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




Non-Participating Success stories and

Dumps of Dissociation

See with this such sites as Wake Up World! ... Ch. 5, and Keys ... Ch. 5




As It Grows, Much Goes


Of course some might call it inconsequential. They often team up like that. NOTHING matters except the nose in the trough, the mind in the skies and the money in the bank.

However, the catastrophes which have a great frequency in arriving when least expected, and flowering in a Summer of discontent, when great expectations fall - like the British Empire, the USSR and Babylon, Nineveh and Tyre for example, to rove about history a little, these are by common consent not inconsequential. It is therefore time to look about, before things cry as so often: NOW THAT'S YOUR LOOK-OUT!

Look now.

You have this piece of radio equipment. It is admittedly on the old and now seemingly odd kind. It has valves of substantial size which glow in the dark (when complete), and various oddities resembling stores and streets which to the uninitiated, seek to do their weird seeming work. However this old radio has been dismantled. There it lies in its dust-bin grave yard. We remove it from its dump, nostalgia in heart, enquiry in mind.

There it is now, missing parts and a section of the base, but it is about half-way intact. We wait for it to complete its own restoration, considering the concept so popular, that it is all auto-development.

Nothing however happens, after a long period, except that some of the valves are now cracked, and a mossy substance seems to be forming on the partial base. Other parts, without the normal base, are becoming moisture contaminated, and there are of course no super-hygienic conditions, made to make life pleasant, or death less disastrous, or disassemblage more acceptable, or the detritus aspect less obvious. After all, we are on discovery bent.

Nothing happens. It goes on happening for 10 years and only dissolution increases.

So we think. Perhaps when you get living materials  ... ?  but how, in the first place,  do they get the coverings to protect cells at the right time, and the chemicals to make coverings at the right time, and the replicating ability at the right time, and the command structure which as we see in life forms, is back of the replication, and how do we get the logical system which has a co-ordinated series of relevance-controlling functions, to make the commands mean anything, and how do we have at the right time the rest of the inordinate systems which make up even a simple cell! As Denton points out, it is rather like New York city, just one cell (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis).

Why, how do you get anything ? Let contemptible contemporary culture answer for us.

Answer: It is made by what deals with that sort of stuff.

What have you observed to do that.

Oh, nuffin'.

How do you get the stuff ?

Why it comes from the air.

Where do you get the air ?

It is a part of space.

Where do you get the space and its dynamics of the surrounding cosmos, in all its ever-increasing dimensions and laws (cf. John Hartnett, Starlight, TIme and the New Physics) ?

Why from law source.

Where is that ?

You have funny concepts.

Let us return however to realism.

What then is needed ? Somewhere outside the law-girt area, in order to deposit it there. Why could it not be IN the law-girt area ? It has to be not there to put it there: in other words, if it is conceived as being within the law-girt area, then this does not explain the origin of the same. It is simply a part of it all the time, and we have an invisible, undemonstrative, unevidenced something supposed to be where it makes no display at any time.

But that is simply to ignore, ignoratio elenchi, what the question is, or 'beg' it, whichever way you want to put it. Where did this law-girt area come from - to say it came from itself ignores the fact that it is not  self-sufficient. It does not have what it takes to make what it is, just to be what it is. If it were otherwise, the least it could do is show it, the means to it, and the internalised results forming.


We are looking for the thing to be making itself, and we did not see it do it on some old radio equipment, and we are thinking then on the point, where are all the things that actually work and do the stuff which makes the stuff, and in what are these to be found ?

Let us be a little more thorough. We get a dead frog and wait. Perhaps life will somehow manifest some magic-seeming power and revive it. No ? It rots.

Try again, take some living substance, say a leaf. Detach it and wait. No, it merely leaves a little skeleton and some fluids which dry.

Nothing seems to work. It only does what it is. It seems to have no idea of making what it is not, or advancing itself.

Let us then think. We take a part-made life form (arriving from nowhere in particular, like World War I, although there ARE surrounds if you think). Perhaps if this is left, it will find ways of augmenting its information*1, arranging more orders in multitudes, integrating them, synthesising them with the system coherently in a conformist set of symbols and semantics, and somehow grab the idea of what it is all about and work in this milieu, like a trained engineer.


