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

Normal Updating: See SMR Ch. 2A, headings.

SECTION 3: Design and Language

See also Bulletin 155


Language: this is a way, not only to enclose thought and express it, but to secure action, in particular, with the operation of codes. It is now to our purpose to construe the place of language in the physical sub-structure of man. Man uses it mentally, but is programmed with it a myriad ways, physically. What is its place and what does it imply, and in what way does this achieve any verification of the power, presence and operation of the Almighty God, the Creator ? Let us then examine the matter.

Denton (p. 330) notes that the total number of connections in the human brain is near to 10 to the power 15, or a thousand million million. Imagining an area of the U.S. half the total, he conceives a forest at ten thousand trees to the square mile, each tree with 100, 000 leaves- and indicates the leaves in that forest equal the number of connections in one human brain. They are however co-ordinated as one whole. Thus:

Despite the enormity of the number of connections, the ramifying forest of fibres is not a chaotic random tangle but a highly organised network in which a high proportion of the fibres are unique adaptive communication channels following their own specially ordained pathway through the brain.
Using language such as this (p. 334) - "the perfection of the goals achieved" and "the genius of biological design" (cf. *31), in referring to the way the cells work, Dr Denton ponders the development recently of information technology by human intelligence, but then notes:
A chemical solution to the problem information storage has, of course, been solved in living things by exploiting the properties of the long chain-like DNA polymers in which cells store their hereditary information. It is a superbly economical solution. The capacity of DNA to store the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram. The information necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet ... approximately one thousand million, could be held in a teaspoon and there would still would be room left for all the information in every book ever written.
Not satisfied with noting this micro-assemblage of maxi- information, he refers also to the "genius of biological design" in the cell's capacity to synthesise organic compounds. His descriptions in minute detail bring realisation of the exquisite care and intelligence used in such intricate models of design efficiency, solutions to delight the pure mathematician and astonish the engineer. His comparison of a cell with a city is an enthralling exposure of the detailed, intensive and extensive use of intelligent coded language to secure a vast collation of vertically integrated industries .

Part of the marvel aspect is this. "The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design... no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth." (*22).

Indeed, comparing this with the "great morphological divisions, where empirical evidence of intermediates is lacking", he notes even a conceptual problem for any idea of evolutionary development. (Op.cit. p. 250.) (All emphasis added.)

The unique yet identical language used in all living things, in the code format, together with the above noted design paradigm, is of course precisely what a mind in charge would be expected to show; or at the least, it comports to perfection with such an activity. Strivings for effect - as in a poet's forsaken first drafts, are not necessary when dealing with the Almighty. Behold, the linguistically codified cell!

Darwin's frankly admitted problem with the eye is of course not only multiplied in degree, vastly, by all this wonder of mathematical complexity; but the whole exposure to intellect is so total and precise, the whole structure and function so overwhelmingly more than human in the intelligence of its scope and format, that the idea of postulating that intelligence was not operative in producing the highest known exhibits of intelligent design is perversity in process! It would require a re- definition of terms.

Denton, as we earlier noted, considered the number of connections between cells in the brain. However, beyond this, there is the multitudinous variety of the assemblage provision within each one of the cells, including those for its own reproduction. An intensively coherent, pragmatically proportioned, technical brilliance of a virtuoso, minus... the essential virtuoso, is the problem... of the evolutionist.

No hypothesis could be more total in disregard of the facts than this. Seeing baby watches operating on a beach, each timepiece spawned from older ones by invisible processes: this would be nothing compared with what every one of us has in the body. To specify chance as the cause not only of law, but of logic, language, brilliance of concept, efficiency of architecture, subduing of materials to specifications not only statable but stated: this is merely to 'take' from definable disordered disorganisation the height of law and logic, to invest them with design and reduce it all to language. That, in turn is a contradiction in terms. Neither language nor matter is so mastered. The only way such things happen in this universe, is by having them pre-slotted, so that things fall into place simply because there is somewhere to fall. Things falling upward... this is self-contradiction. But what of a pre-programmed universe so slotted?

Such a programmed universe required to subdue chance to its order would need a programmer. However no evidence of such processive, progressive programs for leaping the 'gaps' or, indeed, making the declivities, is at hand. Evolution stoops to the ground and is confronted only with more microscopic evidence that creation not only occurred but is not occurring; that there is not even any discernible method for it to occur in the arrival of the prodigies, so desperately assigned to its ... hand ? but then, it has no hands, nor anything to help, being merely a conceptually self-contradictory mirage in the machinating mind of man.

Denton on pp. 32 ff. gives more data on the 'marvel' which is the cell. It is fascinating that the technology is far in advance of at of our own civilisation with its hundreds of years of applied intelligence (*23); and that this technology is basic to the most elementary known life (*24).

As with instincts, so with cells, the level of thought and language control implicit, is intense. If instincts are frozen thought, programs if you will, then cells are 'frozen language and engineering': the 'freezing' taking the form of an institutionalising of thought into form.

