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






COMPLEXITY IS NOT CREATION (psychologically or naturally) and





Reasoned discussion from truth seekers is welcome

Email: team@webwitness.org.au

For the 21 Chapter work on




Dr Werner Gitt in his various challenges and presentations has included a book, Without Excuse, 2011, which proceeds with definitional matters and observational ones and finds no link between information and material things without intelligence as a source. Chapters 7-8 sum up much of the results of the strict procedures used on the normal basis of scientific method. Information is not to be found without intelligence. He has long challenged on this topic, from his directoral position in a research institute in Berlin. This  topic has also been covered from various aspects on this site as shown in the relevant Index. Dr. Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), 

In a response to a CMI article, http://creation.com/csi-evolution, we find a challenge, that is itself based on irrelevance*1. This approach is not unpopular, and this type of thing is here given some  attention. The point of the CMI article appeared to be that exceeding care needed to be used in generating ideas in this field, and prudence would put a stopper on unsubstantiated claims.

The questioner dismissed such caution about claims as unnecessary in this case, indeed irrelevant, having the view that evolution has been observed, for which however no observation-post was provided. What is needed to be relevant is not variability but command-structure that moves to an effective increment in upward moving design, and this BEING made, not talked about. Observation is not fixity of thought, but perception of the thing in view, and under discussion. Of that, there is nothing; nor could there be; but if it is to be, let it be seen, not just be  party to a change in the definition of observation.

Adaptive powers, and the linguistic grounds for them, as being found in the exquisitely fashioned information parameters inserted in living things, are of course well-known, and often found. Stimulus through error or environmental stimulus can move to varieties, within kinds, which latter themselves are of considerable dimension. The information displays flexibility parameters for endurance; but nothing is ever seen of information ADDING upward sequence in design signification. Such variety is NEVER seen to be of a upwardly transformative character, as distinct from a variety index within kind, sometimes useful because of lack or damage, in a specialised environment. Nor is it seen being scripted, giving new meaning relative to the upward issue in question.

The combination of damage to genes and an inherent measure of adaptability, makes for specialised advantage in a special case. This is not mirrored, as with some bacteria, apart from the special circumstances. This in the  case of damaged bacteria, helped in the artificial placement, but not outside it.

Out of the hospital setting, one inhospitable to the intact bacteria before it is damaged, the defective bacteria lapse. Inside it, they may continue and be helped by their deficiency.

In this, it is rather like having only one leg, when there is standing room for only one leg. It is no real advantage, far less design increment, to have only one; but it helps in odd places, not for advance, but simply for continuance. The point remains, upgrading of design relevant to the point at issue: organic evolution from one level of design to another. Command language is not found newly instructing in new deposits to new heights of design, new information bundles to that effect. The dreary round of everything the same in its functional parameters, no new designs 'arising', no new scripts being found to the point, variabilities from various causes continuing their chores, with no known case of generic uplift, continues as a testimony of the dead to the living. That is, an attestation of what is not being created anew, or showing the slightest resemblance to it, to what was the case when the whole array of interactive linguistic machinery was invented, with its superlative results on display; and then on more.

The things in view do not go up in design intricacy, but continue on the settled base, whether damaged, or stimulated into permissible responses in the drafting given. For evolution in the sense of information creation, they have no place which of upward gradient; just diverse areas in a department level. Life is exceedingly subtle, and that is one reason why it continues. Its programs are precise; its reciprocities and adjustment provisions are numerous; its kind rather than continuity condition is microbiologically conspicuous.

This minor sort of adjustment has long been seen as not relevant to the construct upward notion, the concept or condition from nothing to something great kind of process (whether it be put directly in that form, or only inferentially). It is not of that kind, and illustrates nothing of that kind, far less makes it observable. That is simply a misnomer.

Irrelevant contentions do not show the origin of inventions, or the creation of designating script, in this kind of horizontal aside. Later, reference will be made to aspects and assertions in this field.

The questioner may perhaps have read Gitt's book, his definition of information, his findings concerning its nature, refuted it, advised Dr  Gitt of his discovery and the mode of rebuttal in logical and not merely suggestive terms, and achieved world-class distinction in so doing. It is just that one has not heard of it. Nor has one ever seen any refutation of the analysis of the nature of information as an intelligence product provided on this site in many places.

Computer programs are mentioned.  This may be intelligently (more or less) constructed to show this and that whether in weather (and its portents),  or creation or other arenas containing matters of past assessment involving present thought, and future prognostications based on the same; and in this, there are matters of interest involved. Slants by the sophisticated, desire above data, interpretation above grounds for it have all been a matter of to and fro contention among the cognoscenti in this ... science of meteorology where vital interests are involved. Playing the expert is a popular occupation, but playing with expertise now seems to be coming into its own. There is a notable parallel in the information realm. Some examples in this present field  are mentioned below.

Thus in such cases, getting things without any base, or just having some base by special pleading are rather notorious for their ineptitude, such as the program pressing on as if inadvertently, always for the best or most pleasant result or the one best adapted to something assumed to be necessary (but for what ?), for those wanted something for nothing (or here everything for nothing). Such a directed program just selects by assumption, proving that if you assume a directive selectivity, you will get one, which is not very instructive, except on the mislaying of relevance, and the specialisation used in begging the question. The refutation of such things is routine as these claims come and go.

Some of the characteristic faults found in using intelligence and various assumptions, to form a model that is itself evolutionary in character, since this is supposed to be the nature of the real world, though it is never really seen happening, may be found at


with some useful and earlier attestation available at


One mentioned in the reply to the facebook posting, is at


The point as in general, includes the position that the computer obeying the instructions may have some point; but the real world conditions are not covered accurately in the directions it has to follow. The machinations of presuppositions to match desire or preferred orientation have always the potential to represent in terms irresistible to the computer, what is not there, so that it simply may find what such a vision would do, if it were there, when it is translated, like the DNA, into symbols. Again, in terms of the concept of greater complexity = greater information, or greater length, or greater compressibility, per se, or greater this or that in a plethora of inventivenesss about information, see later; but note, as has been stated, Any valid measure of information in a system where the information has meaning must include meaningfulness. Compressibility doesn't.

When the meaning is man it is a very considerable meaning. It needs to be shown how advances in meaning ministered to man, in information that meant what would become this thing. That is the minimum procedural resultant. What is meaningless to the point at issue obviously does not help it.

 Meaningfulness is the operational necessity and information that is not irrelevant and wasteful, potentially hazardous clutter, has to have this, large or small. Size and compressibility are variables; meaning is essential. Errors are not relevant to construction, except as negatives, and similarly, mere chatter not to the point is not the issue. It tends to clog the efficiency, as well as spatter the  sequence.