Reflections from Denton and Gould

No, nothing seems like that. It does not show itself. It is nowhere to be found. It does not operate in the laboratories, leave its attestations of fumbling about in the past.

Perhaps then we can look a little more at paleontology, and see if there are to be found many misfit things which did not make it, as  something or other somehow or other in whatever it was made its invisible presence felt, its intangible abilities apparent, and DID the things needed to advance. But we find nothing, even the simple cell being a model of proficiency and a marvel of sudden  appearance, as Denton tells us so elegantly in the work noted,  Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

Perhaps however design-types have increased over time, for some reason or other, taking their time of course to do it, since it is so hard to do. But the recently deceased Harvard Professor in this field. Stephen Jay Gould (cf. Wake Up World! Chs.4-6, esp. the last) tells us that a huge percentage of basic designs living happily (or otherwise) away in a very early period of assumed earth history, Cambrian, have simply gone. They had it then, all the lustre of a multiplicity of basic design; but we have lost it now. It has ... devolved, degraded, disappeared!

That of course is precisely what designs do when they are subjected to less than ideal conditions, so that their carefully wrought out and thought out systems are disabled, in part or in whole, and sent back to the lower levels of material things.

It is not very encouraging to the ideas that things happen all by themselves because of what they -in some way - are, assuming they somehow came to be, to find that there is depletion over time: then the theories 'explain' how the opposite of what is supposed to have happened, happened. It becomes a garish sort of unacademic nightmare of combined confusion and obfuscation.

Indeed, as Gould pointed out in his Wonderful Life (and it is), this vast assemblage of stunning design-types appear with a seeming insouciance, putting themselves into being (or shall we better say, coming into being) as far as evidence Gould considers is concerned, in massive orders of being, not only with an alarming seeming grandeur of what in anything else would be called conception, but in sub-types teeming with an idiotic-seeming multiplicity, as if they had never heard of Darwin. Prodigies of design, objectively considered in terms of schema and means to ends in integral collaction of interactive parts, appear and most of it goes. How wonderful, on such a basis, to build a theory to explain how they are always developing, arriving, being woven out of what is there!

This is in fact quite a new departure. It is one thing to do science and find interfaces for interaction in which what has what it takes for something, may be shown in favourable circumstances to do it; it is another to ignore that requirement and to imagine things which show neither power nor interface to do it, and imagine that this is how it happened (major dunce's cap for scientific method); but it is yet more atrocious when you explain by what is not to be found, what does not happen, as if it did. That is the magna cum laude of incompetence!

It is all, as Gould points out, in reverse. You are not starting with basics (a stem at the outset, with basic branching developing and showing itself as you move up its height) and moving out to the twigs of the tree of increasing diversification. Instead, in terms of what he puts before him, you are starting somewhere around the beginning,  with multiple branches near the base of the stem, a bit like sea-weed; and then most of these branches are in due time lost, leaving only a decimation of the branches.  Out of ten, say, there are as you go further from the base, perhaps two left, with little variations going along to its end-tips (Wonderful Life, p. 46). No wonder Gould is left with the concept of implementation, development and diversification of basic designs as the course of action, a sort of creation in effect with the provision for minor variation.

In view of this, the idea of a slow, self-inventing gradualism, working out new designs, is found to be  something 'literally incomprehensible' (p 260).

How, he dramatically asks in his exasperation with the conventional view of little things doing their stuff in expansive ways - ex-evidence, ex-means, ex-verification, ex-vindication, as they are - could such a view of life possibly accommodate our modern interpretation of the Burgess fauna!

This was that found in a deep pit in Canada, so named, moving down in his view, to the Cambrian era.  WHAT view of life does he have in mind, then, as 'incomprehensible', ludicrously far off from data as he finds them and understands them ? It is this. The view ostracised and rejected is the one where life is seen "as a single progressive chain, based on replacement by conquest and proceeding smoothly from the succession of organic designs through the sequence of modern technologies". He is not satisfied with this, letting it have his  very due outburst. He goes further.

"The modern themes of maximal disparity and decimation by lottery
are more than just unacceptable".