Reverting to the expertise shown, we note Denton's statement (p. 329):

We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction... much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.
Here the interesting feature is that our created minds are, after thousands of years of effort, often with the complacent assumption of breaking into hitherto unknown areas of conceptual brilliance in a dead universe, moving nearer the work of what preceded them! Our minds can follow that mind which made our minds. There is a cognate quality in our minds' operation, and the operation of the biological engineering we employ. Our 'language of thought' is correlative to the thought in the language of our cells. One mind has its thoughts in our type of thought and the type of thought background to our cells.

That of course is what creation implies. This cohesive correlation and constant inter-relation of language and system in ever-expanding circles of interaction: this is what a mind so readily and characteristically does, when it is effective. We are observing the operation of God's mind in the work of ours: His work on our sub-structures, and our work on understanding the same. To 'explain' the unique criteria of mind, by its absence... that is a work of rebellion, not reason. The fact that a theorising does not work, is not seen to work, and has no 'theoretical basis' is merely another way of saying that it is obstructionist fantasising. (Cf. pp. 13 supra, 135, 213, 263-268, 291, 307 infra.)

Denton's description (pp. 328-330) of a cell in terms of a city is a modern engineering allegory: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York... an object of unparalleled complexity... If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction..." The account deserves full reading and study.

In terms of circuitry rather than the organic chemistry of code - of the 'wiring' rather than the composition of the matrix of the cell, and its cytological reproduction, an article appearing in the Student paper, On Dit, 1988 is of interest. Advanced analysts are taking thought to make cerebral study somewhat simpler by studying 'easy models' such as that of the fly. There are the 'wires' themselves, their connections and then the 'master genes' to which are given the power to provide 'instructions on how the wires were connected' - so that slave chemical systems could perform this. Beyond that again, there is the correlation of the wiring and material manufactured for wiring- one is tempted to say 'hardware', during the brilliant arousal of advanced technology in embryogenesis.

Featuring the work of Dr George Miklos at the Australian National University, the article is provided below. It is entitled: The Brain Behind The Brain, and written for the Science section of the paper. It proceeds ... "Keep it simple, stupid".

This may be the best piece of advice that can be offered to a scientist when progress is slow. As field of research develops, the degree of complexity often increases to such a level that it is almost impossible to develop a better understanding of the area under scrutiny. This has been a problem for neurobiologists, according to Dr George Miklos, from the Research School of Biological Sciences at the Australian National University. He said that the main reason that so little was known about the brain was that, until five years ago, scientists had concentrated almost exclusively on the mammalian brain, which is so complicated that it hindered researchers rather than providing insights.
The sheer number of connections between the neurons in the human brain (more than 100 billion) has prevented scientists from gaining a good understanding of its working. Dr Miklos is part of an international network of scientists working on a simpler system, the brain of a fruit which has a paltry (by comparison) 100 thousand connections.
The brain of a fruit fly may not at first seem to be a powerful system, but Dr Miklos describes it as "an immensely powerful electro-chemical computer". "Consider the wiring and computer technology necessary to fly a 747 - it is primitive compared to the 100,000 brain of a fruit fly" said Dr Miklos when talking to the Australian. 
"When a fly is in flight, its brain is simultaneously computing altitude, air speed, yaw angles, pitch and roll co-efficients, muscle tensions, wing beats, directions of flight, incoming odours and objects in its visual field."
"All these parameters are simultaneously recorded, and the appropriate stimuli fed back to the muscle systems. By contrast, without the brain at the controls, a 747 is effectively grounded."
The German part of the networks experiments involve putting flies into wind tunnels, giving them a landscape, and comparing the night capabilities of normal flies with those of mutants.
Dr Miklos said a mutant with a specific portion of its brain missing might be able to perform all aspects of flying perfectly, but be unable to land.
Once the part of the brain responsible for not being able to land has been located, the Australian team works on isolating the gene. It then takes the gene apart and finds out what the protein does and how it works (the gene contains the code that describes how the protein that constitutes the "wire" in the brain is to be formed).
Dr Miklos said that most of the genes isolated and analyzed so far were to do with the components of the "wires" and not the master genes which gave instructions on how the brain wires were connected. When scientists tackle these master genes their knowledge of how the brain works will increase dramatically. Finding out how each circuit in the brain is wired up during embryogenesis is the key to understanding how the final product works, he added. Dr Miklos' laboratory in Canberra employs only a small team of two scientists, two technicians and a postgraduate student, but by being a member of an international network has made a significant contribution to a demanding and complex area of research.

Growth and healing

Nor, in this context, should we fail to combine with the concept of creation and the institution of this language-real- world correlation, the body of man: the concepts of normal growth and healing.

The maintenance and the growth from infancy to manhood alike, require a whole new series of language, execution correlations. The genes with all the rest, must have this power to order, organise and disseminate chemical code directions, with executive force, such that the workings of all but incredible complexity, actually occur.