That is always a point of value: what is the objective of an exercise ? Is it to show how much error, or irrelevance, or data you can confer (like a comic in a maths exam), or how much effectual data, what is the comparative or expected position when material is thrown  at a possible result, whether or not that is expected to happen  at  all, or more or less quickly! A million oddments may do nothing, since life is not only data, but construction, not only availability but actualisability.

Further discussion on these computerised generations of the parameters, assumptions and results of imaginary programs, made to order, from the state of mind of the orderer, appear at


They certainly make a lot out of nothing and can start with much more than nothing with nothing to show for it, or any admission to make of it, provided a confounding of method and rationale at the outset. Such is simply irrational, substituting imagination for action. For the anti-causal concept of nothing to start, they have nothing to verify; for merely saying, I  do not know, they have nothing to offer to  validate even the underlying nature of their hypothesis, if this it can be called.

The concept is irrational as so often shown, if it be nothing; and as it MUST be something, and something adequate at that, the failure to identify or even admit that something is ruinous to any valid rationale; and without one, there is nothing for reason, that it might build, but just the blank-faced  parallel to a flummoxed youngster facing things too big for his mind. Since it must be something, it must also be always there; for if nothing were the total, then if the something were not always there, it could not ever be there, having nowhere rationally from which to spring. Hence there is an  eternal  and adequate something. Ignoring this is not an option, but a cohesive irrationality at the outset in the presuppositions of the method, rather like ignoring atoms in accounting for matter.

The ignoring of its presence,  in biological aspects of the hypothesis, which must cover all  relevant components of the entire hypothetical structure in view, or be dismissed for its incompetence in  major assumptions, is fatal to any theory of life; and this is perfectly parallel to the empirical ignoring in theories of life, of negative findings as in SMR pp. 140ff. and TMR Ch. 1, and The gods of naturalism have no go!, for relevant expectations. This is contrasted with uniquely and positively harmonious and adequate empirical findings on the basis of the Eternal Adequate Entity (EAE).  His logical necessity is paralleled by His empirical requirement

In the lack of any empirical verification, and much anti-verification, efforts are sometimes made to make on  computers, imaginary 'natures' which respond to  canny programs, which may even select "what is best" with a virtual creator at work to find what fits the theory's requirements; but the making of a computer program to invest progressive concepts is far from the theory about nature's entire twittiness, as if it were worse than a moron, having NO intelligence, far less any directive or directing intelligence. Neither matter nor laws nor the the intelligence that formulates them nor the industry which applies them, nor the matrix maker which invests them, nor the imagination which provides operational situations for their correlative operation, are THERE. They need a source for their construction, able to do this.

Working programs without any of this, and making an 'arising' of all of it is thus a mere exercise in futility and  self-contradiction.

Indeed, it readily becomes a virtual exercise in proving the point, the existence, but not the manner of the opposite, that is, of initial intelligence (cf. Department of Bible ... Vol. 2,  Ch. 8, Appendix, and Vol. 3, Ch.  5). It is inserted in such a case, surreptitiously. That is one reason why this whole failed approach is scripturally aptly allied to the concept of "the lie,"  (I John 2:21-22, Romans 1:25). It does not happen that way; and of course, Professor Stephen Jay Gould pointed out for the current canons of geology, that the sea of designs available in the Cambrian was far MORE than in the present (cf. Wake Up World! ... Ch. 6).

See also Dr. J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, p. 10 etc., and Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, pp. 156ff.. Pre-selected modes of progress are of course intelligent in deposition. Matter is not. Drum on it, strum on it, push it and manipulate it, it is most recessive when its examined confines are treated as if gifted with imaginary additives (cf. Delusive Drift ... Ch. 4, TMR Ch. 1, Crux and *2, Department of Bible Vol. 2, Ch. 8). It is always necessary to show what it does categorically and empirically, and to use this knowledge in any theorising about what it is intrinsically capable of doing (cf. SMR pp. 79ff. ).

But where is life going ? and what is the actual defilade, up with new types of design, in Gould's terms, or exceedingly down, as in his appraisal, leaving but a fraction of the original with us. To this we will return in its place. It is always best to consider the facts. Business will sometimes put a profitable face on a blunder; but the residual finances are what tells. Moreover the method of working, that is instructive. Will a moron lecture a genius on his own works ? or will the works speak for themselves.

The work of genius is told by the state of the products, and when these have burst onto the scene in totally organised splendour of apparent concept illustrated in integral resultant, in their plenitude of mutuality, sensitivity and multiple modes of co-ordinated construction, leaving such a residue, but not another, then to find a parallel is as easy as finding an apple in a desert.

Cause and effect have not ceased, and capacity does not cease to relate to consequence. When the very basic language of life bears the signature of unique magnificence of compression and multiplicity of sensitive arrangements with an integral outcome, we have what has elements of a signature; and this testimony only increases in the uniformity of method shown, and the cognitive cover of many requirements looking ahead, and provided as needed, in terms of the life-cycle of a given life form. Contrary claims may become a matter of contention; consequences are more readily viewable. Clamour about what is actually happening may be boisterous; observation of its unique formulation and correlation in relevant examinable happenings, is not so hard, since outcomes are to be tested against the character of former outcomes, their mode of multi-partite connection without the testimony of vast numbers of endless and ludicrous blunders over the years of failure, making working models like pearls in the desert.

These points are very much in line with the testimony of Professor W. R. Thompson, former Director of a Commonwealth body in this field, in Ottawa. Nor are they far distant from the exasperated cry of Professor Løvtrup (cf. SMR pp 252Aff.), in his long professorial experience, and notice of the selectivity of research funds, that

"neither in Nature nor under experimental conditions have any substantial effects
ever been obtained through systematic accumulation of micromutations."

Not only is regress dressed as progress, as Gould so vehemently indicated, but progress is dressed as the gradual performance of a vast task through the contributions of a less than brute intelligence. In the abundance of words, the lack of evidence of actual attainment of relevant, specifiable results does not seem to count.




Leaving aside all the special pleading, result-governing intrusions of intelligence into these effete and unrealistic programs, virtual display units, in type, of an artfully induced deterministic philosophy, made of the mind of its maker, rather than from the Mind of one competent to make the time and the space and the laws and the multi-level informatics and their source displays before they are made on computers: there are certain basic, underlying logical facts. Information may be defined as you will, for example as a weasel or copy-cat; but for the kind in question, that is, the kind on display in the DNA, in man for example, with all its accoutrements and levels of mutual co-operation in kind, you need several elements. Since this is what has to be accounted for, it is good to concentrate, to focus on it.