He proceeds to note at this point that they are in fact "literally incomprehensible" - which seems quite a good summary, except that man's myth-making powers are always 'having a go' as the saying has it. Alas, modern man in droves is showing what is natural to his spiritual pathology, linked to his fairy-tale propensity, to have things do impossible things, if not before breakfast, with the adventures of Alice in Wonderland, then certainly somewhere during the day.

Accounting for what does not happen, in the sense of showing itself WHATEVER you do to help it 'happen' by using your own intelligence, DOES NOT. What then DOES it do in bold systematic and observable labour, on Gould's understanding ? It is the exact opposite to founding the designs: rather it specialises  in losing them. To 'account' for the increase in the sight of the decrases is scarcely a wise move. It is not what you would call empirical science. You might call it educated buffoonery; but whatever you call it, it happens.


Magical Philosophy and Mesmerised Exponents of Science

It is not just unscientific: it is bold romance. It is not set in Sir Walter Scott's long and at times almost interminable seeming cause and consequence in rambling novels of enterprise by intelligence, but in currently observable and historically assessable situations, where to account for what is not there, magic and method are strangely interwoven (cf. Scientific Method, Satanic Method and the Model of Salvation).

It fits all too well with that form of consolidated blindness which puts on blinkers, then swivels them to the front, to block central vision, a sort of pastime, or hobby of philosophy, which many in the field of science appear to find irresistible (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!).

Thus alas for the attempt to outrun God, you really don't have it with you in these contortions and twistings, and need what actually DOES the things which now do, being made, do what they are told, and INSTITUTES the systems of laws interwoven in systems and provided with the power to make overviews of the same as in man.

Further, even these human overviews are of a disposable character, for man is not only equipped, in principle at least, with logical nous and inherited capacity to do wrong on purpose, not only for survival, but for pride or liberty from the Lord, or indeed anything else that may seem good for the moment, to initiative, or culturally simply to follow. He also has an endowment to do right, even in the face of great difficulty (as in delivering at cost, someone about to do harm to himself, which afterwards he will regret). He has further some facility for regarding the one course, or the other, analysing them and setting about finding the source of values, as of desire.

There is indeed no doubt about it: it is easy to follow culture, for it tends to reward you for your subservience, and bless you when it is not too taken up with the latest set of wars, for your support. Most do; some don't, but select from things past or present, here or there, on the basis of knowledge and understanding gained concerning what man is evidenced to be.

As to that, the nonsense that the thing which is the universe in its complicated legal diversity, has done a Topsy and 'just growed' needs replacement by the fact that it has of necessity been done by what is not the thing. The thing observable is creation in reverse, merely varying about norms.

Thus, the arrival has been wrought by what did not arrive. The book has been written by what is not the book.

What however is this, which wrote in symbols and stylised significance, which instituted commands to cells and calling to man ? As we have so often seen (in detail, for example in SMR, and confirmed in Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny,  and  Light Dwells in the Lord's Christ), it is the self-attesting expert in enterprise, power in construction, intelligence in artifice, exponent in architecture and inventor of human cognitive capacity and will, the Creator of the delimited and designated universe, who is known as God, whose word is the only testable and verified one on this earth, to ratify His name and will (cf. SMR, Reason, Revelation and the Redeemer,  The Meaning of Liberty and the Message of Remedy).


That Develops |Into Dumping of the Divine

Time does not evacuate Him, system does not contain Him who delimits it and so is its cause, rather than magic, nor does evidence fail to attest Him in His word and our history. Consistent, persistent and insistent, He moves not at all, but has given us movement of thought and of will, to deny anything we like, even ourselves if we want it. That is the spirit part of the creation called man, which no man can create, since it is not only meaningless without program, but inoperative without an option to be out of its own interstices, in the interests of supervening appearance with truth, and reaction by reality, and knowing it. We do not have spiritual robots, nor can we have. As mind surpasses program, so spirit surpasses mind, setting it tasks and rejecting its finding by mere wilfulness, if it so desires.

But there, there is the sad part. In terms increasingly of culture, many great 'Western' nations are forgetting themselves, and that is one great reason why the world is remembering such peoples more and more. The supposedly and sometimes partly Christian nations that have for quite some time given out the light of Christ through multitudes of means to this world, these now with others in company, begin to limp and doubt and wonder, as sure-footed as a dog with feet infested by thorns.