The symmetry of the baby's arm must be maintained; the elongation of the bone structure must continue, the co-ordination of muscle fibre change, sinew change, skin change must continue minutely along with the exterior curvation to keep the essential form of the type of thing, be it arm, leg or finger. And each of these members, and each part of each one (this square millimeter of arm surface and that) must be not merely continued in orderly growth, but co-ordinated in the degree of growth (however perfect for one part as such), the one with the other.

Organs, like tonsils, may be turned on or off for the phase or stage of growth in view; and male and female growth elements of strength and delicacy continue also in their time to appear and develop. That is, not all elements of the design are always functioning, though some may be periodic, or episodic or developmental in their assigned tasks.

Mental capacity must also grow, in operational prowess, along with bodily demands. The whole needs oversight and co- ordination. Then of course the unprogrammed or unordered elements, which by nature must have a degree of freedom for the whole to fulfil its design (our unexampled constructions in our own creative productions - see 'freedom' passim in this work), have scope within all this as their laboratory, to perform what they may or will ... attempted suicide or massive musical masterpieces, and this brings us - to healing.

Healing... that masterpiece of re-recreative, partly programmed creativity! Apart from the explicitly miraculous, just to see or discern the diverse and specific cells, configuration upon configuration, all developing over into highly specialised contrivances, whether sinew formation, nail or skin, all with due allowance for interactive surfaces, joints, slopes and connections: I say, one is reminded of the poet who in a simple work of Nature, could see thoughts too deep for tears.

With myself, however, it is cause the rather of a deep rejoicing at such brilliantly executed artistic contrivance, congealed into program, while allowing for still further interaction with the spirit of man, for depression of the healing in some cases, or for its acceleration... Fire, program and freedom: what a sheer exuberance of magnificence, beautifully controlled, quietly, without show or demonstration, simply... appearing! The spirit, the thought, the programmed thought and the language that works within the speaking being, outside the comprehension of the active mind, while it thinks its own thoughts: what a creation is this: man!

Healing, then, this too must be provided so that the maintenance (as many doctors note, they help 'nature' and by no means replace it!) of the structure can be continued by internalised and programmed means. Here then there is in addition that fascinating interface between the voluntary and the involuntary, the will and the orderly work of the body. We are so made that we can even interfere in certain ways with the immune system, it appears from recent research, and it seems we also can psychosomatically induce illness, to some extent, by the wrong and contrary-to-design emotional extravanganzas in which we may elect to indulge. Depth upon depth exists, and then, with this, there is the starkly amazing power of the body to proceed with the healing of positively diseased tissue... that ulcer, or the removal of that disorder after the indulgence of some evil, or the infliction of it, is past.

The healing ? layer upon layer of this tissue and that (take the skin, epidermis, dermis, various layers, on fingers, finger grooves which show as finger prints, all in its minuteness), layer of tissue in one functional area of an organ, and this co-ordinated with layer upon layer of some other type of tissue adjacent, and these with still more, as the various components of highly specialised and complex organs rebuild themselves (if it were possible at times to see...) before our very eyes. The apparent gradualness should not blind us to the continual action, architecturally supervised, of what had been spoiled, in its proper forms, complexions and inter- related functions; and all the while, the damaged or sick member, perhaps, continues in some degree to work!

Imagine a pump healing itself without ceasing to pump; and imagine the design ingredients, and the language ingredients in a self-devising self-healing pump. Faced with language and design beyond his own, man has an option. He can acknowledge its source and origin in his superior - or go to hell in a most fitting direction of his voluntary capacities ... into a fate from which no healing is possible.

After all what flatly and blindly refuses to acknowledge the creative truth is fittingly denied it.

Creative ? We spoke of healing of the body; and when you consider also, beyond all this, the healing of the mind, itself a centre of creativity; the healing not only of the physical format of man, but of the mind of man the analyst, indeed of the spirit of man with its imaginative thrust: what a surge of creativity is there, in making, in healing, in operating. It is a creativity which works on the format given, and in the functions that are created already. Once created, man with his abilities may now be reproduced, restored, healed, energised, remedied and reinforced, sometimes with his own involvement, sometimes through the provisions of his design, automatically.

What an operation is this! that provides not merely form and function, program and creativity, but a settled format with vast bounds of creativity inherent in the established structure. That, with man, provides a very picture of creation, with its finished character and its provision for an orchestration of its many settled attributes. This is what is found; and despite the creative imagination of man, we do not find reality which accords with the creative fantasy of 'creation' of matter by nothing; of mind by matter; of spirit by mind: such a theory, divorced from logic and observation, wallows in death, obstructs thought and misdirects the energies of man.

In terms of verification, the sheer versatility and vigour of the whole scope of the evidence merely amplifies the rugged security of the logical and evidential base of creation, with its total accord with the rigours of scientific method, and its full conformity to the basic laws of science. 'Science', after all, is covering the action of what is in place, not its placement. Of that, it has no data base, at its own level: only the silence of the tomb, where it looks for life from nowhere. With dubious excitement, now scientism (the philosophically controlled, non-scientific method pseudo-science which touts organic evolution) fibrillates into solemn fiasco.

