It is not science which is sick  but
the misuse of its name

How creation meets scientific criteria which atheism cannot and does not

When the Challenger spaceship zoomed off in the USA, some years ago, there was something omitted. What was that ? Serviceable O-rings. This evidently doomed the space-ship. Systems require parts and adequate supply of them at the appropriate level.

When the theorists of atheism, materialism and such like take off in their efforts theoretically to account for the universe, they have omitted not one item, but 15. The results are not only doomed to irrelevance; but given 15 of them, found even in this approach to the topic on first survey, they exist in the domain of the absurd.

The first item ? For this type of model, first lacking in power to make it work,  is what might be called "extancy", that is any being of any kind at all. It has to be extant and not just imagined later by dreamers. You could call it ontological existence. The idea is that this denotes something that is actually there at all, as distinct from nothing. There has to be a there... and an occupant of it.

The second such item  is time, through which it can continue or be present as distinct from no time, so allowing no existence.

The third is space, in which it has room to exist, as distinct from surviving only in imagination.

The fourth is entrepreneurship, by means of which facility, all the various parts and contrivances, apportionments and timings, commands and receptors can be engaged in functional format with due supply and placement.

The fifth is product supply, in terms of which all the needed ingredients for organisation and command and all the receptors for interpretation of command in the same language as that in which they are uttered,  may be induced to work.

The sixth is logic, by which facility both the capacity to be commanded and to receive the commands as presented, and execute them, is denoted. There is a necessary concept creation, a linguistic co-ordination constraint, a combination of function and feature
with both of these in a linguistic-engineering feat and a reliable articulation-activation  sequence.                                           

The seventh is mathematics, through the intense and specialised numerical logic of which both timing and disposition, in unison or differential time and space, for relevant periods and angles and so on in the DNA, are served.

The eighth is the concept of language itself, in terms of which in extreme fidelity and staggering efficiency and proficiency the DNA works. Working models of code-command sequence require the very idea of making symbols signify ANYTHING, and keeping it consistently so; they also require it to be in co-ordinated operaton. You don't have things in co-ordination running in terms of what is not even expressible in connotation, and for such expression, you need what is connoted operating in impelling format. Ultimately, there has to be some kind of communication re symbol A and signification A1. There being no dictionary, it has to be by assignment, implying both the concept and the constraints of language. This is a mental matter so that without mind you are without life, and the one has to precede the other, so that its derivative (i.e. life) can function at all.

The ninth is not only the receptivity of that which receives the commands of the DNA or associated linguistic modes used (without which commands would be a silly noise), but the activation of the same, so that it is not only taken in as work to be done, but the relevant parts are flexed into action, and do it right. WORK has to be done as directed with whatever symphonies of synergies and synthetics. There is no operative room for what is slack, slovenly or merely episodic. Stability, strategy and disciplined strength are needed as in all complex programming.

The tenth is the conserved state of the components, such as the cell membrane which we are advised needs to be present in a tiny segment of time, and  in working order, or the imagined, gathering assemblage of bits will perish.

The eleventh  is the systematics of geometry, in terms of which diverse spatial orientation of DNA components can be achieved, ones which affect meaning, hence construction and hence functionality.

The twelfth is self-editing capacity concerning new DNA which enables the production to proceed, without which we find, errors would have choked proceedings. This is greatly demanding in terms of understanding of purpose, in order to conform to it and confirm it. It requires enormous intelligence to discern, determine alterations like a teacher's red marks on an essay, to avoid new errors in doing so, and so to recognise which is right and what is not, in what way  and in what place, or time, or segment of time.

The thirteenth is the concept of command itself; for anomalous activators are not fixed as to function, and without facilitation by this means, fail in short order . Thus the intent to order is recognised, for without this, the orders are just a noise. It is not suggestion or passing signal, but sustained and authoritative certainty which in practice is and has to be emitted, giving neither choice nor option, leeway nor headway, and avoiding variability in casual fluctuation. It requires, stabilising  oversight, such as DNA has, whether of one aspect of inherent adaptability or another, not inherent fluctuation, dissociation and deformation.