As such cultures are forming themselves into a new increasingly radical, vocal and political power for negation of deity, morals and truth, while claiming each one its own 'vision' to be true, and deeming it wrong to stop the deletion of morals while seeking in such irresponsible ways to adorn the tarmac, other powers lick their lips at such irrationalities (and bomb away as a pastime in some cases, or seek to make better explosives, or make provisions for them, just for a sunny day ...).

Many in such other nations know the signs of disintegrating empires and dis-spirited peoples. After all, the memory of morals is not the same as practising them, and the recollections of God, of His redemption in Jesus Christ, is not the same as actually having it. A nation without God is a stripling in the Arctic, far from being sufficiently warmed to make itself a good habitation!

The time has come when one nation will even tell our nation what its athletes may have as a food source while they compete, and apparently others may think this is good enough. Another will send bombers to the coasts of Britain, for a flexi-aeronautical game.

But when it is all done, if you live on the sand, there is little support (cf. Matthew 7:15ff.).


As It Sows Irrationality, So It Reaps Improvidence

To forget oneself can be a good thing, if one is serving in pain to meet someone's need. It is however less charming when one forgets WHAT ONE IS.

But let us return to our waiting game, to see what happens. Here then is our languishing piece of biological stuff of one kind or another, in which the waiting observer finds interest, to see if it can invent logical thought and disposability of will, so that it can have the interest in life, as one little lad in the USA said of having driven at some 8 years of age, his grandmother's car along the highway with smashing results - and so if desired, be able to do "bad things because they are fun!".

WILL our piece of some biological matter invent all this ? How wonderful! Let us put it in this environment and that, and see if REALLY it possesses such transcendental powers to create both mind and spirit.

But it won't do a thing. Nothing seems to work but what did it, and it is not doing it now: except of course in new births using the systems which are pre-existent to them

This has difficult results for the secular pundits and irreligious religionists. Since we are made and made responsible for being irresponsible, if we choose that path at any moment, hour, week, month, year or lifetime: then having a suppurating perspective, diseased in its very orientation, which suffuses thought and immunises will to looking at itself, meets certain requirements. The FIRST is this:  the call of Christ, to repentance.

THEN there is the call to Himself, to all who are outside Himself, a PERSON to PERSONS call; and it tends to be ignored, or not taken seriously. Thus you can find  people who bark like dogs during a religious service, and suppose that this is spiritual, or who make massed meaningless noises together, and never interpret them, and call it tongues, despite the fact this sort of action is forbidden in the Bible itself, which they often refer to in so acting (I Corinthians 12,14).

Many are those people who visit the Bible in order to depart from it, while leaving it 'there' as a reference, perhaps a fixed point in space from which to measure departure distances.

You have politicians who 'go regularly to Church', but whose beliefs seem as broad as the deserts and as well-watered as those aridities,  from the Book which they esteem but do not follow.

You have a generation in danger of demitting the detail of truth, and ignoring the reality of personality, or esteeming it void, while being anything BUT void in themselves, and making momentous decisions and permitting enormities of dereliction of duty, while attributing all this to cultural constraint, or advance or some other nonentity of ground, which might seem to serve to cover their guilt.

Then they WILL not repent. Such a thing seems to them, to be irrelevant to pleasure, unrelated to profit and unanointed for advance. They ignore moral and biblical directions in advance, whether these imply doom or delight, and so advance in a way which is just as literally incomprehensible spiritually, as Gould deemed at the physical level,  the wandering movement concept of arrival.

Just as that accounted for no fact, so this allows for none.

The mutant perspective does not change reality, except for their own destinies.

Forgetful of their source, invention, beginning and meaning, they make up meaning and dispense with reality; but reality does not dispense with itself. Put differently, God is not mocked. Interpreted, this means that you can mock God


a) by ignoring Him


b) by attempting to dispense with Him


c) by inventing other gods and becoming preoccupied with these
(after the analogy of becoming sick of tennis and taking up golf),

but that changes nothing but the nature of the result of your own wilfulness. It does not exempt it, because you become fascinated with folly, or enamoured of futility.

The same sort of thing was afoot in ancient Israel to the point that Moses delivered to the people an address from the Lord, in which just this sort of invention of gods and ignoring of the God of creation, just this sort of kicking the heels and taking no account of where that landed the head, were major features. It is good to look back when you look on, since it helps the perspective. To Deuteronomy 32, then, we turn.