First, you need it to work. That is what, without intelligence, you never get to observe (if you could, it would be necessary to demonstrate it so).

THAT type of thing never comes fresh and new from the bosom of what is not there. It came from what was adequate for it, and that is why it is there; it stays put now that it has come,  because the specifications were adequate for that, and they are still readable in place, just as Genesis indicated their  initial outpou, a matter of programmatic words.

These things are thus verified, and the contrary is anti-verified, because of the mode of information specification and command given. Biological commands do not arise; they impact on the non-vital with the effect of law, but with the means of script. Once given, continuing with the case of man, they are now decreasing in accuracy, as Dr J. C. Sanford*1A of Cornell is currently insisting, Indeed, he has assessed it as a grave and practical matter for humanity. upgraded instructions are  not creating a bod for superman. The reverse is the case, with the results already seen.

The genome is slowly wearing out. That is not quite the same as advancing, as some may happen to notice. Net gain is needed, integral, systematic, coherent gain, expressible in the mode, in language. It is not spoken now, that type of constructive, directive, multiply concordant language; so the systematic gain is not found to exhibit itself, either in new designs or in systematic advances on the old ones. The genome does not dither. It goes down in operative efficiency,  the drag and not the dynamic having the mastery.

Is it so hard to face facts! THAT is the direction of flow.  LESS major designs, most gone, is the attestation from Harvard as to the facts - MUCH less.

With what are we evidentially left ? A singularity of language, a multiplicity of systems, a multi-task functionality of some elements, dependent on numerous features inbuilt (cf. Dr Paul Brand's In His Image, p. 230 amid the data of Chs. 16-17). Thus some chemicals may pass a pivotal point for potential construction, without effect (in the 'order' department), but when circumstances change, they are suddenly activistic, as sensitive inter-messaging requisitions come into play. Many and intimate are the co-ordinate capacities.

It  may be compared to seeing closer and closer to a tennis racquet or a face. After a time, the bits are less significant in meaning, because they are constructed AS a totality, and undue emphasis on parts MASKS that reality, that unity, that purpose and that plan, that utility and that place in life, or in design specialty. You have to be willing to be led by the data, not to lead it on a basis which merely skirts the entire data bank, and leaves theory in place of the empirical and its total attestation.

It was this hierarchical, on the one hand, and inter-functional on the other, set of unified systems which work together, as one whole; so that what has no slightest relationship to a locality as such, such as the preparation for the future in the baby in the womb, by having the breathing apparatus it will not use for weeks set up and ready to go on instant demand, the instant itself being a matter of life and death, when birth occurs. So first built it up with negative competitive value, and then use the magical provision. There is that kind of magic in all these naturalistic miracles which denies their methods, not only in having removal the source of construction of systematic genius, but have pre-construction the coded prelude to operations not needing it to exist, and having it as irrelevant to the situational dynamic involved.

Returning to the factual, however, it is all mutual and so functions*1B; what ignores that has ceased to function as a theory to explain, just as in parallel, what ignores the production of something, logic, system, DNA as a language, and all the towering attributes in their services to one another, likewise does.

These preludes, principles, pre-conditions, stratification works in space and time and language and system in all the aspects of universal coding, law and life explosions, came without ground on this naturalistic model, ceased without reason, and other things are thrown in, such as a Bang without basis (cf. *5C). and a contradiction of its parameters without answer.

What caused the beginning before the elemental sections, and their beginnings, and after the systematics of prelude, dense with  laws, on this basis had neither source nor reason, but imported reason from nowhere; and then it ceased,  and the work that produced it the way it is, is still ceased. This ludicrous menage of somethings of exquisite type derived from nothings, moving mystically or irrationally into place, and then ceasing, is of course what, with stated and multiply defined conditions and modes, God depicted.

The Bible stated precisely this WITH rationale, however, in the name of God as Creator; and it is depicted as being caused to happen with that degree of simultaneity for a given system-within systems paraphernalia, which made it functional, being a product of the One eternally sufficient; and it stopped because of the desire of the same, in a way normal in creativity as we ourselves find it. There is nothing more shown, these thousands of years, of that type. A designed type of thing is running down; the relevant law is as known, Second of Thermodynamics, and it is not visibly transgressed (or it would not be a law) and  the totality is as given, according to the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. There is nothing new showing itself in this vast sphere of grand events; just its decline in available energy, another law,  and effectual direction is becoming evidenced.

If anyone is sufficiently fascinated with the idea of making bits in the first place, from nothing and excluding for no reason something actively competent for the job,  then you have nothing to contribute, only violation of causation as a principle (cf. Causes, Predestination and Freewill, Section 4, Delusive Drift ... Ch. 3). Look and let us see it happen, or desist. It is as simple as that. All principles and laws are against such irruption from the irrational, and irruption of the rational from nowhere; and it is merely mystical surrealism without basis or ground for pleading. Nothing supports it in practice; and the denial is of the dying, as it goes, as Professor J.C. Sanford notes in the research done.

The origination involved what would produce and display phenomena such as form-moulding, content-displaying, interactively- operative pieces of law-girt entities, in unified formats, integrative systems, integral living creatures, in an overall, individual-making structured totality, that in life reproduces itself,  a nice addition - indeed, provision, since to lose it all after one generation would be hard on labour. But it is all covered with the habiliments of purpose, and the rationalities of coherent. thought. This is the domain of this type of imagination-construction-coherence-consequence by embracive means, commandeering matter to the conduct of mind.

You can choose the non-rational source using assumptions without warrant, data without presence, just in the mind; but there are further irrationalities to come. The systems mind themselves sensationally, yet are supposed to come from no mind, and mind itself, like the rest, unwarrantably arises.

That is the way of unreason, and it could work if you denied the relevance of reason; but then you would be faced with the irrelevance of any argumentation you wish to make; unless indulging in self-contradiction once more. Such is the plight of naturalism.

One way to handle it is to engage in surreptitious creationism, and bring from a source involving a Creator, all that you need, as you partly grab it from (what is supposed not to be there) this hidden and brilliantly competent source, and partly instal other bits and pieces as needed.

What is it like ? It is like a lecturer who being a bit of a muddler in the lab, has an assistant bring every piece of needed equipment for him to show that you don't really need equipment, since this is just the Science Department matters, for illustrative purpose. Thus the naturalistic either intrudes creation in this way, though without acknowledgement, or deludes himself (or herself),  in a fog of unreason, untested, unproductive, unsupported, what is needed being just available. Yet it has to be there, from the first, what is needed to get what you have, and eternally since ever being with nothing only, means always so, potential being not nothing. And nothing itself, it is so  unsupportive! not much good for anything, really.



