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

End-notes to Section 4 (EN#)


Albert Einstein provides an excellent contemporary example of the living dynamics of this sort of thing. He rejected philosophical relativism, while proposing certain new absolute relations between things. He felt there was available an objective awareness of reality, but acknowledged that he could not prove this (Encylopedia Britannica 1986 edition, Vol. 18, p. 198).

He believed in the creative flair of man and that the human spirit could reliably intuit, guess, invade, construe and counsel concerning what really is there, and (ibid.) holding with determination that there is a god, he dismissed any view of God playing dice with the universe (London Observer, April 15, 1964). An abdication of quality control would of course be a denial of oneself, if one were all-powerful, valuing quality - of the nature that was one's own. Further, to learn from one's own universe would deny its absolute creation, though this last consideration is not to be attributed to Einstein. Indeed, it leads inexorably to conclusions.

Thus an objective, intuitable, realisable, comprehendable universe is posited by this scientist, but there is no 'proof' that he can supply. On the other hand, since Einstein did not present evidentially-held communication relative to the God of the universe, he held, as has been shown, not only no way to base his 'feeling' for the view posited: he really was excluded from it, logically speaking.

Thus if one is limited by nature (by what one is), and not equipped with an objective tag defining what one is and can do, then one is by nature subjective. All one does is therefore ultimately subjective: without communication from the One who is not so, from God. Now there is within this subjective condition the relatively subjective and the relatively testable: but it is all the product of what is, strictly speaking a subject, a limited and objectively unanalysable subject... from its own standpoint, alone.

The productions are not assessable beyond the knowing equipment, and this is limited, tuned to this, not tuned to that; able to exhibit this - but systematically mal-conformed to that task, beyond the horizon of its sensitivity and ability ... and so on. There are consequences of not being infinite: creatures suffer them; the Creator does not. To be sure, evidence may indicate and logic constrain to the Creator Himself; and they do; but without His resolution of these pressures, response to these constraints, the nature of His heart, purposes and plans is not known. Minimal powers: yes, but actual magnificence, no, not without divulgement.

The subjective cannot by wishing become objective. It cannot by a sort of existential leap, a logical lapse, transcend what it is; and it is not God, it is not infinite ... that is its nature, observable in a few oddities like those of being born and ... dying with no power.

It is not equipped with automatic knowledge of reality as an innate conferment. By definition, its work falls short of absolute total awareness of all; and of all actual inter- relations, including that of one's knowing apparatus to reality. It fails to reach infinite comprehension of all variables and of all that makes them vary, contingencies, limits, support, capacities; and this in terms of a perspective adequate in grandeur, scope, in comprehension, without distortion, limitation or exclusion: so that justice will be done in any point to all points.

Further, as we have seen, there has to be an absolute viewpoint for absolute knowledge to be possible. (Einstein would not deny the existence of this viewpoint.) Yet it must not only exist but be accessible as a station for view and review. An uncommunicative God is not psychoanalysable (cf. Chapters 4, Section 1, and 8 Section 1 infra, and pp. 30 ff., 46 ff., 88 ff. supra). This being so, without communication express and explicit from God, there is no base. There is unanswerable thrust towards Him, on penalty of contradiction of oneself, one's reason and one's evidence; but without Him, the positive realities await the transcending of the minimal with the actual.

Indeed, the comic blasphemy of God being tele-psychoanalysed by man, must be faced rigorously, and we may do well to revisit it here. First, we cannot even with profound assurance know what another person thinks, at our own level, in our mere selves. There are subtleties and comparative depths; and some even are variable and deceive their own selves... about their selves... How then, without God, should WE then know them! This applies to individual thoughts.

Second, we could not begin to predict, command or predicate what should be another's decision on the possibility, fact or mode of forgiveness to us, should we offend. How much less could we know, without divulgement from God, what His mind on the subject of misuse of His conferred equipment, which we habitually and daily use; and if this is not known, how could the required relationship with Him be known, even if He were in some way apprehended.

Third, if we being limited, cannot know fully the mind of another, how then would we aspire to predict, pronounce, propositionalise, assess, convey, construe and communicate what God thinks in His heart (the attitudes, in this case, the purposes, programs or penchants, the atmosphere, the relationships at the personal level and so on...)! Or how would we substitute 'meekly' for His infinite understanding of all His creation, in our so limited declarations, intimations and thoughts.

An 'inverted commas' revelation is needed to communicate from this personal infinitude to our finitude.

Einstein for his part did not confess such knowledge; and thus could not have the logical consistency for or from his standpoint. Yet he discerned, intuited, that objective truth was there. In this, he was right; his instinct attests the reality of the image of God in him, by which he is in principle attuned. Similarly, his yearning and conviction attests the Rightness of the relationship as a potential, for which he was made; in which he was created; but which, as far as his testimony goes of his relation to God, he simply did not in practice have. What has been proved to be the case, this beautifully verifies.