Red colour will be added to alert the reader to those points more particularly related to the above points that have been made.

"For the Lord’s portion is His people;

Jacob is the place of His inheritance.


"He found him in a desert land

And in the wasteland, a howling wilderness;

He encircled him, He instructed him,

He kept him as the apple of His eye.


"As an eagle stirs up its nest,

Hovers over its young,

Spreading out its wings, taking them up,

Carrying them on its wings,

1So the Lord alone led him,

And there was no foreign god with him.


"He made him ride in the heights of the earth,

That he might eat the produce of the fields;

He made him draw honey from the rock,

And oil from the flinty rock;

Curds from the cattle, and milk of the flock,

With fat of lambs;

And rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats,

With the choicest wheat;

And you drank wine, the blood of the grapes.


"But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked;

You grew fat, you grew thick,

You are obese!

Then he forsook God who made him,

And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.


"They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods;

With abominations they provoked Him to anger.


"They sacrificed to demons, not to God,

To gods they did not know,

To new gods, new arrivals

That your fathers did not fear.


"Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,

And have forgotten the God who fathered you.

And when the Lord saw it, He spurned them,

Because of the provocation of His sons and His daughters.


And He said:


‘I will hide My face from them,

I will see what their end will be,

For they are a perverse generation,

Children in whom is no faith.

They have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God;

They have moved Me to anger by their foolish idols.

But I will provoke them to jealousy by those who are not a nation;

                                  I will move them to anger by a foolish nation.


The Old and the New:
How do You DO!

Does Australia, does the USA, does Canada, does the UK need a new vision ? Certainly each of these nations does: it is the old one. But it needs this time to be endorsed not only with pen, but with heart, not only in ceremonial form as when the Book of Wisdom, the Bible is presented in England to the new sovereign, but with actual faith. Without faith there is obviously NO relation of any worth to the one with whom you operate (cf. Hebrews 11:6). A snarling dog is a useless companion. A self-serving servant is near to a contradiction in terms. A 'Christian' who is not on speaking terms with the Sermon on the Mount, may be found mounted on some soap-box, blathering while belittling his own alleged source.

For any of these countries, there is only return to redemption, to revelation, to the Bible, to the Jesus who DID it and the nature which He has given. This however must now become a new one. It is one to be recreated (Colossians 3:10) ex-pathology through its purging, and without guilt through His pardon, in newness of life by His Spirit, and in prevailing and availing prayer, through diligence, as destiny approaches. Such is both the action and the fulfilment of need which comes, not only into this world, but for individuals.

Birth is one individuation, and new birth is another. Without the first, you are not created in order to have imagination and will and intellect and make decisions, become obfuscatory or clear, rebellious or repentant; and without the second birth, you are like a wobbly-legged new calf that forgets it has a mother.

The process there would be shorter than for most, for the destiny of the puny creature; but short or long, the principle is the same.

It is necessary to remember the God who begot you, and the Rock which HE ALONE is (Psalm 62), and stand there, not walk in the slush of muddied misunderstandings and egotistic arrogances, making up your new gods, 'new arrivals' at will, deciding what you will worship as if you were a god-creator, reversing the roles. What if a child imitates the parent ? It can happen and is exceedingly facetious in the comedy comics such as Zits, but exceedingly feckless in real life, where it becomes a study in mischief, misunderstanding, ingratitude, intoxication and ignorance.


"Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,

And have forgotten the God who fathered you.

And when the Lord saw it, He spurned them,

Because of the provocation of His sons and His daughters."


That was not only for Israel of old but is applicable to many of other races today."

Isaiah 51 gives advice.

"Listen to Me, you who follow after righteousness,

You who seek the Lord:

Look to the rock from which you were hewn,

And to the hole of the pit from which you were dug."


Talking of holes, it is good, now that Christ Jesus the Lord has come, for those of our race to look to the holes in His hands and the unholiness of making such holes, and conniving with it by ignoring Him, so that His whole operation of salvation becomes as dismissed by many, even if Gentile, as by the Jews who crucified Him. What is the difference in this: BOTH EQUALLY are dispensing with God.