Thus  when the creation assumption is initially shanghaied into the anti-creation model, addressing a world with NOTHING to offer, and NOTHING in it, with such a wonderful gift, then of course you have first to produce (from nothing) all the implied aspects or just be thankful for the grab. Grabbing however does not remove creation, nor annul logic; it only acknowledges it (in fact), though it be clandestine (in method). This, then,  in itself is a profound work of creation, before going further. The options become in fact: crypto-creationism or creationism. This may be acknowledged; or not. It does not change the situation itself.

Then you have to have the power to make what we are essentially talking about: information. The rest was preliminary for its production, and a virtual creation in itself, the universe and that type of thing. You really have to  stop there, you cannot rationally go on; but let us proceed into the nest of the myth of naturalism.

In the life we are looking at (as distinct from a made-up life, in which the computer is given its mission for selection, and gives mission to imagination), this means you have to have symbols. You may or may not like symbols, but this form of physical life has them. With that, you have to have the power to implant a symbolic apparatus into nothing (or whatever something you have simply assumed for no known or available reason), and then ensure that the efferent structure, to move the results to a receptive agency, capable of responding to this form of information display and despatch, is both extant and in good working order to the point which  the severity of the specifications requires; and  to do this, you require a systematic intelligence, for otherwise the thing cannot start, and what does not start, never finishes, unless it was there all along.

But that would simply  speak of creation at the hand of the Creator, that is, what does not DEVELOP ITSELF. It has to  start and without that, nothing.  For that there has to be a reason, or reason becomes irrelevant to discussion and the case irrational at the outset. Given all the other things (that is the ones proven to be there, not imaginary substitutes for them), we have a lot to acquire. That is, we need in this universe creating odyssey (though for some reason it does not like the term 'creation' despite its continual application), the mere co-ordination of despatch symbols and reception symbols, as one small element of the whole.

This is a systematic overall result; but not for no reason. It has to have a sufficient impetus, dynamic, direction, co-ordination which, in the complexity of life, can stand and withstand a whole multitude of mini-processes, in a system so vast, so cohesive, so contained, so rescripted against error, so surrounded with different levels of information and direction*2 , that in fact it can endure. System from non-system, law from non-law, fact from non-truth, and non-available truth*2A , freely indulged in, something from nothing, work without doing it, consequences without causes, these things are always bathetic (cf. SMR p. 330), but they are prominent in all anti-God rhetoric and presumption. The whole basis has to be assumed, simply in order to reason. Then there is the little question of results and causes.

Results ? This involves a spectrum of elements  which  may be deemed immaterial, though in the model in view,  they are intensely and nominally so, both composed of matter with its interminable laws, forms, formats, equations, permissible transformation mathematics, as in matter to energy transformative procedures, inbuilt, all systematic, and the movements according to what it is and can be shown to have at its disposal, if you want to personalise it, or available, if you do not. It is, however, not enough to juggle bits, forgetting their constraints and the enormity of the surrounding systems inherent in the dream; you have to get, if one may be permitted to note this again, information. Without that, you need an independent creation from nothing if you are irrational; if from something adequate, if you believe in the logic with which to reason and argue. Leaving it vague is not science, but non-science and nonsense. If you want to account for things from nothing, which by definition has no future or qualities or potential, go for it. It is just one more nebulosity, before any question of information as in our life forms, so much as arises.

But it is for all that a legislated entity, if not written out in the non-DNA type of prelude, then still  operative, which is the point at issue. You have to make it all work, in logical sequence, and the only options are nothing and something, as the start. If nothing ? then be bemused, at will; but it has nothing to offer. If something, be bemused or not, at option, but it has to be adequate or it will not do what has to be done. If it ever this were not there, this adequacy, that is, if ever the time and space and other perks were not on tap, if again, at any time in a time-created, space endued (in potential or actuality, the one simply enabling the other)  universe or totality  (not nothing), lacks, and nothing was all: what then ? Then as nothing was ever all, then nothing without potential or potency or anything else, would always be the limit. There are in this case by definition no other resources, and it simply gets nowhere, as nothing has a habit of doing. This remains a barren theory which does not relate logically to the area under discussion.

Thus if ever there were just nothing, that would be the result; but we do not have nothing. We are for example articulating, which is not nothing. Thus without something forever adequate, nothing happens to give us what we have. But something happens, and we have got what we have. Unlike evolutionary imaginings, THIS CAN be seen. Eternal energy missing is not an option, since otherwise there is the fateful nothing liability in what lacks in eternity; and energy is the capacity to do work. If you do not want anything to be done, then having no energy overall, at any point,  is an eminently satisfactory way to proceed. You CANNOT then get anywhere, and that is not where we need to get theoretically, since we ARE here.

If it were not directed energy, on this original basis, there would be no direction in the labours, were the energy activated, or activistic. You need cause for effect, and if you seek to avoid it, it shows itself inherent in logic and irreducible (cf. Predestination and  Freewill). So keeping to the conditions for argument and logic and directed discourse, before information arises as an issue, we need the creation. A caveat. Energy in a law-constrained universe, with mathematical overviews attributable to it as with Einstein in type, itself has to be created, as it is part of a multi-coded, multi-operative,  conditioned actuality, which differs slightly from nothing. Thus what is necessary is what creates time and space and susceptibility to law, and to grand-scale mathematical conditioning, having the energy to do so, and the mathematics as well, and the eternity that makes it unnecessary to arise from nowhere for no reason.

Physical energy is merely a created type; but it has to be along the way, or the physical has no parameters; but it does have them in magnitudes both vast and small. Energising a delimited and energic system is one of the things system-making energy possessing agency can do. Nothing can do it with nothing, both as to what it is and has.

However, ignoring all the begged questions in seekings, squirmings or squalls to avoid reality, logic and evidence, and to  create synthetic computer programs which omit the main points and measure out the others by a code-operative intelligence at will, you can manufacture a non-life situation, at your pleasure. It is just that life does not happen as a result, and its parameters need to be known, as they are (Sanford*1A, op. cit., Ch.6-8),  and seen in application, There is work for the necessary energy which PRECEDES all operation, there is work to do. Information as found in life forms has as in all normal discourse, to have methods, system, constraints, if not by consensus (presuming thought), then by directive, which requires something to be DONE by impact of meaningful command, which to have meaning has to have the relevant meaningful input to task coherence into adequately automated action. In addition, symbols must be creatable and receivable with consistency and certainty on the same linguistic system, so that orders are not noise in the background, but articulated concept-conveyers. It is indifferent whether this be done by program, or directly by a speaker. The former is the more complex.