Death is the fitting end of its death-dealing career: born of pride, at war with law, it has stirred the passions of men, enhancing the vain contests for supremacy of race, nation and philosophies: supreme idol of the dead.

SECTION 4: The Passing of a Theory for which
The Bugles did not Sound

A theory has passed: if not from hearts, then at least already from rational thought. Caesar is dead. Who will mourn for him... ? Alas, almost like a prince, this ambitious theory has carried, as its own by no means small contribution, many to death with it - in the company of its philosophic peers and friends of course.

The 'imperial' theory lies with the fallen: not alone! No bugles for him...

As Dr Henry Morris demonstrates in detail in his works, evolution has indeed been a motif of Nazism, a Fascist impetus and stimulus. (See NOTE, pp. 127-128, preceding Echo of the Lament, infra.) Nietzsche too in his superman concepts and his desire to remove the 'silly' social therapy of mercy, as he seemed to conceive it, made his obeisance to the essence of Darwinism. He spoke influentially to a public soon to become all too ready to listen, in the interests of frank strife for supremacy, and the superiority of strength, so that the very best and 'finest' might somehow (?) be... blasting. This he did through his virulent work, Thus Spake Zarathustra. Passions multiplied. Again and again a misdirected humanity demonstrates that it must suffer before it will learn; and very often, not even then!

It matters little what Darwin may here have thought. The theory implies that such upward movements have come by such means. If it were true, might not some astonished by the apparent power of such forces, seek to... co-operate with them ? As Morris and Tinkle evidence, they not only could: they did. (See note.)

Logically plausible from such a base, if unethical, it is a natural - in every sense natural - corollary for those whose morals are founded in Darwinesque notions, founded in turn on nothing. Obviously, what is, could not in any case determine what ought to be. Description (even if true) cannot make prescription. Yet the very savour of power, development, 'progress', seemed to some to provide a concept for devotion, one grievously able to transform the century of progress into an era of very different terms: those of critical and chaotic regress.

The place of biological power, as pressed so hard by so many exponents, became the nurse of values. It nurtured values such as these: Sacrifice for 'success' for the race, for a nation, for what you will, at the altar of evolution, or the niche of Darwin! There was room for the blood. The earth is kindly as a receptacle, and experienced.

With Nietzsche's blessing and socially directed eugenics as a technique, Hitler - but he did not labour alone - wrought unrighteousness in the shadow of Darwin.

Just as the foundation - as a basis for the 'effect' of creation - from Darwin has nil evidence dynamically, and is not verified, so the use of such a notion in its applications has been as destructive as one might well imagine, in the world wars of a century almost made mad with the thought and threat of force and drive and merciless killing, to accomplish 'superior' results. One was Himmler, with his 'beautiful dream' (interestingly a poultry farmer before his new vocation...) of man-made superior beings of a superior race, in superior circumstances.

It is interesting to note the tracing of the development of the Nazi attitude to survival, fitness and extermination in the interests of forwarding the 'progress' in the desirable direction which had landed the Nazis in the saddle of evolution, galloping towards superman status. Such a survey is given in Dr Leo Alexander's article in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 14, 1949, entitled: Medical Science under the Dictatorship.

First, he said, there was "merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the principle, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude, in its early stages, concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted..."

As we shall see, it is not only the 'right' in Nazism, but the 'left' in Communism who have adorned the history of brutality with the vigour and venom of their address.

It is not merely the old, unleashed passion for power. Rather it is a teaching which is not lost on the young. We cannot congratulate the Education Department of South Australia... for the rigour of its indoctrination... Just as the theory is a failure intellectually, so it is a menace morally. If a 'new' generation is wanted, this should certainly accelerate the novelty!

While the methods of deploying force, seeking survival and securing this 'blessed' end may change; and explicit violence may become less desired in sight of unhallowed holocausts, which still continue in this world, shrieking with the insanity of self-assertion, national assertion, racial assertion, trade union assertion, employer assertion, teacher assertion, student assertion and all the other contending consequences of self-creation in its cultural, moral and biological reaches... while these may change: the essence is the same. Putting man in the place of God, it creates not life but destruction,1 finds not peace but oppression, free of design: little noses high before the deity, either ignoring or debasing their creation, and woefully disabled for their end. Freed from purpose, declining to find or acknowledge it, they find an end that ends without end, a 'purpose' ultimately purposeless, which comes to judgment through sheer assertion, ignoring the divine objectives with an arrant bewilderment, based on nothing, an assurance without reality.

Let us now look further. Hegel's basic evolutionary postulate, seen in such works as the Phenomenology of the Spirit and 'flowering' in his Philosophy of Right, has the same magnificent, metaphysical folly of gaining from what is not there, all the powers of what is to come: something, if not from nothing, then at least from insufficient forbears. His concept of the latest and greatest exhibition of evolutionary history, at the political level, and in particular at the German threshold, led not only in part also to the Hitleresque German intoxication but, via the adaptations of his work by Marx, to the Russian gentilities of Communism. And these, as South East Asian Communists have shown so well, are learnt fast!