There is of course as both Dr French and Dr Sanford*1 indicate, operational defect through wear over time. There is no exception here to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Not evolution but degeneracy develops as in humans, over time, with constant usage. In this case the loss of precision by endless copying to repair, renew, rework the data over many generations, is not a design fault, but an overall decline. It is so considerable that not up but down in quality and precision, is the result as in any copying. As multi-tasking orders begin to fail, so does the order of the whole, this impending failure in due course accelerated by a growing slippage into error, despite self-editing help. This too, in turn, itself is duly programmed and organised ... and deteriorates over time. Even with such items at its creation, however, it is not in itself granted eternal motion, but arrested termination, so that it may continue for its time .

The fourteenth is the systematic inter-relationship between highly specialised parts of the whole being created in each new generation, through child-birth. Here the creation is rehearsed, made contemporary, exposed to view, made into an observable datum, and that not only to be see in terms of operative data, but in that in advanced programmatic format. Thus, once the billions of cells for example in the brain are successfully inter-related in trillions of connections, the entire organ is oriented to deal as it does with multitudes of applications at the right time, place and for the right period as in the right language, with its own specialised forms, formats and features, all conserved. Indeed, to be noted here is this. Just as nothing is no possible beginning for anything (nothing is what isn't there, when there isn't there either), so nothing in the way of means of production along the way, at any point, time or position, is no source for any improvement.

The absolute lack of means of production of the most complex and brilliant scenarios in programming even seen on earth, in terms of the evolutionary myth, attests its underlying annihilation as an even relevant theory, far less base for scientific method; for those who elect to use it, survey what HAPPENS, not what might be imagined.

The last to be noted here, the fifteenth, is the point of it all, for the staggeringly bountifully endowed human  being is not only an audio-visual, ambulatory, cognitive, imaginative, elective, tactile, investigative, purposeful, coherent, recognisable whole, but one with ontological, theological, disputative, methodical abilities, and one in which these are bound, bonded into just one multi-functional site, and this with power not only to interpret the language of law in the universe, which as in physics, chemistry and astronomy for example governs its procedures but to express it in the coping constructions of mathematics - as in one case, with E = MC2 (energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light).

It has more than this. It also has power to use its own inherent logical ability to match and discern, even declare many of these laws (as in the Conservation of Matter and Energy, the Second Law of Thermo-dynamics and the Law of Biogenesis, not to mention each in its place, those shown by Newton and Einstein, in various forms of being and action, and multitudes of other ones discernible in different disciplines). The two languages, external for the universe, and internal for the mind, these also are systematically similar. Their symbol-signification sequences fit. One reservoir supplies both. One series of choices enables both.

Such multitudinous and multi-variant myriads of integrated components, aroused by programmatic and miniaturised brilliance of execution in DNA for example, is not accounted for in any rational way by trillions of successful, systematic, synergised accidents. This is so, even without multiple dependence of parts, one on the other, one system on the other, one supervening system over another, one coherent and masterful result attending the rational density of the performance. It is called humanity.

Those are just fifteen omissions in the currently smashingly intoned blast of unscientific approach to those areas of science which could relate, and appear  because constituting a gross deficiency, an absence, an omission, thus as illicit ground in the whole atheistic, evolutionary hypothesis; and it applies whether in greater modes or smaller, for it is not size but quality which counts. .

Every time as noted in Bulletin 158, something resulting from ANY such hypothesis, on investigation cannot match it, in any attesting area for investigation fails, being duly tested and refined, this spells the end of the hypothesis scientifically. That is PRECISELY why science has a good name. But here myriads of faults are ignored, whether in the concepts of tiny increments at this level coming from no productive source, amidst this galaxy of order and method, or the ignoring of various attributes required.

As in any experiment, there are times when you have to wait. You have in terms of scientific method, to WAIT till an hypothesis, fully tested, does not have any feature which fails upon investigation, and to do so if possible and if necessary, for ever. That is if it does not provide this, it has no standing. That is the price of realism and reality. They are not to be tossed around by desire, any more than are the ingredients for a house, prepared by fire. That is, you do not have liberty just to ignore failure and call it science. That becomes deception.

Thus in this atheist model, there is nothing there to start, for the only alternative is the God who is always there, so that not only is there ever-ready at will a source for being at all, but one which never being absent, never leaves - when nothing would be all, necessitating then that nothing would ever happen. Nothing has no potential (if it did, it would be  SOMETHING with potential). It sometimes seems to be forgotten that the business here is to ACCOUNT for what is here, not to discount it, to explain, not to jumble words without referents.