If there is a program to do the enormously complex job that has to be attained from an initial sufficiency, then that merely makes the accounting harder. You can drive; but if like Google you have in mind an automatic car, that is rather harder, involving much that is relatively simple for a direct intelligence possessor, in enormous additional complexities and constraints, commands and procedures, allowing for contingencies and resultants. With life processes in the DNA and associated information series, the harder option in life is taken.

Then you need not only the command-order-correlation problem solved, which by nature is an inlay in the system ostensibly without it, but the  capacity to make programs to contain symbolically and enable physically all that the commands require, a conceptually expressible item, which has to move. The work however, by exquisite program (as in the DNA) or direct, has to be done to make linguistic the commands and realistic their reception,  co-ordinate their qualities and make mergeable their different levels of action (cf. Waiting for Wonder Appendix), as noted in the work of such writers as Cornell's Sanford. Information about information being one of the considerations in real life, as our bodies evidence themselves; you have to generate this virtual, technical handbook, so that it can contain and direct the other less exaltedly directive commands, those less given to oversight, to rectification and to ensuring as far as may be, the endurance which is characteristic of life. You have to import the systematic creative methods of mind into the milieu of matter, with multiple, cohesive, integral and integrating systems mutually supportive, and independently meaningless, but actually uniquely productive of that one result, say in man for example, the individual, which attests its type of intensively controlled input.

Systems governing systems, all in symbolic address, commands potentially cognitive and recognisable in type and assortment, results constrained by multiple means: all this represents of course an information fiesta, that must possess the powers of its type, nature and proceed from the causes adequate for the results.  Let us SEE such types of things, such types of occurrences in unaided and unfiddled matter, and we will have an entirely new concept of its capacities, never before demonstrated or shown, seen or been available to view. It would be a new science, making Einstein look like a beginner by its sheer magnitude of additions to the power of matter, one not seen in productive capacity any more than in products.

We will remember here, of course, that the model here being reviewed, is not being presented as the Lord of Rings type of thing, but as if it were an empirically testable thing. As noted in SMR pp. 140ff. (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!), it is just not so. It is not of that type. Biblical statements on the issue are in many points testable as there seen*3, and thus are verified. (It is all open to actual logic and non-prejudicial 'science', though not in this naturalistic domain, in practice). What is non-verified, here as always, is not worthy of consideration, It is not rationally supported by a fit of fidgets, not wanting to deal with a given domain, lest that evidence itself the truth, what works, the way that logically and empirically may be found to solve the riddles and exhibit the grounds in cohesive reason.

As to law, however, Popper having made a sound point here. In fact, as he notes, there is no law of evolution; there is nothing to credit. It is not seen moreover; it is imaginative efflux. It is a lost child in the world of causation.

However, even this impasse is not enough, not even  all these begged  questions, nothing-sourced entities, marvels of invention and pre-placement unacknowledged. More is needed, since endurance is PRECISELY, in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, what is NOT to be found, except in measure, in the physical realm. As Dr J.C. Sanford in his researches and presentations has pointed out (as in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome), and in further work more recently, (though that is a recent book itself):  genomic decline is one of the major threats facing man, and the deterioration is what is found, not the forward movement, which has never, repeat never, been ACTUALLY found attesting itself observation.

That deterioration, it is this that can be seen. If we want evidence, here is some for us. If we forsake imaginary, never observed processes for a moment, then this is reality. The imagined procedure, it must be, could be, is claimed to be in language that is full of mysticism and assumption found in evolutionary paradigms; but it is NEVER ACTUALLY DISCOVERED. Work not done remains undone; contrivance and conception, edifices of command and response in coherent symbolic interplay, they just need to be shown inventing themselves, and it is well for evolution to that extent. But when can it once be! If matter had those powers, their basis and results could be determinable in almost endless ways; it is its muteness for all such challenge which is conspicuous, contrasted with talk fests which join them, leaving null result the evidential fact for the imagination side of things, the evolutionary concepts, which have NOTHING ELSE to go on. There own laws are not to be found; lack of them is their palace. For some, even non-testability is considered a good lurk, seriously suggested as an option to the barren empirical landscape.

What is needed, to duplicate the actual, is to have


matter-energy form itself outside a matter-energy system (hard to do), then


the mathematics to be assured to be intact governing this transposable reality,


then when all has been invented (before pressure has to come force, with applicability of force,  space into which to go at least as a potential, which is not a nullity),


time for it to happen (whatever is imagined, big bang as a surgeon of precision
or any other event that appeals, but does not work - as in *5C, TMR Ch. 1, Ch. 7), 


grounds for an explosion to be creative of order and law in terms of overall systems,
from  an unknown something which has to be as good as its results in potential,
and amazingly so to endure an explosion which comes for no known reason,
producing the amazing intricacies of programs
and language and originality and system and objectives and information-manufacture
for man, as through man as an agent in his own mental domain;


versions with both automated and personal varieties, and


for the one, its virtual programmatic parallel in configurations of matter,
such as we have in words and DNA in symbols,
for the other, the entrepreneurial facilities direct:

and then there could be a measure of readiness -
together with the reason for all provision of all this scope for development, and
granted the reason was still available in operational functionality,
and could be demonstrated to be the way the thing goes, a natural matter.

We need creation before the creation of verbalised type information such as life has. We need mind before matter, eternity for mind and functionality-forging power before action. That is what the Bible said. God was there always. He spoke. Therefore it happened.

It is what is necessary. It cannot work otherwise, lacking the testable ingredients; and not surprisingly, is never found to do so. If science is to mind, concern itself with reality, this is where science is. If many scientists are so to abort scientific method (cf. Scientific Method ... ), that the opposite to what is found is proclaimed in an imaginative cul-de-sac, then we have the current confusion, contention and invention, which never includes life or information de novo, to parallel the realities found in actual type in any working way whatsoever. That sort of 'science' has never got us anywhere, but the disciplined, empirically confirmatory, anti-verification deletion type, it has gone far. If a thing fails theoretically to meet EVERY detail of test, that is its unlamented funeral. Endless omissions of mental discipline in this field lead only to a slack indulgence, such as can happen in society more generally, when it borrows, but does not concern itself with repaying. It is too late when truth is borrowed and not repaid.

Discipline in ALL fields and aspects, preliminary, subsequent, this is required for any significant name to be relevant to science. Indulgence is not a practical option when truth is concerned. It readily becomes quite simply, a lie, a contemplation not pruned, an assertion not in accord with evidence, and so known. But truth does not suffer this. It has its own ways, not violent but unvarying.