Indeed, as has been emphasised, and will shortly be reviewed, there is the further fact that this distancing from the truth - however inconsistently, with whatever violence to logic (and there is violence there), is an acquired and predicted syndrome in erring man. It is so presented in the scripture itself.

Thus this constitutes a second order of verification: the explicit, in addition to the implicit. God's words 'embrace' the situation, enfolding it! He sought; but he did not seek to the end... (Cf. Romans 1:18-20.) That of course is as far as our knowledge goes; Einstein may have done much more in his own time and way; but this is our evidence, and this we examine.

Einstein in particular has a fascinating contribution to make to this poignant and predicted situation relative to the continuing race of man. He even revolted against what others might see in his theories, that is in relativism... Not thus must they be construed. As we noticed, he rejected philosophical relativism, which is illogical, as we have shown. Yet he could not fully ward off such views, for like Macbeth, he did not go, as far as testimony is available, to the place of power to do so.

Thus he was left as a brilliant man who, in some areas, held impressive discernment and intuition following, in a number of ways, right principles with right assumptions. Despite these, however, his failure to come to the true and only God - the operational God, the God of creation - prevented from becoming personally present, the Truth he needed. He appears then to have spoken spiritually of a road he did not travel, a road to find its beauties and fulfilments even in the aesthetic marvels of truth, to which in aspiration he was so sensitive; and is a poignant example of the righteousness of God in providing for us, and leaving us with us an innate sense, despite our departure from His word and witness, as a race.

There is a sense in which he could almost be regarded as the Macbeth of relativity, equipped with the compelling irony that he detested the relativism which so many thoughtlessly might impute to him, or seek to draw from him! Einstein also involved himself in direct systematic contradiction by his preference for the world of Spinoza: the dual purpose, mind-matter matrix. The concept of a neutral something- expressed by both mind and matter, that underlay both, and was their substructure - was illogical from the start. What underlies the ability to make mistakes on the one hand - on purpose indeed at times, as in some capricious circumstances seen in man - and the inability to make them, on the part of matter, which having no purpose which it states, has no way to commit error! We have elsewhere pursued the fallacious argument by analogy of machinery (pp. 23 ff., 440-445, cf. 269-284 ff. supra).

A logically adequate basis for both freedom and law, a sufficient cause such as science normally seeks, is found in a thinker who does not abide in thoughtless matter, and in a creator who is not dependent on a system without a cause. That self-sufficient cause (of matter and of its system of serial causation), God, is apart from the unconvertible elements, the wholly disparate elements of His creation; though each, in some sense, in the original system reflects something of His glory.

The endless desire for design and transmutability of all things in some internal unity is always frustrated, from the Greeks on. There are areas intrinsically related to each other, and areas contradistinct and immiscible.

The glory lies without; and the expression lies within; and the expression though multitudinous is of one; but that one is not a sentence or a submission but a person, in however much He elected to perform marvellous systematics within His creation, mathematical or otherwise. It is... He is, a person who speaks what He will, when He will and in the manner He will.

It is always fascinating, though sometimes more than a little horrifying that man, in the very act of speaking with quite astounding freedom and versatility of will and creativity forhimself, yet is as here, so often so loth to see the infinite freedom of God, beyond all system, without limit by any.

Even 'self-determined' powers conferred on any system do not limit God. If He desires a thing to work in some semi-automated way, for example, that is the very thing that, by occurring, prevents His being limited. Even men may in principle do the same. The automatic gear may be bought, if it represents the desire.

For God, of course, there is no trade-off. He even invents (as being Himself without subjection to control, composition or manufacture of any kind by any agency), the very world in which, whatever may be the prerogatives of this and that, such things appear. They do so because He elected to make the provision for them. Even sin, though costly, is not a limitation of His power: He, being Himself without limit, desired and decided to make, rather than not to make, the systems in which sin could occur: He being under no constraint. He covered its impact and provided for its subduing, in the terms He chose, the cross of Jesus Christ, His direct Word and Son. This was all His initiative, His will and His plan, from before the world was... as one might expect (cf. Revelation 13:8..."the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world"; Acts 2:21-23). So it is all a perfect consistency, that to which the constraint applies.

The glory of the Lord in His patience and inter-personal electives, with beings such as we are, is of the utmost delight... to ponder. It does not however limit Him; but expresses Him in His desire for beings who may, however wilfully and foolishly, express themselves. Even the most profound intellect is not in itself the slightest safeguard against the delusion of denying the God who speaks both in cells, in word and in history, verifying His word and investing His living word in a flesh which could communicate quite directly with the race which, being given that power, killed Him in that format, and denies Him so openly in its own.