But what of those who follow such culture "

You might better dispense with breathing, or with your heart; but then, in ignoring God, that in effect is precisely what you are doing, a person behaving as a particle. Such is the story for the culturally controlled person of the 21st century, who ignores the God of salvation, rejoicing not in the Cross of Christ by which the guilt of sin can be cancelled and the demise of spirit overcome, but in seeking to cross it out from company (cf. Galatians 6:14, Luke 14:27ff.).

Others, more inventive, make up their own gods, as Christ said they would (Matthew 24:24), but this is simply a more imaginative way of ignoring God, while deleting His glory in your soul.

Either way, it is a perfidious perspective which dooms.

Whatever your self-satisfaction, your success-story without God, it is like some shares, non-participating, it does not have access to change back to reality, to what God is doing. What then is the position in such downgrade dynamics ?

It is the dumping of deity, the dissociation that declines, as the sun as day draws near to night. The night ? It is indeed coming, as Christ foretold, for "the night is coming in when no man can work." Now is the time to associate with reality, repent into redemption, and find comfort in Jesus Christ. HIS is the mission that counts, and the case till He comes is without intermission. It is always there, dumping or repenting, associating or dissociating, coming ... or going.





As seen in TMR Ch.1, the detail on such experiment is of great interest and some excerpts on this point are provided below, the first from TMR


2. Dr Jerry Bergman, in his technical article, Mutations and Evolution (1995, Part 2, Creation-Ex Nihilo Technical Journal), cites Biologist L.R. Donaldson, Director of a study involving artificial selection from radiation-treated animals, after 5 years declaring:

"So far as I know we're not getting any good characteristics. You can't add when you are subtracting."

This is found in the summary from the University of Washington study, which also declares from experiment:

"Five years of tests have shown that radiation produces no abnormalities that do not occasionally show up in nature. But irradiated parents produce a much higher percentage of malformed offspring."


·  Of breeding work on forest trees given radiation treatment, Giertych is cited: "All we got were deformed freaks, absolutely useless in forestry." There was doubt if a single useful result occurred.

·  As to Drosphila, Thomas Morgan who started its study, bred about 900 consecutive generations, which Bergman notes as being the equivalent of some 25,000 years of human reproduction, but "ended with nothing more then deformed fruitflies." There is no clear advance anywhere.

·  Dr Jay L. Wile in his "Beneficial Mutations" article (op.cit. Vol.1, 1992) made massive computer simulations of chance mutation, allowing by a refinement for advantage to more sensible changes from an interpretive viewpoint. He found, as theoretically normal for information theory, that so far from advance, there was SYSTEMATIC trend to incomprehensibility as he, by random methods altered space, content, sequence, so that a simple sentence resulted in no product that made sense after 10,000 generations, even specious sense (allowable words) being destroyed syntactically for any useful function.

·  This, he noted, was "not surprising to anyone who has studied information theory ... (which) states that any highly-developed system of information will be harmed by the random mutation of any of its components." Of a 30,000 generation approach to his computer simulation result, he noted "the effect of aeons of time (30,000 human generations correspond to approximately 600,000 years ) and natural selection do nothing to damage the conclusions of the theory..."
(Cf. SMR p. 134; and parallel pp, 234-236, 252Aff.)

·  To revert: Bergman cites Rust - "Each of the newly emerged minimal functions [from mutations] must be capable of improvement by random mutations - up to the near-perfection usually found in present organisms... Not even a single "positive" or adaptive mutation, in the sense of an improved function previously unavailable, has been documented in any organism." (Italics added.)

·  He proceeds: "Takeover of functions from other organisms, by means of episomes, transduction, genetic recombination, allele assortment and the like, cannot be counted as an emergence of a new or improved function in the biosphere, nor can regaining a function lost previously, or the display, under stress, of a temporarily unused function." (Cf. SMR pp. 215,116, 121.)

·  Thus the absorption of new material into viruses from existing organisms is irrelevant to organic evolution, as is the defective arrival of genes which limit, for example, the absorption of an antibiotic, by downgrading efficiency in the organism. As Dr Wieland points out, 'superbugs' when given back the competitive situation hospitals tend to reduce by antibiotics, no longer enjoy the advantage of their deformities.