The other sort, with its philosophical rubbishing even of its own findings as in Lewontin ( Vol 2, this series, cf. *5), demonstrable in unwarranted assumption and with frequently  mordantly attacked ideas even from among the naturalists themselves (cf. Professor Nilsson in his exposé - SMR pp. 108ff., and Professor Stephen Jay Gould*3A), gets us only into trouble. This is so whether in the millions dead bodies (cf. Vol. 1 of the present series, Ch. 3, cf. News  97, 98), in application of philosophic extrapolations ignoring the total, evidential base. Part of that base is man, as truth attests; and he is part of the waste resulting. It is a cruel fantasy..

Whether the drive be to USE the crass concepts of Darwin*4 and their implications, or explicitly to glorify them, the result is largely the same. The matter moves with such concepts as are provided by racially advantageous, or force propulsive philosophies which inhabit the realm, illicit immigrants. Whole peoples are removed on misconception, materialistic fallacies, cruel pretensions of some select group or nation being lodged where progress is deemed so far, the best and the like; and the result, despising the wonders of creation, produces the art-forms of hell. If you doubt this, study the German concentration camps for evolutionary racial purity, based on eugenic conceptions, amid delusions of progress, ever upwards; and the Communists paradises that did not flower in Siberia, themselves built on evolutionary passion, couched in its own force-led  fiascos.

Force moves matter. Wisdom moves men; and folly joins forces with force, to make up worlds that were never so made, no, nor ever seen to be so, no, not even in part. If it were otherwise, we would need only to ask for the phenomenon to be shown in scientific conditions, and impeccable results, on which such thinking is based. But it refuses to come, and words and programs are machinated from the mind of man to cover the case. But as shown, it remains bare.

It is not to be found, only the sound of voices, affronting the intellect and avoiding the eye.

Ignoring most of creation in trying to account for it (cf. *4D), and any rational beginning, naturalism is the most unnatural of all philosophies (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go! ), the most denied of all sciences in its philosophic dress, both categorically and constantly, and the most charmed of survivors, as it eats out the residue of man, in preparation for his self-chosen destiny on the broad way that suits it. Mercifully there is another way that taking account of all, is suitable for any (cf. Department of Bible ...Vol. 4, Ch. 2,  SMR Ch. 1).

We return to necessities, instead of imaginations. We need what is RELEVANT. What happens is the need in accounting. Let me see the symbolised start where the environment is insulated from verbalised imaginations; let me see the interactive powers arise, when there is no basis for interaction; let me find the  configurations of symbol present themselves so that things HAPPEN in accord with the INFORMATION based in the symbols, by EXAMINABLE MEANS. Let us see information making itself, and of course, all the prior systems activated, on which it depends.

One  always remembers a University radio session in which the dancing about interviewer made endless seeming questions without waiting for answers, using jocularity as a defence method for the indefensible, while distancing the microphone in order to include on the transmission, only desired talk. So acting, he made a declaration. What was that ? Tomorrow, said he, or words like that, he  could bring from the University someone who would SHOW evolution in action.

Had he done so, of course, he would have made history, and that university would have become justly famous! But it was not to be!

 When it comes to making up information, from a universe or virtual one which lacks all means for it, and which does not include in itself means to meet the in presumptions in view, but is induced to  cover without reason all preliminary requirements, it is matter to SEE, not talk about. If one sees an example, that is good; but you have to start without help, either from nothing (hard to make) or from something you posit as there already. What is that ? what are its potentials ? how did it get them ? How does it differ from God, that is,  from being intrinsically eternal and adequate for all results ? Why does it differ ? If it does,  who gave it its limits ?

After that, when you provide all the  machinery of thought and interactivity, the  laws and the phases such as potential time and space,  to be made actual for a reason, not from a potential, which also has to be made and not just put there in shame and pretence on such a model as this: then you just have the work of analysing and synthesising information, so that the KIND of thing in view materially in actual living forms, is given the KIND of thing that contains it, and the KIND of content which gives results in the KIND of command and reception which is to be made up (cf. Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed ... Ch. 4); and then you have to actually  implement it by energy and directive requirement, so that all of it, nicely sitting there without failing in other actions for actual reasons, has mandated for it the totality. It is rather like army logistics: this and that is to be supplied. But in the Army case, it would normally be from the store, where all the stuff is, not from the imagination, where it has only an imaginary existence, not so good in practical things, like war or creation.

It is not just what happens; it happens to order like a good suit. Commands need symbolisation, actualisation, imagination, correlation with consequence, integration with other ones, sutiable sourcing for interventionist input. Indeed, what is ordered always requires an orderer sufficient in stature to accomplish the style, power, permanence or otherwise, effects of the order. The unlimited limit, whose place enables anything ever, has the power to institute not only limits, but something to limit; and when it is all unified whether in law or command, in pre-condition or consequence,  then logic can cease expiring and become active again. Thus we proceed to reality.

Nature in some ways is made, is ordered, as in endless seeming scientific laws covering not only what may happen, but under what circumstances; and in some ways is subject to master-orders, disposing its type; and logic orders, disposing its kind; and this rational structure, equipped with man likewise with his mental systematics and spirited sprees, in some ways is free for misadventure (if you ignore the One who has the mastery of the order). Likewise it is available in much (the other side of liberty), for miscalculation, misinformation, mischief; and of course has for long been available for creation, so that it might be at all. This,  creation, being the nature of what is found in terms of definition*4A, at the back of our universe, is also found in ourselves in creativity, so that we understand it very well indeed without the slightest difficulty, practised in it as we are. Its cause*2 eclipses its content, for to cause a consequence of this magnitude and logical address, requires a competence mastering not only its continuation, but its institution. It is too much to ask the universe  to make itself before it is there, and too little to have it JUST there where it actively declines; as well as short-circuiting reason with cavils of inconsequence.

The only logical answer,  by many is eschewed like the plague, does not retire for that reason: but is distanced, for reality could cause death to the body, frightening to some, and this disentanglement of the soul could expose it to a very searching light. That is not always desired (John 3:19), and indeed biblically it is shown through spiritual pathology, to be rather nearer to the norm (Matthew 7:13, Romans 1:17ff., Jeremiah 8:21, 9:3,6, 17:9-10, Ephesians 4:17-18).