How then can people talk with such lack of insight and perspective about the judgments of God! It is the limitation of divine judgments in destructive impact for so long which, to this writer, is a source of wonder. (Cf. II Peter 3:7-10.)

As has been demonstrated over and over, without a speaking Redeemer, all is unexplained, nothing is known. Talking of the aesthetic loveliness of truth (to Einstein a thing charming... yet so often so frustrating), consider the beauty of the focus of scripture on the divulgement of deliverance, the basis of truth and the explanation of all things:

"For it pleased the Father that in Him (Jesus Christ) should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things to Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now has He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in His sight." (Colossians 1:19-22.)


The Meanders of Modern Macbeths

Part A

The Uncentral Centrist - Modern Macbeths !

These are so modern that they do not always 'mean' to wander or even know they are doing it. It is as if alienated man has a deep desire (Ephesians 4:19 gives the scriptural basis for assessment which so adroitly and deeply explains what we in fact find in this self-attesting verification). It is as if the man of today wants to engender a god-like being - or so to render himself, the point is indifferent here- whose thought is truth, whose perspective is right and whose meaning is valid, without having any of the ingredients for such a result: or at least, while denying the only basis for them. Acting as God, he denies God, and very possibly lampoons those who remain rational and acknowledge God, when making statements about the nature of things.

Freud, Marx and Darwin all require such a god for their mind-manipulating theories to be adequately based. Moreover, the gods who gradually come to be from not being, are logically in no better case. There is no sufficient causation for their coming to be when what-is, lacks the ingredients and the potency, for their construction. If it had it, then that calibre would already be present, and it would be but a verbose myth that it was developing. (Hegel started Marx off on this absurdity in the 'spiritual' realm, albeit with less marvellous absurdity than that which Marx created from it - he and his fellows.) If it did not have it, the result could not come; if it did, it preceded the 'explanatory process'; and being there already, was merely one more case of begging the question.

Neither a gradual lavishing of Jungian libido into domains aloft, nor a fabricating of Darwinian bodies into designs afar; nor a tuning upwards of human spirits into 'the divine' with Teilhard de Chardin; nor indeed perhaps with Popper, a gradual construction (*13) of the absolute platform from the relative residents of the system, as if subjectivity should become objectivity by being subjective long enough; nor a fashioning by discreet, discrete (or even not so discreet) stages of wholly deterministic Marxist management from chaos (all laws by courtesy of the invisible and separately denied management, discreetly out of sight)... no, none of these will really cover the case.

The chasm between concepts is not overcome with time. Experience does not create truth; it merely may help you handle the flow you have, empirically, pragmatically- with the selective subjectivity of your construction embracing the 'all', with knowledgeable ignorance: the relative (by definition) realising the absolute with magnificent oblivion of its condition.

Nor would you even know experientially. If you are merely the product of environment, of sex lust, of economic forces in your being or in your thoughts, of libido or whatever partial propellant; if this really and systematically is the case ('Thanks for the system and the laws of its operation, System-Systematiser, but do be discreet and keep out of sight! modern man, you know, so sensitive about all this...'): then what ? If the force, the power, the determinant, whatever it is, if this part of things constrains and conquers you, so that we may predict the type of thing that is to be forthcoming from you; or say what is really happening, and say it right to you: then
what ?

If you are a distortee, a force processed butt, limping in discerned chains of control, then is this because man is so ? If so, then the predictor himself, herself, is certainly (if right) in no better case to declare the fancied 'facts'; or freely, objectively, temperately and realistically tell the truth.

If man is so, the philosophers, the psychologists also, with them, are so. If mere forces constrain you as you rationalise, by your nature; then so do they 'handle' the analyst. If, however, they do not constrain you, then he is wrong; if they do, he is wrong, himself also being distorted, subjectivised and subjected to elements of the system, within the system.

Alas, wrong either way, such ones yet speak!

That moreover is merely a beginning. Distorted, you deviate - and it is distortion to make your survival or satisfaction central, or to exist by acting as if you were the central consideration in the universe, when rationally you are not able to sustain such a case. Moreover, the same applies to vaulting theories of all kinds relative to the nature of things: if you take your nature as the criterion, it at once dislodges your other pre-suppositions!

Worse, if you are in the hands of irrational desires unknown (ever new unknowns spawned by ever-new psychiatric schools, limping a little, declaring a lot), or in the maw of productive forces arising like gods from the deep, beyond you, over you and directing you: then you are a kind of spokesperson for whatever-it-is: you are imbued past knowledge with this latest engulfing 'god' of forces, economic, passionate or what you will (or even, indeed, what you won't - the Promethean lust, one remove down).