·  DNA can certainly be altered by impact, as can many designs, and this may give temporary advantage in such specialised circumstances, posing a threat to human life: but this is no case of superior function not before present, in the world of design, which is what is relevant to our discussion. Advantage in survival within such special situations may occur; arrival however of more advanced, technically more developed designs, this is another matter. It is not found. (See SMR pp. 148, 214-220; also *1 above.)



To a similar effect, from SMR p. 252Hff., is work from another source. It is cited in The gods of naturalism have no go Ch. 4.

Notable Polish geneticist, Professor Maciej Giertych, Head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kornik, Poland declares (as cited in Creation, Ex Nihilo - June-August, 1995, p. 42):

What do we see in the short time interval available to our cognition ?

An increase in the number of useful alleles or a decrease ?

An increase in the number of species or a decrease ?

An increase in information in nature or loss of it ?

Is nature moving from chaos to ever-increasing organization, or from an organized state towards ever-increasing chaos ? Evolution is not a conclusion drawn from observations.

Refer also pp. 109, 146-154, 199-200, 252A ff. supra.



Next, on the topic of computer simulation, there is an intriguing programmatic correlation to the normal intellectual confusion on the topic of 'advance'. Just as there are myriads of constraints to achieve simultaneously and correlatively and systematically, openings for new data 'arriving', to be immersed in the specialised constraints of its 'mother board', and just as information science tells us that new information is not found except by intelligence (cf. 4) below), so the computer program noted below had a pre-set goal. This is just what intelligence has, and naturalism cannot find within its model.

Incidentally, putting God somewhere else in the scene has nothing to do with organic evolution as the basis of life, and having Him act as some ghostly spectre drawing things on, or whatever you call the  'it', is merely a translation of God into something else with the same powers of origination, stimulation and creation, while ignoring the beginnings on which it - this spectre is supposed to be acting. On this see News 57, for it is another example of the same desire to forget God in life, and import Him anyway to get results. It seems parting is such sweet sorrow, except that the results are sorrowful indeed, but not so sweet.

Reality is like that.

From Earth Spasm, Conscience Chasm and the Renewal of Life, Ch. 1, we find then what adds detail to these considerations.


The concept in the fallacious computer program - for ANY program is only as good as its concepts which enslave power to implement them - is simply that there is always a constraint moving towards the better fit to the pre-announced end, in this case a simple sentence. Since nothing can come singly, and the inter-active relevance of the total design is integral, so that the parts interpret the whole and implement mutually what concerns all, there are a multitude of conceptual errors in the orientation underlying the program

·       1) There is no relevant end to which it is to go. NOTHING is fixed.

·       2) There is nothing to KNOW and select for the sake of approximating that end.

·       3) The nature of the end is not known, and on this basis, knowable by anything.

·       4) Effort to implement it is merely wishful thinking with a computer screen to exhibit it. Such effort is merely creation in arithmetical clothes, concept taken for granted.

·       5) Selection to such an end is in parallel to this, question begging dynamically expressed.

·       6) A governing selection to a known end by a discerning 'force' puts all that is absent, present, in order to get what is absent from what is present, and so makes a present of what is to be gained, in the method of gaining it!

If it had any relevance to life at all, it could only come when there is a mind operating over it all, knowing what it wants, sentenced to get the sentence held in view by the computer programmer! Even that however would be quite useless, since the totality necessary for any operation of the indescribably complex, and brilliantly erudite concerns, is not got by a sentence, whether judiciously pre-selected, and intelligently pre-opted on the way, or not. It is the entire code which is needed, first micro-biologically, then in terms of implementation, in the correlative executive powers, and then organically, in the inter-active schemas on which all ride, which in turn must be correlated with total precision with the overall schema to which all are directed. In effect, the blind watchmaker concept, is merely assuming a creator who is rather an ass, fussing around with means dim-witted and irrelevant. It does however assume a creator; just as the problem to be solved is not the actual one. Just as the solution obtained is not the ... actual one, which you and I exhibit.