What has to be for anything at all in the informative aspect to be, has to crafted in type, expressed in symbol, condensed into command, correlated with receptors, embedded in layers of complexity and overview, given protections so that it can even continue to operate, once made, be equipped by Information with which it has to be informed, this from one source type, to another. All this has to be formed; otherwise you do not get informed. It has therefore to be made, and this in accord with the receptors capacities for  reception. Being made is not magical; it is causatively suitable for an assemblage of integrated symbolism, attached to substances adapted to obeying them, all in one language of instruction, with multiple input devices for its operations, and chemical systems for its interpretation

Time  does not invent system (observably, except where it is gifted with an enabler, when it is merely an adjunct), nor when called on, does it visibly or by necessary implication, provide instead of a minnow, a whale. It does not come from nowhere, or in a primary system to invent itself before it is there, or another system like some black magic object of art,  for which it never shows any systematic talent or discernible power, or base. Myths are of this type*4B , and a fatal fascination with their use is predicted for the time in our Age to which we have arrived (Jeremiah 23:16-23, II Timothy 4:1-5 cf. Answers to Questions Ch. 5), even indeed that many of those so affected and afflicted will be within the visible Church of Jesus Christ (as distinct from the believers biblically defined, not seduced by such apostolically condemned diversions from doctrine).  We have had a swag of them.

 An inventive time, and space, and natural universe needs to be shown. Like time,  space does not provide without ground,  and like both, reason does not enter without basis (biblically, the LOGOS, a necessary prelude to any of this, which works both in the mind of man investigating, and in the work made for his use, by means of the imprinted logic to which he gains access within. In this universe, and logic, capacities do not rocket from space (if it were first made by what is adequate for it) to apply themselves, like bank cheques for a project, and intelligibly discernible systems upon systems do not first so make themselves, and then their slaves or subjects and their codes and necessities. IF they did, they would have all kinds of intelligence, sophistication, brio, enterprise, consistencies, insistences and so forth almost without cease. Matter and its visible peripheries, powers under test, does not so supply; just as nothing does not supply matter.

 Something had to have it all; and this does not have it at all.

You look where it may be found, not in it making itself, quite hard, before there to do so (it is always hard to have things  done when nothing is there to do them). It is not discernible there, but  in what preceded both logically and actually, and did it because these matters are those of mind and power and systematics, and imagination and coherence and judgment; and on the contrary, the material world  all doing 'it' because it comes naturally, this is never found. As the Bible correctly stated, there was a logical ground, an adequate ground, and it acted, so that creation happened, and then this ultimate ground,  called God, resolved to stop for the time,  that kind of action, the plan now being in order. That is normal in creation, kindred to planning, and in the Bible, this plan is spelled out in detail, complete with pre-figuring of coming stages*4C, as one of the confirmations of the source.

Thus the same creation in type, started; and it stopped. Now it declines, and that too is what was foretold by its Maker, who makes things happen by script in the DNA, in some areas, and by scripture in the Bible, in all areas provided. He is the supernal symboliser, and the superb activator, as well as the undivertible implementer.

Creation is like that. Given power and mind, control and assiduity, you can create in many fields simultaneously, then go into maintenance mode. We know how to do it; but not at the ultimate level, from which we are derivatives, so able to understand, but not in entirety to imitate ... our own making!

Matter is a monument to the Creator's  work (like stones to a grave adorner), but it  does not do it. It had to be put there along with time and space and logic and symbolism and stabilisation. Self-propelling logical guns, also, are not just around. That ordinance likewise, had to be put there, instilled into matter as part of its containment, and into man, as part of his contentment  and capacity.

The imaginations that natural things were a contribution without cause, or that they then made life without observable or demonstrable capacity, does not show itself; nor does the communication aspect as a mode of symbolic-activistic deployment. It all takes work*4D. Work-free creation ? It is known as dream.

Actual creation coming in and of nature ?

It is never  found.

Errors occur and may increase complexity ? It might be so suggested. However, in fact and in reality, if my car hit a rock, there might be an increase of complexity, wholly irrelevant to its creation, and the degree of creativity displayed in it, and the information discoverable in it! Complexity is not what makes things, or makes them  informative; it is a result. Compressibility of concept and power to enact system are just two of the needs in  creating at the material level; and  giving them the power  to continue, after being made, to make some more of the same sort of thing, with inherent power,  is another.

Creativity has its own ways. This is the case with a human baby, for example, to transfer immediately with complete, eminently complex systems,  say from oxygen-donation from mother's blood to getting air direct into  functionally and structurally prepared  lungs, is not a step by step complexity increment. Gradualness is fun; operational effectiveness is necessary. Complete systems with integrality and cross-components, pre-manufacture against pre-programmed developments, these have no beginning but in what deals in that kind of ware. It is called mentality, intelligence, creative entrepreneurship (cf. Vol. 3, Ch. 5 Department of Bible ...): what is the problem  ? That is what it IS. THOSE are the qualities required.

It does not really matter, if you see the thing in its  model-perspective, how simple or otherwise a given phase or stage may be deemed to be; for change does not create new system when system or its cause is not back of it. It merely adds the drag of non-conformity to what, to BE anything at all in a systematic way, has to have system. Non-system from non-system to adorn and advance system is not a logical option. It is an anti-integrity, anti-actuality series of surrounds that both blights and drags on what is in all aspects a constrained construction. It is alien to it, adventitious, reducing order, marring communications modes of many dimensions, some directive over much (cf. Genetic Entropy ... Chs. 6-7). Since the constituents of what is supposedly added to, have to be many for anything as singular (but enormously complex) as the simplest empirically known cell, there is only the intrusion of what is NOT by nature systematic, into what is exceedingly so to the most refined degree.

However, imagining what is not found is ever the way of evolutionism; but it is readily dismissed, always, on all sides by fact. Putative programs (failing anything in the actual world of life) are always popping up only to be dismissed for their presumptions, assumptions, pre-tiltings.

Using cultural manifestations of the human spirit and intelligence to seek to validate new information for a biological process also, it will not do. Populations can have mutations,  dislodgements of systems, losses of information, adaptations (the provisions for these technically are amazing), that become set in a decreasing or distorted gene pool, and they can independently of that make ideas and have cultures and ruin themselves or otherwise in many interesting ways; but this is not the production of information by non-intelligence. It is change, as in any smash, or wear, or interaction of what is drafted to relate in various ways, and the results of it. It does not however progress in any information-writing manner that may be observed; and it should not be confused with it.

The actuality is simple enough, as attested evidentially in vast masses of correlative, linguistic writings in the DNA in an exquisitely minute package of integrated commands with an integral output. We  do not get these discernibly being dumped now. We do not see original scripts at  all, being deposed. Things may escape trouble by being less informed, or changed by impact, in some cases, but the information is not being written. A crippled cell, through mutation, may survive in a hospital, where the drug to cripple it does not work, because of its prior loss of the part needed for this. But outside, its weakness no more helps. Its loss, instead of exploited the effects of the drug on its fellows, now exposes it to fail in competition with them. Yes, advances (for a particular situation) may come through loss; but sustainability does not increase by new design elements; only by their loss.