Yet, as limited, you omit. Merely subjective, you lose objectivity by definition, unless yourself the absolute ...; as limited you are inadequate; as incorporated, you are not detached; partial, you under-particularise; held in view, you have no overview; relative, you gain nothing absolute - not even your theory, whatever it may be.

This applies whether your theory be that we are meaningful or meaningless, an art form of insanity, or whatever it may be.

Without standards of assessment, a plateau for evaluation and with no measurer for application, you are systematically lost.

Part B

Deuteronomy 32: Freshly Made Divinities
(The Hot Dead Kitchen)

Using an explicit scriptural perspective, we examine the god-makers in more detail, applying it to the culturally creative but spiritually desecrative process of making 'gods'. The scripture to apply, observing its unblunted interpretive edge is from Deuteronomy 32:17.
They sacrificed to devils, not to God; to gods whom they did not know, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
Freshly spawned, arrived gods, these are newcomers lately arisen, theological Johnny-come-latelies ...gods coming up, like morning mist.

Gods-from-the-ground, what a delicious exposé of evolutionary myth-making, this is - when all its paraphernalia of events that are always labouring but never found... is past. In reality, it is no better than some concept of children, imagining a green mist seeping upward and slowly turning into some... god. As these children have become adults, their gods have become men, and the green mist is now evolutionary theory.

Freshly made divinities...! Hot from the oven! What a commentary on the philosophic production lines of so many, constructing man by arms of thought before thought is there to have arms, as Popper seems pleased to do in Objective Knowledge (cf. p. 242), just as 'nature' by so many other evolutionists has to construct such unbelievably complex organs, merely against their ... shall we say 'foreseen need' ? To this need, response is made before anyone is deemed to have been there to have done the foreseeing, whilst the arms of invisible engineers fabricate perhaps the world's most fully automated marvel - the genes and their unified plans - though the engineers themselves, alas, have neither mind nor body nor yet will for the task, being not yet 'there'.

Now this they do (though they be not there) because of unalterable laws (arisen by chance), which are programmed to do so (though none is there to program), or somehow manage to survive (though not there to do so) amidst a chance universe, where law itself is its antithesis. In fact, the decline of any law there was, would be geared into the destabilising dynamics of wholly unconcerned particles, the laws of the tiny bodies themselves equally coming from nowhere, as did their form. (Cf. Chapter 9, Section 3 C infra.)

In short, all you have to do, is - to invent a system with what is not there; use laws which contradict your system; sophisticate them in opposition to the observed trends of the system there in fact is; and, without mind, see what is needed, construct it, implement it without plans, and then state that its survival is governed by laws, and that is why it arrives in the first place, surreptitiously constructed... well, 'in the earth' by a creativity which is not there, but which, for all that, is far beyond our best (as Dr Denton so well makes clear). Then of course, you should not have been there either!

Is it that too much history has made the human race, in large blocs, mad ? No, it is not. It still, in the mass, does not research into the creation. What then ?

It is in fact merely a modern form of devil worship. Always popular, this one has an impersonal devil who pops up from the ground, making all sorts of things, and in this generation using the opportunity also to make hay while the sun shines (though it is beginning to darken in some cities ... already!, in endless seeming wars of great nations who have learned the great lesson that to fight and strive and survive is a very noble thing to do: 'That is how', they tell the children, 'we got to be what we are! - think of that!') ... while in practice this philosophy of folly bids fair to farewell the human race.

"They sacrificed to devils, not to God; to gods whom they did not know, to new gods that came newly up..."; so that the Gentiles have in this followed the Jews, that judgment might be spread on all, except they repent. And in particular, they sacrificed their children... Let us consider this further. It is especially applicable in South Australia (cf. pp. 375 ff.infra), though much of the world is going after this 'beast', as Daniel names such matters.

Lest such blessings be lost, care is taken by many peoples to ensure that the young are taught this grave and modern myth, ar that it is given status by being put not with legends as a modern case, where logically and historically it belongs, but in science classes! Whilst some may have thought that science had to do with observable events, noted direct or by instrumentation, with formulated laws and consequent predictions which are verified in the event, this new science goes with new myth (it is much worse than was the vogue for 'new math'). It refers to unobserved events which go with unformulated laws, liberally exempted from any need to predict, and which are not verified in those non-predictions (cf. pp. 145 ff.supra, cf. Chapter 9, EXTENSION, infra). Worse than bizarre, as science it is a partly grave and partly hilarious imposture.

If we continue to advance like this, we should soon be teaching kindergarten in third year University. More, in the well-named Festival State, South Australia (*14), children in High Schools may not, in unrestrictedly rational terms, debate this theory where it is met. Rational debate is not the order of the day!