Nor is it surprising ideologicallly that Marx wanted to dedicate his Das Capital, to Darwin (Morris, Evolution in Turmoil, p. 99).

Strife as a means of creation appears as barren politically, or very nearly so, as ideologically. Just as evolution shows no power to 'create' us, so its philosophies show considerable ability - as God permits - to destroy the race. The forcible forwarding of such a philosophy, in which supernature is blasphemed, the curse is construed as creation - in antithesis to the evidence, and survival is the road to all that is best, the fittest treading it to the advantage of what- is-to-be, morals relating only in subjection to survival: this resembles all too well the philosophy itself.

And it is just this that is so rampant in education, here more, there less, and in South Australia, rather more.

NOTE: In this... lament for men, reference has been made to Dr Henry Morris's three works, Evolution In Turmoil (1982, Ch. 4), The Twilight of Evolution (1963 Ch. 1) and The Troubled Waters of Evolution (1974, Ch. 4), as well as to Dr William Tinkle's Heredity (1970, pp. 142 ff.).

Also mentioned are Thus Spake Zarathustra, a work of Nietzsche - who was to become insane, an affliction which threatened Europe, an area following to some extent in his ideological and pathological wake in this century, it might seem. This philosophical distillate was published in 1901 in New York and London, just nicely placed for World War 1. His work was part of a mesmeric mosaic, flooring Europe.

Another once enormously influential German philosopher, Hegel, is noted relative to his works such as Philosophy of Right, London 1855 and Phenomenology of the Spirit, 1807, translated to English and published, 1868. See pp. 307-308, 332D, 877-879 infra.

The Echo of the Lament: specialised issues in extensions to come

The lament is not for the passing of the theory which, with inglorious associates, has defiled, exhibiting a deceit, a deviousness and a blank hostility to reality and evidence, linked with authoritarian 'preaching', the mental pogroms of miseducating zealots, an oral pestiferousness promulgated over thousands of programs, like some form of verbal bacteriological warfare. The lament is for the passing in all this, in so many: of integrity and sobriety; and the military and political squalor, which such folly in thought promoted in practice.

There remain, as the lament echoes, certain specialised issues for further consideration, composed in Extensions. The first of these highlights in a modern scholarly debate format (a symposium), the concept of intelligence distinguished from artificial intelligence, in considering what we actually have.

The second touches life, what it is, how it is distinguishable, what it implies, how it is imparted, what are its criteria.

The third deals with scientific method and its stringent application to the fallacious evolutionary dogma. The results are dramatic and decisive.

The fourth is concerned with observable dynamics and the direction of things, and with due care in dating things: a date with thought and sobriety.

The fifth elaborates the confusions of theistic evolution, showing in some detail the collapse of all coherence with anything Biblical, and bringing necessary discipline of thought into a kaleidoscope of contrary concepts.

SECTION 5: Specialised Coves in the Creation Seascape

We now pursue the five excursions into rather specialised fields: namely, intelligence, life, scientific method and theistic evolution. Each 'cove' is confirmatory or expository of the Creation character of our world. None is essential, but each presupposes an understanding of what preceded in the earlier Sections. In addition, a number of illustrative 'day-trips' varying from 'Dates, Dynamic and Predictions' to 'Change' appear, either in the text or in the footnotes which follow.

EXTENSION A : On Intelligence

Enshrined Intelligence In A Frame of Frozen Thought... Begotten, Begetting

It is not surprising that in the 1966 symposium at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, dealing with "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution", that there was a lack of consent to the 'chance' proposition. (See Kaplan and Moorhead, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo- Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution - 1967, 1985 - Schützenberger's address on the topic - 'Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.')

Professor Marcel Schützenberger of the University of Paris summed up:... "Thus, to conclude, we believe that there is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology."

In his comment, Professor Emmett Williams said personality was ascribed to the evolutionary process or to nature in general. We see this, it may be added, in such phrases as this writer has heard... like this: 'When we straightened up...' Was this, the verbal product of a medical specialist, light-hearted ? Not in the situation. What was it ? Mere metaphor ? But strip the metaphor and what do you have ?

There is, in this way, created the feeling of a personality at work in humbler stages of life. This gives it a sort of verbal verisimilitude. But when it is clear that on this hypothesis, 'we' were not 'there', but instead was an unintelligent, unstructuring and unmathematical life form, then the enormity of the restructuring appears. Thousands of actions in simultaneous correlation would be needed, even if genetics were not unable to tell us either that they occur, or even rationally, in what way they would if they could occur. Viability is affected in larger genetic change; effective organic integration is not achieved by a small one. Creation is not a by-product of indirection.

As Denton's work demonstrates so well, it is a question of enormous inter-systematics.

