offer of free pardon by the efficacy of the stupendous cost which Christ provided in dying, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. It means opening of the line of communication with Christ, so that His peace and presence being transmitted, His word heeded - instead of extra-terrestrial intelligence, another vain effort of naturalism for which new steel ears are being prepared - accordingly, celestial understanding is provided, and man can function for what he was made.

It is precisely because he does NOT do these things, that he dies in myriads, confused and confounded, NOT understanding, devoid of what ultimately is his specific: heart's ease, wisdom and understanding from God.  His need, it is for the Lord to be operative in his system, enlightening his life. It is not for fighting and vying, trying and frying in his own filth, appetising to none, delivering nothing but his own life, and that  - to 'fate' ? No, rather it is to deserved judgment. God neither mocks ignorance nor pardons informed obeisance to naturalistic or other folly, in His place, or murking it (John 15:21-23, 3:19, 36). He is just, merciful and impossible to deceive. His is light, and from Him, it comes.

Naturally.

It is supernaturally wrought that man is; who is supernaturally fraught with his follies, since it is the traducing and spoliation of the divine provision for him, that is his stained toil. He needs to be supernaturally taught what his intelligence fits him to know (cf. Matthew 28:19-20). Naturally, without the supernatural, man is naked. The wind is keen. The chasm is deep. It is time to quit these substitutes for life and go where the evidence is, has always been, and where it mounts to the very heavens, from which it came.
 
 

END- NOTES
including EXCURSION

*1
See SMR pp. 200, and 199ff..
 
 

*2 See SMR pp. 106ff..

*3
One of the reasons for the confusion on such topics as 'selfishness' is the materialistic premises which many fallaciously hold. On their refutation see Repent or Perish Ch. 7. Thus they do not even conceive the force of ideology, transformative affection, spiritual vision, but move like bats in the dark, without the benefit of their directional equipment (which incidentally, like so many of these things, is found never except COMPLETE in the fossil record, one learns!).

Thus a systematic error leads to a qualitative reductionism which is burst in its confining zeal, by the sheer amplitude and diversity of the facts.

*4
See SMR Ch. 2 Supplement, and 422Eff., for illustrations and historical reference.

*5 Various aspects of these errors are treated in different areas. For example, the following provide some scope...
 

See SMR  'Nature Myth' and its servitors: pp. 115, 171-2, 315Aff., 378ff., 419ff., 422E-T, 1203 (under Monism), 140ff., and Chs. 2-3, with Index, Evolution;
Wake Up World! ... Chs.  2, 4, 5, including End-notes 1, and 2, 6;
Divine Agenda Ch.   1; TMR 8, passim,1esp. pp. 17 and 7 passim, esp. Section E, *2;
Joyful Jottings1, 2, 3, 5 ;
A Spiritual Potpourri  Chs. 1-9;

News 68, 74,80, 81 , 82,
Barbs, Arrows and Balms Appendix 1, pp. 274ff., IV  (aviary of idolatry),
Beauty of Holiness Ch.   8;
Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 8, esp. pp. 145ff.(the wisdom of the children);
Answers to Questions   9 ,
Repent or Perish Ch.   7 (the nature of 'Nature');
Ancient Words, Modern Deeds Ch.   9 (broad scope),
Cascade .. Ch. 6 (generics),
Joyful Jottings  3 (the thumb...);

Stepping out for Christ Chs. 2, 7-10;
Secular Myth or Sacred Truth Chs.   6, 7   and  8, with the Epilogue;
Beauty for Ashes Ch.   3,
Wake Up World pp. 164ff.;
News 110, End-note 1
 

*6
One is most forcibly reminded of the predictions in Psalm 2 at this point. It is necessary to realise (cf. Joyful Jottings  21) that Psalm 2 is dealing with the association of kings, of judges, of ruling bodies and flavours in the earth, who are determined to dissociate themselves most vigorously from the actual power, presence and rule of God, so that His morality and Messiah indeed, are seen as bonds on their liberty, cords controlling their quests. These, they wish to throw them away, indeed cast them from them

That is cited by Peter (Acts 4:25) in his declarative frankness when confronted by the hostile priesthood, many of whom were doubtless either directly or by consent or consensus, murderers. It is soon followed in this Psalm by reference to the establishment of the Messiah despite these labours of hatred (as in Psalm 22 cf. Joyful Jottings 25), indeed His death as there depicted, and this is His resurrection as in Psalm 16 (loc.cit.). It moves on swiftly to warnings to the judges, the potentates, the powers, the self-deeming determinants on this earth, whose time is to be abruptly intruded upon, whose power is to vanish and whose domain is to be surrendered.

This is coming to its climax as in Revelation 19, of course (cf. the trend as in Galloping Events Ch. 7, News 121, and Regal Rays ... Chs. 6, 12, 13 with SMR pp. 743, 750Bff.), and as the day approaches, so does the venom and vigour of those who would "cast His cords asunder". One of their most major difficulties is this, that ONE, just one of the cords is their own creation status, as derivative from God, dependent (even for the breathing apparatus and something to breathe, almost momentarily! cf. Isaiah 2:22) on Him, and answerable.