Perhaps (although a rank denial of our entire educational system, freedom of speech, facility for open research and contest by results...), this is at least in some sense understandable. It would perhaps be demeaning to science teachers to have to face continually this parody of science, before even the small knowledge of young minds who might rationally challenge it, all too well. Perhaps even the mammoth disproportion in age, time of learning and educational attainments, between student and teacher would not suffice, to protect so gross an abuse of scientific method as this, from exposure even from babes and sucklings ... to speak comparatively.

This slavery inflicted on childhood, this intellectual serfdom, this pernicious misuse of authority - however little it comprehends what it is doing - is to club the minds of children: a phenomenon as sad as was the genocide in Biafra. That too had its legal side. It is ideologically reminiscent of Tiananmen, where authority, in 1989 there also, before using violence, just... knew! (Just as its 1966 'Red Guards', themselves twisted and then tormenting, 'clubbed' and then clubbing ... knew.) And now this authority, it has wet hands.

Let us then review the broader issues. The gradual elevation of uni-series to substance, of engineered matter in its sophistication to errant human thought, of movement in a line to a concept of a line, and to the failure to draw it right... of awareness to objectivity, processive participation to plenary powers of oversight, of determinism to freedom, of interactive interfaces to supervising systems-assessors, of components to critics, containment to illimitable perspectives, of coercion to liberty and material units into error-prone persons, of forced fragments to foolish philosophising (as mutually often judged) where pundits say what is wrong and hence imply access to what is right; the elevation, I say - of elements prodded by force into persons goaded by guilt, of reagents into agents, jostled particles into judges of particularity, asserting obligation and denying it both in theory and in practice: all this may satisfy 'God' machinists.

It may seem splendid to deity manufacturers, who have nowhere from which to gain all these powers (having denied God). But their manufacture of these gods is one of the most obvious testimonies (*15) to God, manufacturer of themselves, giving them logical bases for such powers, though here they are but abused.

How beautifully scripture sums up so much:

"And just as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind ..." (Romans 1:28). and again, "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator who is blessed for ever."(Romans 1:25).
Marvellous in multitude, mesmerism (*16) and popularity are the modern aids to unbelief, providing with extravagant seeming liberality, for many a Classroom the means of confusion. The move to that antichrist, the 'man of sin', declaring that he is God, is exceedingly well underway. In this respect, the world is beginning to contain some very developed societies...

End-notes to Section 5 (EN#)

13 Pp. 996-1002 infra exhibit a more static oriental-mystic Buddhist parallel to Popper's metaphysics, with a more colourful, but basically similar impasse and dilemma. It really appears as a comic case of cosmic communication technology 'allowing' auto-revelation from a systematically silent base and, in that sense, as a metaphysical construction erected on a foundation that isn't there. See also pp. 305-307 supra for the aspect of self-creating 'dynamism', and pp. 140 ff., 207 ff. supra; 908, 922-929, 965-966 infra.

In both these aspects, Popper's view resembles that of Hegel in his Phenomenology of the Spirit, in that reality merrily constructs itself with potential on the one hand, and a potential-consummator on the other (though neither of these implements seem unduly visible ...), which of course must antedate the performance! It is the ultimate in circular reasoning, a case not so much of having your cake and eating it too, as of buying your cake and then 'creating' it... 'Oh, just a little thing I created!' Alas it was there all along, and you simply brought it in, unacknowledged. Nothing is shown to have been 'made' by your thought... except a mistake!

Put differently, it would resemble any mythical claim to act as 'creator' of life by genetic engineering of existing structure, complete with stability, form and dynamic inbuilt program and ... of course, the necessity of being there in the first place - before the engineering commenced: with the normal requirements we have examined in Ch. 1.

A fortiori, the case is one of consummate cosmic comedy when the 'product' created by the magic system - itself minus Creator of its existence and performance characteristics in so delightful a program - is construed as 'god', either in name or in function, liberating its human ... designer, after being made.

As Isaiah has it, in Ch. 44:16-17, he even warms himself and says:

"Ah! I am warm, I have seen the fire." And the rest of it he makes into a god, his carved image. He falls down before it and worships it, prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for you are my god."
The sheer exuberant extravagance of these magic moments in reverse cycle engineering, when we get the cause from the results, exhibits again that chronic alienation from the God of creation, causation and continuation, to which we have so often to look in His constantly confirmed pastoral diagnosis of the race. (See Glossary, for p. 72, 'anti-philosophy'. The reader may wish in particular to consult Section 5 B, pp. 308-313 infra, for further thought on tragi-comic aspect of self-creating 'dynamism'.)