Indeed, quick action and effective, is needed if organically integrated and thus functional results are to occur. Professor Emmett Williams added to his comment: "How can brute, unintelligent physical forces consistently select the proper path that leads to higher order ?" (Creation Research Society Journal, Dec. 1968, p. 125).

Wilder Smith covers the case by pointing out that it is not merely a matter of having the collocation of various thousands of specialised molecules. These materials are matters repeatedly of equilibrium products, involved in reversible chemical reactions. They do not stay happily stable and in place. 'The longer the molecules are exposed to random forces, the wider will become their random distribution...' he says, p. 67 of Man's Origin, Man's Destiny. (See also p. 325 infra and Gish in his Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life.) On pp. 12 ff. of this work, Dr. Gish indicates earlier problems and impasses in contemplation of life processes: there is no organic chemist in the postulated primeval period to remove the other byproducts of imagined processes, to trap the desired substances or deter the destructive dynamic of the 'undesired' forces:

The tendency of organic chemists to remove the products of their reactions from energy sources used for their synthesis before significant destruction of these products can take place is understandable. There would have been no organic chemists present, however, on the primitive earth to accomplish this and products once formed would have been subjected to the destructive forces of electric discharges, heat, or ultraviolet light responsible for their synthesis.
Even oxygen would be summarily fatal, as would U.V. light without it ... The double-edged sword of undirected forces cuts, so to speak, heads as well as hair.

Gish further cites Hull who 'considers not only the rate of formation of organic compounds but also the rate of decomposition, pointing out that energy sources invoked for their synthesis are much more effective in decomposing them' (op.cit., p. 12).

First, then, our concern is with the situation where cells exist, complete with protective cell coating and coherent quantities of complexly ordered and organised factory systems of enzymes to execute and stimulate, and DNA to direct and contain plans and programs, mutually adjusted. Materials must be directed on the 'assembly line' to the waiting arms of enzymatic workers, under the direction of DNA management and any other. It is all or nothing.

'A factory that has no source of raw materials, or which has no market for its product must shut down in a short time. Living systems are extremely complex, having hundreds of series of metabolic pathways perfectly co- ordinated and controlled... Each chemical task performed is useful and purposeful because it is coordinated in a marvelous way with all the other activities of the cell.' Dr Gish (op. cit. p. 28) proceeds: 'Without this coordination, enzyme activity would not only be useless, it would be destructive.'

For instance, if there is an enzyme capable of catalysing the formation of chemical bonds between amino acids to form proteins this same enzyme would catalyze their breakdown to amino acids. Gish points out that the input of raw materials, use of same, output of end products - including 'waste products' is so coordinated and controlled 'that the amount of intermediate products and the structure of the cell, itself, remain at a steady state...' (p. 29).

With the cell in its systematised, linguistic, mathematical expression of plan, program and procedure, instituted despite the fact that 'the longer the molecules are exposed to random forces, the wider will become their random distribution', let us reflect on what the case is.

This situation is merely a technical way, or format, or illustration of the fact that non-intelligence does not, in time or without time, produce the specialised constructions for which intelligence is required. This is not to beg the question; on the contrary it is, at last, to face it! The issue is that this commodity - intelligence - and that result - integrated, complicated, concurrent combinations of circuitries derived from ingredients not possessed of pertinent program or thought intrinsically: that these two are correlatives. Making what is much more ideationally, synthetically designed from what is much less so, by means of mathematics and complicated, organised, rule-obeying language (the case here) is what intelligence does.

That is the experimental fact concerning the use of 'intelligence'. That is the way we use the word; these are sufficient conditions for the acknowledgement of its presence in any tested area or arena. Without this, the word is voided of its substantial meaning: it is not anything; but it is the item capable of precisely this standard of performance (*25 - cf. *45, on 'product' definition).

These are the evidences attached to the words in the area of intelligence. The results inherent in such a plan are not found without a plan or planning capacity exercised by intelligence. This is because the non-thinking, non-programmed lower scale, mini-dimensional constructions do not have what it takes to engineer through their means, what uses them and transcends them operationally and conceptually. Concepts require energy; but also a particular processor of energy: intelligence. This can enshrine the results of concepts in matter (as in computers, or DNA); but it is a contradiction in terms to have concepts enshrined in matter without a conceiver. (Cf. pp. 14-15, 80, 115-117 supra, pp. 138, 171, 200-213, 251-252J, 263-270, 284-289, 290-313, 315C, 332F infra.) Of great interest here is: the whole of Chapter 8 of Proverbs, but especially v. 12. We have been exposed to such considerations, written down, for thousands of years.

This merely forces the issue to the former result: to use the vacuous myth of 'organic evolution' as a base for intelligence is to enshrine in matter the divinity needed as a sufficient cause, without acknowledgement; and this is neither necessary nor acceptable in view of the absence of evidence.