There on that atheistic model, the Darwinian loss mode,  no source for labour, productive labour for the adaptation of various relatively simple items into formats they are NEVER shown to be able from their own mere selves to achieve. To turn them from what they are with their limited capacities into what they need to be for effective action, needs labour.  This is so to deal with it that  what it is shown incapable of doing itself, is nevertheless caused to happen.

It does not matter what ideas you may have, whether good, bad or indifferent: unless you have the adequate knowledge and sophistication in your source, it will not happen. From nowhere, it cannot come. Nothing has neither any being nor any power, so it is a useless pretence to talk about it in this setting. That model fails, falls and is a flat contradiction of observation. Self-generation from what isn't there is not only antilogical, absurd and devious dealing with words, with awareness or not, but close to comic: what is never found to happen or have means to do so, is chosen as  the source. Nature makes nature before it is there to do it.

In sum, we add this to the fact that  nothing has no potential. Both of these qualities rule out such models as these. If it HAD any potential, it would not be nothing, and if it does have the potential, then such models are simply begging the question, a logical fallacy and an engineering void. What you have to have are both labour and potential. Before that, as noted, you need being, and then a building material such as matter, for the physical side of things. This matter,  for example, though relatively simple, compared to life, is like another universe. Even this, however, has its laws and relativities of action, particles, procedures, fragments and multiple functions. Its legislated,legalised form of being makes order and potential critical, indeed crucial attributes at this stage in itself, before we look at what makes man the enormous specialty product which he is.

Time cannot invent what lacks potential, being, law and language, in order to invent the most sophisticated examples of the same. In scientific method stringently applied. Nor can self-contradiction do it, nor obfuscation with technically high-sounding language.  Instead, you look for what may be near, can be observed, declares itself, and thence to the need you find for an explanation, not at what is not only totally lacking in providing this, but in any logical relevance as well...

You can have neither a space ship, nor a space trip, nor space, nor matter, nor time, nor logic, nor mathematics founded on nothing, or on swelling words*2 which omit a rational cause but simply imagine various things setting themselves up in order to develop the acme of ability. In the end, that becomes deception, whether self-deception or more broadly. It is using the name of science, for what may justly be used of what is found in one way, instead for what is not found there at all, but merely imagined into being.

Parallel with this point, scientific method is a way of studying what is there, has happened, is a type of event (repetitive, normally), and then seeking to explain it, why it has come to pass in terms of some hypothesis, which will have results, if correct, in terms of verification, confirmation by results of the hypothesis. When applied, this will be found matching what is there, what is extant in the universe.

Darwin's hypothesis is not of this kind nor is the evolutionary surmise. It does not start with what is there, but what is imagined. Variation about a norm is there, as you can see at a glance by examining the shapes of current human skulls. Such variation is a matter of observation. Variation with new genetic information has never once been seen coming into being. There are magnificent ways in miniature coded instructions to allow variation about a norm, to be sure. Yet you do not find reported an observation of DNA  being newly written. It is not a current phenomenon. It is not something to explain any more than was development of one kind from another, only variation about a norm, inbuilt, being found as inherent.

It is however a fact of observation that although the institution of life and kinds with their limited adaptability was in the past and thus might appear not of a basically repetitive kind now, yet is graphically relevant to scientific method. In other words, though the generation of the genome for the body of man, for instance, in its initial writing was finished long ago, it is STILL a current operational one.

The baby! It is built by co-ordinating programs, successive synthesising segments, decisive commands, even to the point of having a change in its oxygen supply from mother's blood to suddenly used internal lungs at once made operational at birth.  For each generation this is a present phenomenon, a new copy made and implemented, with deteriorative mutations to be sure, but still a copy. Though imperfect in part, to be sure, it is still an operative copy. It is not only, in effect (though the actual method is itself wonderful) freshly printed for each new baby, but it also operates, thus being a current dynamic, as investigable in its repetitive character as any other such object, by science.