In his Mere Christianity (pp. 32-34, but in an earlier war-time publication, "Broadcast Talks", given at a testing time in British history, pp. 28-32), C.S. Lewis speaks in this area. He comments on a smuggled divinity under the guise of 'Life Force'. Our current area is a specialisation of a similar pseudo-Bergsonian magic: a djinn-from-a-jar-when-the-djinn-isn't-there magic.

Lewis' words are worth emphasising:

If they do, then "a mind bringing life into existence and leading it perfection" is really a God . If they don't, then what is the sense of saying that something without a mind "strives" or has "purposes" ? This seems to me fatal to their view. One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you don't want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it's nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force being only blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children. The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it won't bother you. All the thrills of religion and none of the cost. Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen ? - {And of course, force doesn't talk ...}
14 In South Australia in 1988, a god was sanctioned, made allowable, by the determinative 'educational' authorities for government schools. This permitted god (holding, it would almost seem, a sort of governmental visa for school entry) was one which - who ? ... might or might not come along with the educational process, in the area of biology.

'It' - this ...object ? subject ? was an elective! Instructive is it to find that such a religious being, a mental, metaphysical and assuredly a personal matter (such is the profundity of the governmental authority, from whom, it might seem, nothing is hid) may be thus allowed into the evolutionary arena. While duly constructed by the minds of those who dabble in gods, in the grandeur of the educational establishment, complete with the thought that religious affairs are really divorced from the rational areas of science, and that religious 'language' has a heart-beat of its own: this 'god' alas being dead, is never allowed to rejoice in its theoretical hero. And this ? It is the mythical process of evolution which it supposedly embraces (or more accurately, which embraces it!).

Even, however, if it lived, it could not so rejoice in its hero; even if it had eyes, it could not perceive the mythical mirage of the self-constructing evolutionary process, since it is not given to eyes to behold, to laws to illustrate or to complementary laws to support this assault on logic. No religion was ever more foolish, irrational or relentlessly magic-minded than this: but it, the theory authorised... and its implications, is hideously used to afflict the minds of children even in the field of religion, be the intention what it may.

Hence a product of the Creator, the creative mind of man is elevated to the post of god-controller, so that any god which (who ?) shall presume to exist must perform its obeisance, must bow to this silly and shameless shambles that is a substitute for thought. To the S.A. government (to whom formal protest enough has been made by hundreds of petitioners), this folly, this substitute for education, this suave indoctrination, this putsch of propaganda (whatever the intention), this religious intrusion and doctrinal formulation driven into the youthful masses, and their teachers, to the present has continued to commend itself. For the children, we mourn, we lament! It is an atrocity less visible than those which we may see on TV from Yugoslavia; but no less grievous. Unopposed, it warps those who live! giving hideous example of warped scientific method.

Man makes irrational myths when he avoids the logical necessities of the true God, who created man's power to myth-make, with all else: man, a cognitive and imaginative marvel of design, integrally constructed. (Even Løvtrup is weary of the nonsense of gradually constructed high-tech organs, arriving over vast time spans, and admits this error of modern evolutionists in which they grew and made their way, in his Darwinism - the Refutation of a Myth. ''The Darwinian myth'', he assays as ''the greatest deceit in the history of science'' defying what both ''Nature'' and ''experimental conditions'' provide! - pp. 351, 422.)

Yet man still makes his myths and shuts his eyes, allowing some 'god' to go along for the ride. Perhaps then he will worship the god he has made instead of the God who made him (a point satirically emphasised by Isaiah, for example in Chapter 41).

Alas, mental god-machinists... are little different from physical ones; idolatry proceeds unabashed in the twentieth centry. As a last resort, of course, man can even worship himself (though it be a disastrous and infantile process); for if he makes gods, why not? ... so the follies of decadent and ancient Rome can be released anew in polite society.

While the Hoyles, Løvtrups, Goldsmiths, Nilssons and Goulds of this world move properly away from gradualistic follies, the Wistar specialists rightly remind us of the contra-evidential character of the gradualistic ramblings of evolution: how much more, does one now hear of some onset of creation (but not with frankness as to name), arriving free and unfettered, at once, no longer caring for gradualism.

If chance however does not create law... slowly, unhappily entrammelled with mathematics, language and logic: much less does it do so at once!

Reverting more specifically to the South Australian case, the... permitted god which students may, if so desiring, assuredly bring in alongside the austere severities of organic evolution: what is the moral involvement of such a projected 'god' ? As we have seen in Section 2 (pp. 257 ff. - cf. pp. 197 ff. supra), the only spiritual power corresponding to the case... is the devil.