DNA again, even then, with its staggering investment of concepts, controls, editorial agency on the long copied copying codes, and so on, gives the code for its object. Yet it does not evince within the myriad succession of codes for a myriad succession of living things, any stored up in billions of circuitries by now, for a new age and for a new breed of things, starting from 'scratch' with endless 'lives' rolled up in addition to its own.

For this, there is found neither the evidence nor the room; and if there were room, it would merely make the whole creative enterprise of the supernatural God, the more amazing and contrary to all human conception in terms of status quo. There would merely be more pre-status quo action necessarily involved.

However, otiose hypotheses contrary to all known evidence are not to the point. We are considering the creation we see, not the creation we don't see.

Even that one thing to which its own DNA relates... is itself sufficiently marvellous. In its wonder is the intriguing intricacy of the single biological unit (relatively simple, in that order of things - for each single cell is fascinating to the mind, challenging to the intellect and still transcendent, even on a unitary basis even now, for adequate conceptualisation by scientists.) Its very copying is a marvel of miniaturised, microscopic, purpose- oriented, multiform manipulation.

The conceiver is 'not present'; but the conception is. The range of conceptions is present; their integration in their correlated law-and-language arrangements and directions is present; in their one language indeed throughout creation. Would we force, against the evidence, a billion billion circuitries into the original simple molecules in estrangement from all scientific method ?... or have them instituted by adequate ability! Do we know things are there, which the evidence does not show ? And laws, language, reproducing contrivances and intellectually synthesised circuitries without sufficient cause is simply magic. It is, quite literally and systematically, the product of "science falsely so called" (I Timothy 6:20).

Do we know these bizarre billions of prototypes of future DNA's are present, even when we marvel at the unitary wonder of one DNA system ? And do we know they were present in the simplest atoms when these were 'all there was', on that hypothesis, in principle ? Clearly not. It would contradict all science in knowledge as well as method. That is strange science. Indeed it is not science but an intrusion of alien philosophy into the laboratory via the operator, and it must be dismissed at once for what it is: anti-evidential obscurantism, laced with the arsenic of irrationality and served in the cup of contradiction in terms.

Creatures... in their genes and generations: the witness of lives
and minds at Wistar

In this area, there is quite fascinating material in the Monograph of the Wistar Institute, relative to its international conference which we have noted. This material is so, both in its positive destruction of pretentious theory ('chance' creation) in the name of mathematics, and its negative apprehension of the result! Let us turn to the contribution of Professor Murray Eden.

Eden's garden has horticulture but still needs a horticulturist

Professor Murray Eden, (Electrical Engineering, M.I.T.) argued in the first paper that the governance and guidance involved in life processes is linguistically based (i.e. language is centrally involved, as code, in running them); and that chance is excluded in a system of this type, because it cannot be accommodated and still leave the system operative. (Cf. Kaplan and Moorhead, op.cit., p. 13.)

Much less, one might add, would it allow it to develop.

He proceeds to look at the genotype... as a generative algorithm and not as a blue-print; a sort of carefully spelled out and foolproof recipe for producing a living organism of the right kind if the environment in which it develops is a proper one. Assuming this to be so, the algorithm must be written in some abstract language. Molecular biology may well have provided us with the alphabet of this language, but it is a long step from the alphabet to understanding a language. Nevertheless a language has to have rules, and these are the strongest constraints on the set of possible messages. No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentence... Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones.

The purport is this: that the language of the cells is a death march for chance origin.

While the death of chance as creator is good, you need more than determination to have things conceptually determined... determinate, as Eden now gropes to do. That escape hatch, we have already found sealed and fanciful. Such determination requires a powerful formulator and implementer. Thoughts without thinking and rules without ruling are mere exercises in the chance that is excluded, garnished with definitional disruption.

Schützenberger: weary of conceptual weeds in the garden

There has to be a constraint is Eden's message. Chance is out. This conclusion, so far sound, is the same as that reached by Parisian Professor Schützenberger. He argues in a later paper that at no point does geology need to use such phrases as 'creation of information', 'increase of efficiency', 'self-organisation', and the like...

'I intend to restrict my argument to show the existence of a serious gap in the current theory of evolution...' So speaks Schützenberger; and in this, he speaks well.

He argued constantly and cogently in the face of numerous challenges, following his reading, that no restrictive principle for constraining information development had been stated, and continually showed that not a single biologist supplied him with one, despite his request for it! Concepts, considerations and actions were actually and necessarily involved in any evolutionary process, but illicitly these are not acknowledged; and they constitute a conceptual blockade to such a system. That is his basic thrust. To this, he adds specialist considerations. Let us hear him:

What I am asking you, in all humility is to provide me with conceptual examples, in which such spaces could be defined even at the very modest level where they would have all the nice properties of matching such as the theory of evolution customarily gives them.
His meaning, briefly, was this. There is one set of entities in the underlying genes; and there is another in the actual active, overt, mature living creatures. Whatever may happen to the latter in terms of survival or whatever, is virtually irrelevant, he urged, to what is to happen for development in the gene side of things, which continues to produce creatures.