In the case, for example, of atheism, the case is neither repetitive nor observable. is not repetitive, a spectacle to investigate;  but it is always developmental, different, unassignable, products on that hypothesis, moving here, moving there, always unpredictable, unconstrained.

Hence in reality, it is the biblical depiction in its precision which meets the criteria of scientific method. If you want, for comparison, to call it an hypothesis, then it is as a current phenomenon in such basic phases, a straightforward matter for verification and confirmation, and one which as shown in this department of our published work quite often (see NOGO), is utterly satisfied.

Thus there has been a complete reversal, in all these ways, of approach to creation, which is a scientific matter with repetitive crux, while what does not have such features in this field, does not enjoy such a position except in the minds of the philosophically deceived, with what is very much a current cultural fixation on irrelevant, domineering and unsupported fantasy. It is not only the kind-variability within margins, point, which is to be seen, but the creation by word as in Genesis, now readable in DNA words, and the stopped creation, just as it is affirmed to have started (it cannot, as now, lose available energy for ever) AND stopped.

It certainly started (or else it would not be there), and finished (or else it would attest itself in new DNA being written now), and for that matter, it was not a subject of invention over large amounts of time, with fiddling, multiply abortive failures on the way, all left for our inspection. They are not there; these are not to be found! Such a model is falsified at every turn, just as it is destroyed at the outset, That is not its mode, as a matter of results in investigation. Think of the all but unimaginable number of failed moves before anything would, even on that basis, succeed in becoming viable in kind. Think of the far greater masses of abortive failures than actual working creatures! They are not found, there is nothing slightly resembling it discovered; it is as far from fact as the sun from the earth.

Such deposits of flummoxed journeys into hi-tech marvels such as we DO have (and require explanation as normal with scientific method) ought to abound beyond measure, far above what got here at last according to the inventive world of Darwin, but  they do not have record of appearing.

In evolution, we have thus as to method, what is wholly alien to scientific method, while in creation we have what relates precisely to it. In evolution you cannot have scientific confirmation of its  method, since it is not an observable, repetitious thing, but in creation you find all but innumerable confirmations and applications on all sides, as has been shown in the works of the set of which this is part: Naturalism has no go. Biblical creationism is scientifically viable (and victorious in terms of competition); evolutionism is not so. Both being and life, both matter and its  multiple robes of time, space, law and control, all refuse institution from what lacks even existence.

The facts are unamenable to the just-so stories of evolutionism, do not conform to this as base, where they are told, instead of hypotheses as explanation of what is observed. They are continually side-stepped in an educational system in many lands, which misuses them, mischaracterise and focusses on fiction. Thus this plague of evasion is dead to the actual world,  dealing with an idea, not an observation, starting with a thought, not a datum, pre -occupied with what is irrelevant.

This is a philosophical virus far more deadly than any other, for it tends to corrupt relationship with the one who is the base, the Creator. That tends to disrupt approach to His account of our plight, and deter from His salvation. If His wisdom were not so great, it would be an even more serious invasion, this time of the mind and spirit; but He has overcome many ruptures, and despised many confrontations (cf. Psalm 2). This however does not lessen the error of current preoccupations in education in this field.

Now we have moves towards a more completely atheistic model at the political level, at the level of gender, gender change, prison and fortunes if you vary or insist on speaking truth where the logic lives, the reailty lies and the remedy as for thousands of years, lies. It is very like having only one virus vaccine that works, and both refusing it and imprisoning those who accept.




See especially Bulletins 39, 111 and 121 on the up-to-date, down-to-earth, intensively researched contributions  from Dr Nathaniel Jeanson with Ph.D. in the field from Harvard University (in his new work, Replacing Darwin), and Dr J.C. Sanford, Emeritus Professor from Cornell University (Genomic Entropy).


The Bible in this as in vast areas of prediction, foretells this situation as specifically blatant as the Age ends. Thbus, in II Peter 2:18, we find this: "For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh..." It is SO nice to lay aside law and purpose, and do whatever you like, as if discipline were a mere social medium, not an ultimate requirement; so that many are allured into a false sense of inordinate power. I know no better description of the inherent errors of these philosophies of joint negation and imagination, that this, "great swelling words of vanity." Many have long sight which is wrong sight. God is not one of them. His long sight is spectacularly accurate as the case of Daniel in another field, so well illustrates.