It would not seem presumptuous for the servants of Christ to advise the government that such a mythical projection, with such an evil implication, is hardly acceptable as a force-fed, anti-debate authorised diet for children. But then! It has its ironic side: they then want taxes to 'deal with' the civic problems created by some of the debased and mulcted monsters they may help to create, having led them in thrall to devilish concepts for years in tax-supported schools. It is necessary to realise that even what the government does not realise, does not appreciate what it does, this neither excuses nor exonerates it when it presumes into this field, as it does.

If you kill a child with a motor vehicle, through oversight, it does not alter the death. It is not that we should love South Australia less, but its children the more.

As for such a 'god', therefore, as this which the Education Department in this area so grandly permits: neither by creed, concept, reason nor conviction could this writer consider such a being a suitable subject for students or any other. (See with 179 ff., also 145 ff. supra, on theistic evolution and scientific method respectively; also Chapter 7, Section 5, pp. 560 ff. infra.)

All this of course has great uses in apologetics, the theme of this work. It is precisely such crass libels on God (intention does not remove facts, just as ignorance does not remove guilt - merely perhaps altering its character), which illustrate superbly the great 'falling away' which Paul predicts for the end of the Age, leading to the return of the Crucified Christ in sovereign power. God is deep: His wrath is not a mere flame; and His love brings patience... but not laxity. Mercy may intervene. In the end, remedy of redemption ignored, the last resort of judgment, this remains.

This great "falling away" which Christ designates also in terms of the falling and follies of rebellion, increasingly bold and foolish (Matthew 24:5, 11-13, 15) and eventually reaching their conclusion, is massively being verified; and for this, explicit review of phases and components is given later in this work (see Ch. 8, EXTENSION C pp. 699-707 infra, and the areas there noted: also Ch. 8, Section 3C, pp. 648-707 infra). Speaking allegorically (let him who has ears, hear), many of the 'virgins' sleep (Matthew 25:1-13). It will not prove to have been a beauty sleep.

For the moment, while we may scarcely congratulate the government of this State on its dealings, it is a matter of verification of an eminent kind on the home soil, to find such a blatant expression of this 'falling' so obviously reluctant to... depart! Its very tenacity to remain on the books is another illustration of the extent to which the 'falling away' has occurred. Indeed, the toleration of such appalling blasphemy as this Circular implies, by so many churches, while it helps the endurance politically of the outrage, expresses this extent even more clearly.

It is as if a driver having been heavy on the foot for the accelerator, now finds that the brakes are more than a little dysfunctional. It is precisely large church bodies which might more readily bring a government, like a cane, to consider its dealings; it is the failure of much effort from so many of these which illustrates, which verifies eminently the grandeur of the 'falling away', its immensity, its intensity.

These continual Biblical verifications are magnificently opposite to the lack of verification which the anti-Bible forces have in their miasmic theories of organic evolution (see pp. 208-210 and 145 ff. supra).

15 Fascinating is the thought of gradually gaining the site of the Creator, without whom is neither the understanding, the truth nor the knowledge, but experience only. Imagine having the 'potential' in New Age terminology (cf. Ch. 9, pp. 864-877, EXTENSIONS 1-3 infra) for these things! For that, you need to be able to have the eternal God, as reasoned, 'there' - and to reach Him... by permission! (The bounds and grounds of that permission, we have already seen from His identified word.)

To have Him there for eternity (Ch. l supra), to provide for the potential, is simply to have this potential: to ignore Him or to reject Him on the one hand; or, on the other, to receive this, the Gospel of the crucified Christ, the Lord's Christ (Luke 2:36)... if in His mercy you are so drawn, and in His grace, so conclude. A more direct, and certainly less serpentine seeming approach to the same throne, is seen in Isaiah 14:13: "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation ... I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High."

It is clear that there is quite a little will in this, whereas our current concern is reason. However, the result of such irrational unrealism, both about God and the other party with such pretensions to infinitude, and these on the part of a creature wholly incompetent by gifts for such exaltation: they are not hard to realise or difficult to discern.

God's response appears-quite fitting: "Yet you shall be brought down to hell." These sinuous philosophies certainly do much for the fulfilment - being amply supported by vast new 'theologies', neologies - of the prophecy of Jesus Christ. These are His words:

"False prophets will arise ... so as to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24, cf.ll Peter 2:18, Jude 16-19.)

Not merely the fact but the manner of this tilt for control of man, by irrational, irresponsible but often confused misteaching, is the more apparent to those who take the time to read any of it, as an exercise in pathology, to help in pastoral work: in that case, applied pathology...

16 The eye is an excellent example of mesmerism. The claim has been made that a creature could see with 1% of the developed human eye . Thus it would go on seeing happily instead of being blind, while not the glasses but the eye itself happily functioned almost entirely in absentia. This has presented as if rational...