It is thus irrelevant to the question at issue, and inaccurate in its depiction of it. So is any application of such principles in any field or domain in this earth where things natural operate unintelligent and uncoached! Moreover, it is inadequate in its product, which even under intelligence directed gearing, and pre-ordained computer identifications of items and possibilities, bears no remote resemblance to either the evidence of what occurred, structurally in time,  the mode of its multitudinous range of output designs, or their internally interactive, extreme functional integrity.

To the unsublime errors of being


This had already been seen in the

It is moreover

For these and other reasons, one can see why Hoyle, acutely aware and indeed exceedingly expressive of the design element, the integral and theinter-active, declared the concept of things doing it on their own, nonsense of a high order.

Similarly, we find this from Professor Emmett Williams, SMR p.  129:

Again, SMR pp. 133-4 op.cit, we discover the Parisian Mathematics Professor at the famed Wistar Conference on Mathematics and Biology, expressing his findings. He specialised on the fact that you do not engender new things by success of other things at the final end. It is the generative end which is to the point. Survival does nothing there, when you do not first assume, what you have to prove.

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.


4) From Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed ... Ch. 4 we have data on the nature of words, on information and cogitation, of great relevance to the entire schema of things involved in what we have with which to deal - the given!

 This whole Chapter has continually expanding concepts that expose these issues, and is recommended to be read in conjunction with the excerpt below, for it is one integral whole.  With it, in presentation of the actual nature of the schema involved in living things, far beyond what appears normally even to be conceived, though it is clear enough, there is a useful parallel at Glory, Vainglory and Goodness Ch. 1 as marked.

Meanwhile, the excerpt from Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed, noted above, follows.

Dr Werner Gitt from Germany's Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, has made a flat statement which for years has gone unanswered. This fact was noted in Creation, Sept.-Nov. 2001. It was made in 1997, in his work, In the beginning was information. It is this:

bullet "There is no known natural law
through which matter can give rise to information,
neither is any physical process
or material phenomenon known
that can do this."

What makes it the more interesting is the combination of his eminence in his field of information science, where he is an acknowledged leader, and the fact that this statement was presented with challenge for anyone to falsify it. The absence of answer, over the years, represents the inability to show otherwise.

Imagine the philosophical naturalist, dedicated by religious conviction, to the concept that what lacked mind, spirit and intelligence, did the thing anyway; and then, despite the logical lapse involved, the scientific method solecism in omitting the needful parameters of relevance and operational visibility or its equivalent, he meets this new contradiction like a panzer division on the march against him. Imagine his new fiasco. NO WAY can information 'arise' - that most unscientific of terms anyway - either by PHYSICAL PROCESS or MATERIAL PHENOMENON that is known.

Information in billions of units wed to integral results in the form of living creatures of almost incalculable complexity of governing code, chemistry and operation, of mathematical sophistication, must be generated from nothing, or from something which lacks the means by any construction or sight, and which in turn must be generated from nothing, or magic, according to preference. Further, information must be generated by a law or method which opposes that of science in this specialised field as does the hypothesis in each other, so that Information Science puts flowers on the grave, these too grown without information.   Information 'arises' without occurrence, functionality or propensity known to man, and the empirical fact stares down the meandering miasma of imagination without discipline.

For this magical contrivance to which so many lie vacant, like empty houses awaiting squatters: Logic dies; things 'arise', nullity is king and obfuscation is the Crown Prince.

What then ? In information science, there is this to add to the rest: NOTHING is found of this kind. Not one iota is to be discovered of design uplift, informational innovation.

This has long past the bizarre, and represents the height of obscurantism, the nadir of scientific method. and the demise of logic on a lonely hill. Information science, like every other form of disciplined science, can only say: IT IS NOT HERE, this is not where law or observation, function or facet is to be found for the task. It was only to be expected, since in every other aspect, the thing is null. Go away, we as part of natural phenomena cannot tell you where it came from; it is not with us. It thus joins the ranks which cannot conform to such myths*1A.                                    

Empirically, and in terms of scientific law alike, chance does not produce law, matter does not chatter logically cohesive symbols from their absence, contrivance does not arrive from the a-logical and what lacks grounds does not produce what requires them. The GIVEN character of matter and energy, the REDUCING character of specialised construction, the non-arrival observationally of life from non-life, even with big intelligent pushes which make it irrelevant to the issue anyway: these things sum up scientific laws; and the effort to circumvent them in this is the reverse of all scientific method.