Thus there are two systems; and the second gives no known principle of retroactivity onto the first. The whole area of one is conceived of as a space of possibility, in its terms; and so is the other. There is nothing systematically predisposing the impact of the one (biographies of creatures) on the other (genes), even if the survival of what in fact survives were particularly theoretically illuminating.

Schützenberger is observing that the causative, principial connection between the events in the flesh and those in the design machinations, or their equivalent in the genetic cell 'devisings' as 'evolution' proceeds, is markedly missing in all such constructionist theories. Where is the self-regulation, self-correction mechanism and procedure in the genes ? It is seen to operate in corrections to copying, editorially, but not where the theory would require it, in new, in creative productions.

As to such a self-correcting mechanism, indeed:

There is no chance... to see this mechanism appear spontaneously and if it did, even less for it to remain. Finally, we can predict2 what would happen if such a mechanism had been installed: for almost all the mutations the computation performed would have no relationship to the ones executed before; hence, no relationship to the selective pressure exercised on the output. ALL THIS, I REPEAT, IS A SIMPLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE LACK OF MATCHING BETWEEN THE SPACE OF THE OUTPUTS AND THE SPACE OF THE PROGRAM (p. 75, blocks added).
Correlation, co-ordination and control, concentrated, coherent, unified, synthesised, conceptually harmonious is so common in the micro-biological world, that assumptions about further such 'ententes cordiales' are readily made. However, in this environment of hypothesis, these are wholly unwarranted, grossly gratuitous and contrary to the model. Professor Schützenberger is pointing out the absence in the theory, logically considered, of what is assured in practice. The facts do so well; the theory simply does not match. Assurance is not a substitute for a working theory. That is all.

Such a presentation from the Parisian Professor roused quite a storm at the meeting; but no contributions to cover the theoretical gap. After all, an effort to understand the minute marvels of micro-biology is one thing; efforts to invent theories which perform what is never perceived, is another! The request of the Professor was as reasonable in the utterance, as it was void of result in the outcome. There are limits, even for Darwinians.

'The lack of matching', we read... In this way Schützenberger refers to the genetic design-programs for the 'factory' outputs in their organic and integrated and synthetic totality (the generation of possibilities); and on the other side, to the activities and options and indeed results in the (often) visible world of living creatures inter-acting. He is noting their theoretical null accord, with all the disquietude of a mathematician whose requirements simply are not met.

To kill, this does not create; to endure, this does not supply. Survival is always irrelevant to initiation; and that... is what creation is all about.

It is in one way refreshing to notice that none of these professors being a creationist, they were being constrained to making factual rather than fantasy type observation.

Of special interest in the case of Schützenberger, one must stress the experience he had and the application of it in this area, in the field of artificial intelligence. In constructive endeavours to have unprogrammed connections between two fields of operation, as is here all that is theoretically presented between gene and the generated product, the Professor had this to say:

The only example we have of such a situation... is the attempt to build self-adapting programs by workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Their experience is quite conclusive to most of the observers: without some built-in matching, nothing interesting can occur.
Speaking of the directly observable world of 'products' and the theoretical gene-pool area of product-fabricators, the correlation of which - rather the theoretical lack of it - is central to his point, he observes:

"I apologize for being so assertive but there is a point where experience with computers {more seriously, of course, a mount of mathematical results} comes in." As Professor of Mathematics at Paris University, he speaks with some background. Referring to the two 'spaces' of possibilities just noted (the gene and the engendered, these two fields), he states:

Neo-Darwinism asserts that it is conceivable that without anything further, selection based upon the structure of the second space brings a statistically adapted drift when random changes are performed in the first space in accordance with its own structure.
That is, he is referring to the concept that the conduct, the life of the creatures will have some effect on the gene-pool, without which there is no movement. He states immediately following this remark (above):
We believe that it is not conceivable. In fact if we try to simulate such a situation... on computer programs we find that we have no chance... even to see what the modified program would compute: it just jams.
So he proceeds to his 'gap' in the theory of evolution which 'cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.' This is delightfully polite language; but it is clearly a decisive rejection of evolutionary theory... by a non-creationist. Anguish notwithstanding, reality is non avoidable. That then was the fascinating affair of the Symposium.

Page 135 continued in the next section


1. See pp. 327-328, 'diabolical'. To all this mockery, God is not silent.

Return to main text

2. Schützenberger is not merely dealing with the normal mathematical absurdities involved in the non-engineering of engineering products, and the non-intelligence concepts back of language, and the non-medical mentality assumed back of the medical marvels in our bodies which astonish the wise, fascinate the brilliant and bewilder the geniuses.
On that score, in passing, however, we should not fail to note the whimsically devastating point from Lester and Bohlin in their Natural Limits of Biological Change (p. 157). They refer to the 'foolish' character of the old analogy of the monkey sitting and typing the works of Shakespeare (to take a most simple start, in terms of units).


Return to main text

Go to:

Previous Section | Contents Page | Next Section