Such simplistic thoughts are of course not dealing with the elements of the sophisticated, integrated neural, anatomical, physiological, genetic, programming reality, including such details as the lens which does help, really, as is (as does its adjustablity, as the myopic are reminded). Nor are they dealing with all this functioning in precise conceptual synthesis with the other elements of the (symbolic) program which operates the eye, in its inter-organic references and referents. Nor with the billion or so of data elements said to be in one cell, and the myriads of co-ordinated cells working as a team in the eye, at the intra-systematic level. 1% is not enough as any oculist would tell you, smiling perhaps, with raised eyebrows.

What may be meant in the mesmerism is this: That such and such primordial varieties of seeing organ with just this or that phase or facet would help, in time, if altered and if eventually integrated ... about a coded design speciality, specific to itself; and could in some cases be conceived as working in another system with other programming from that of billions of units of data in myriads of cells. Well, but that is something different.

God of course could do it with less than 1%, in fact 0%, which no doubt would be easier than making these enormously complex technical adjustments; but the auto-creation is conceived of as by a creator who is not there: one of its chief anomalies, often hidden in words.

The sheer enormity of the proposal needs to be savoured. Not from 1% of the human eye will light come: alas pathology finds obscuration with far less in trouble than that! The other part, the 99%, that is assumed is just one more example of government by assumption... or presumption. You may force men by presumption, but not Nature... The language coding alone is all synthesised about a design, and if the eye is not one, we have very few definitionally which could be, a point on which we have dwelt (e.g. pp. 2-114 ff. supra).

One cannot change a huge undertaking in bits, without the architectural totality being wrought, the components created or re-worked for co-ordinatable compositions in the new parameters, and so on. Not by mere wishing or mental formulation of 'development' does the simple design ... arise into a complex and compound one. Vague references to similarities or relationships are not engineering, but more novelist work.

The various forms of smuggling God into nature, such as "selfish" genes, nature "striving" for this or that, as frequently seen in evolutionary science fiction literature ... not so named however: these would appear well illustrated here.

As the eminent Professor W.R. Thompson put it (Introduction to Everyman edition of Darwin's The Origin of Species ):

This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypotheses on hypotheses, where where fact and fiction intermingle in inextricable confusion. That these constructions correspond to natural appetite, there can be no doubt. It is certain also that Darwin established what may be called the classical method of satisfying this appetite. We are beginning to realise now that the method is unsound and the satisfaction illusory.
Dr Evan Shute, F.R.C.S. in his Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, p. 130, helps by referring to Wallis, an evolutionist who notes: "The origin of the lens is the most mysterious thing... It is not possible to say just why, when, or how it arose, how it managed to get inside the meningeal envelope of the retinal brain-tube."

Without ground but faith, and with faith that knows no reason, he proceeds: "We are thus able to imagine that in the embryo of some crucial early vertebrate, purely as an accident of mutation, the lens came to occupy this much more favourable position by getting the jump on the meninges. It has remembered to get an early start in development ever since." (Italics added).

And this ? It might be called construction by metaphors, and personification, common in evolutionary work; and if only mathematicians and engineers could learn to make this art practical, billions of dollars of intelligent design could be saved by simply uttering a few... chosen words. Of course, they could perhaps do a few of these things, at their own level, if only some intelligent programmer made them a few programs which, contrived with imagination and instituted with knowledge, employing sophisticated, developed systems, would be to hand. Then the engineers, using imagination and intelligence on their own part, would see how and where and when and if they should employ these prepared programs. But then, the engineers and the programmers all have to be there, intelligent, imaginative and working...

Wallis continues, quoted by Shute: "The eye had to be more moveable", so commandeered "adjacent paired muscle-masses." This is precisely the stuff of magic; it begs precisely what has to be proved, and it does it in exquisite contradiction of all that is observed, codified in law, known of codal language which underlies it all... but at least it makes the engineer part have will and commandeering capacity (even if it isn't, by their own definition, there).

That is what it everlastingly needs. As Shute puts it:

Assume it done, and you have it ... but it is neither science nor logic, nor is it straightforwardly honest, but rather is it hiding necessary powers in words while denying them ... in other words. This is not good enough for the schools past grade four; and it should be only in English, in creative writing at that level. It could be used in logic at year 11, or in a history of science course to exhibit irrational fantasies and fallacies in juxtaposition. It could serve as a warning. Professor Thompson has exposed this sort of contrivance, run by a verbal paraphernalia, aptly indeed.

I myself also had occasion to expose the same in a South Australian tertiary lecturing position, before then being given the option to discontinue this teaching or this post. As elsewhere noted, truth has no price, and the post was left as the only moral option.

Page 313 continued in the next section

Go to:

Previous Section | Contents Page | Next Section