His advice, which needs to be taken, is this: BELIEVE or TRUST in the Messiah (who came precisely on time some two millenia ago - Highway of Holiness Ch. 4 ), and KISS Him, that is, in terms of the cultural meaning, show allegiance, devotion, realise that where love is, should you be absent, merely implies your own hostility to it, in all of its purity. It was in love that He not only 'solved' the non-existence problem for us, by CREATING us, but solved the sin problem by REDEEMING on a selective basis. If you want auto-non-selection, it is your privilege (John 3:19). Love is like that.

*7
Actually, moving from poetry, imagery and verbal substitutes for reality, to the facts, there is an important distinction here.

There is the matter of individualisation, of the ectype (cf. Little Things Chs.   5,  6, End-note 1, A Spiritual Potpourri Ch.  6, End-note 3) and the endurance. The individual expresses not merely what SORT of equipment it has, as you move up towards man, say through some birds (such as magpies), cats, horses and dogs, in terms of modes of intelligence, imagination and voluntary relationship, but the actuality which this particular one IS. In man, the distinction between the equipment you have and what you are is profound as shown in the evil genius of devastating direction and the godly saint of glorious retinue of deeds, words and contribution to many.

The concept of selfishness, for example, or any other moral one, when applied to man is clear. Some men consider that their selves are most important, that there is nothing so much to the point of their living as having as much money, or as many friends, as much power, or influence, or position or security or whatever else or whatever combination or synthesis of things may take their fancy, whatever museum for their glory after death, whatever praise of men should ring felicitously in their ears, as well may be. For this, they may lie, cheat, sacrifice, as to a god.

Selfishness has bloomed and exhibited its irrational loves, and butterflies beat their wings about it, finding the fragrance a stench, insufferable.

They are not important in terms of these things, for often as with Hitler, for a time the most evil becomes, as with Mao also, an obsession, and its later tyranny did not start without initial adulation.

Now these things are eminently distinguishable from ENDURANCE, that is, provision for the continuance of some good thing. Thus there are multiplied programmatic or semi-programmatic (that marvel where one may interfere with the automatic if one wants to, up to a point: brilliant devising in the created model and mode) means to help life in an individual, as in all forms of the ectype or image, to continue. These, like insurance policies against professional indemnity and the like, are designed to prevent certain not so very helpful devices or actions occurring which could wipe out the life concerned. It has nothing to do with selfishness per se. Its object is simple continuance.

WHY is that its object ? This in fact will vary greatly from case to case. Some might want their design to continue untrammelled by accidents, when unnecessary advents of circumstances, that is, ones not systematically related to the action of the individual or work or business or man or ectype, concerned. Hence they make in mechanical things, in computing operations or in whatever may be their  interest to CREATE, provision to prevent destruction ora compromise or cessation of function. Some will do it, to come to the case of man who has that combination of rationality and purposiveness which exhibits our point, for glory. They want people to admire their cleverness. They may want this for itself, or for the monetary result, the social impact, the academic éclat or some other reason. Like legion, such reasons may be many, varied and synthesised together.

Thus, it follows from these perceptible human data, some may do such ENDURANCE related things for selfish reasons, some for unselfish, some for social ones, to benefit their town, city, country, club, profession, some for religious reasons, to glorify God and so on. Provision for endurance is not the same as selfishness, and it is only a gross confusion which fails to analyse the issue, which would consider that it was. The data are of another kind.

Thus when the Creator made things with various provisions for their continuance, and thus for the continuance of their INTEGRITY, the actuality which they enshrine, the ectype, the image, so that it was not merged with something else, or subordinated to some other drive or purpose or program or feature, it has exactly nothing to do with the concept of selfishness, any more than does the action per se, of an engineer in placing certain features in his engine, to prevent it overheating or becoming a mass of semi-melted metal, which of course does not function in the desired fashion!

 

*8                                    EXCURSION

See SMR pp. 422Eff..

The Blind Watchmaker Ex-Parts, Ex-Order, Ex-Mind, Ex-Aim, alas, not Excelsior!

Actually, the 'blind watchmaker' sort of derisory irrelevance for the construction of this world's most sophisticated visible equipment, involves a few oddities. First of all, it is nicely contrasted with Sir Fred Hoyle's contribution, which knew fewer imposed, illusory parameters.
 

 From SMR p. 224, we have this:

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

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

He is cited as comparing the result to having a Boeing aircraft arise from an explosion.

However, Hoyle for all his ridicule of the ludicrous concept of law from chance, principle from disorder, schema from nothing, victory from void and so forth, has in his analogy, greatly diminished the ludicrous ineptiude of such concepts. Let us be clear: he dismissed them as nonsense, but they are far greater nonsense EVEN THAN THAT.