The results are being found which do not minister to the  claim and  clamour of the theory. We are not finding what the evidence attests of the original situation; it is not happening now, in demonstrable reality or macro-results. Gould fingers it - the variety decreases enormously, and such is the trend in the note from Giertych, concerning loss-gain of information! Indeed, it is always difficult to see how information loss is really information gain, how degradation and dysfunction increasing, is really informative, how absence of new major creative kinds is really their presence, or how loss of most major kinds is really a gain in the gamut of genetic information. It is always better to face factuality. Dreaming as noted before, is not only undisciplined in such areas as truth, but dangerous. The Bible has spoken of this in the most denunciatory terms (Jeremiah 23), just as would as school teacher faced with an impervious student who insisted that refusing to learn the multiplication tables was really a loss of (some kind of) information, and that he, for his part, wanted to be ... better informed.

What we had, we are losing. The magnificent magnitudes were made; they are not visibly being made.  Computers can be programmed with various highly intellectual subtleties and on various "obvious" parameters; but this does not affect what is called nature. It is not demonstrably or even apparently doing it; and under every and any test, it cannot be stimulated to do so. After all, to put itself  there in the first  place, when it was not there would be quite enough for one day. Available energy declines, entropy increases and the evolution is not to be found, nor the propounding information  relevant to its action. Law says - the totality came, and it is decreasing in available energy, subject to de-specification. The Bible says just that. It said it first, by several millenia (cf. TMR Ch. 1 as      marked ).

The most straightforward hypothesis is that what is not there cannot create what is by having superior selection; and you need what declines, first to be inclined, and what is absent , first to be made present, and that what is never found in upward transcriptions finding their way into the waiting lairs of time, is not a good basis if you are interested in what IS sufficient for the results. As it is not nature, then something must have put it in place: it is really too much to ask of it to invent all the systems, micro- and macro-, however long may be the imagined time, which you also need to have created, complete with preparatory systems.

You need its origination,  sufficient for its explosive arrival, or any arrival at all. You need the system-consort as well  system-management department , to instil unified systems and make them not only arrive from an unsystematic base (actually no base), but continue in system, in a gloriously concordant way, as if they had been trained for it.

As pointed out at some length in SMR for example, the word normally used  for the creative power of things, whether it be poetry or universes, is the Creator, or creator, depending on the foundation or the facilitation phase. The confirmation uniquely of this reality has been the work of many volumes, including SMR and TMR, as from many for long. The answer was not hard to find, for there is no other which gives logically sustainable attestation of its prior existence and power. And if you don't have prior existence, but nothing, then you will never get anywhere, as pointed out. It is a difficulty with nihilism and all reduce to nothing hypotheses (when or where chosen): if you ever get it, this nothing overall, you can never get  anything else, so making it more like one of the Arabian Nights, than a work of the day of reason.



Ramifications of unintelligent intrusion into exceedingly neat life systems (to work at all) can ruin them at once if simple, since it is a large percentage error that comes alien into the prepared pitch, or subtly if they be larger, since the available systematics for ruin are then immeasurably greater, more complex, more complicated, more concurrent, more disruptible in multiple TYPES of relationship, even harder to conserve, let alone suffer intrusion. In fact, as Professor Sanford shows, net loss is the ruling threat. We are going down, and the basement is disorder of the vital. The graphic, the mathematical, the semantic (nothing is to become meaningful without a meaningful base in construction, for that is contrary to its nature and scope), moves on to the whole scenario of multiple means in the body, making interactive and reactive and differential multi-order results on a systematic and multi-focus basis.

This is as shown in some detail in the work of Dr Paul Brand and Philip Yancey,  In His Image. For example (pp. 230ff.), the many micro-systems with the macro-, o=operate in a variable co-ordination to meet specified threats or need, activator passing without result or with enormous result, depending on the case. Thus the whole preserves itself from ruinous dysfunction, and continues to have a meaning in assignable integrity, one not available to what is meaningless by nature, as an origin. In all things, the macro-negative basis has to become inordinately positive result. It is but an  exercise in futility.

Keeping laws (miraculously made in this model) in place by what is not so bound, when the latter has scope to intrude and desiccate the design, foul the flourish, remove the point, change the point, clash in the symmetries,  chemical, physical, hormonal, is another miracle required. Removal of errors differentially has nothing to do with removing them systematically, since no horrible exam papers ever provide anything worth having, choose the least horrid as you will. Morons produce the work of morons, and what is vastly below that, what is vastly below that. When the contrary is made apparent in experiment, then we will no more have as here, miracles as if they were a natural law. But we do not have the contrary.

Survival does not create; it may reduce slightly what is distorted. It has no inventive power, or capacity to construct  the forest of systems, or not spoil them, into which the unintended is thrust. Arrival has other premises. System sufficiency is the minimal requirement for systems, symbolic efficiency requires mind as a minimum, to collate concepts and implement ideas. Tossing imagined bits into an imaginary bin which happens to have an extraordinary resemblance to foundations of our universe, is not a logical procedure, but a palpable fraud. If this is not realised, it does not reduce its delusion.

What IS SHOWN to be, and to have been, and what is KNOWN by observability is what is in question, how to make it with out itself being there, either with a surreptitiously hidden Creator instead, or with nothing, these are the parameters of actuality. The systematic gaps between working items, that in micro-biology likewise, are matters of fact, in what Denton deems a hierarchical system, merely accentuate what was apparent from the first (cf. Dancers, Prancers ...Ch.  5). Discrete causes for many mini-mergers constructing vast concourses of mutually concordant systems and situations, are just irrelevant. The totality is not of that mode of separability in its multiplied workings and manners at all levels, fiddling being merely a token.

In dismissing facts, and  replacing  fantasies, naturalism makes what is not there do  a different job, and that without reason, unless it admits to importing this aspect of the work of the input-agency for logic into  'nature.' That would change the model, which has no basis,  and hence fails not only in institution, but in constitution, always on the grab from God, never acknowledging it.

Failure of the fastidious when the abruptly irrelevant is added anywhere, any time anyway, does not need imagination; for the blot on the cheek of the lady, in the point of a sentence, by the tiniest quiver of change, in the supervision of the systems, governed by another information level actually there, is hindrance that no episodes of random impact can remove. Assault on the mutual adjustments of the almost incredibly precise and numerous systems and subjects which are made, cannot in the long run improve outcomes at that level, being merely sources of disorder, where order is intense, the random having nothing in comparison to contribute, an  alien additive to a mutually composed work of system.  Disorder, after all, is not quite the same as order. When the chunks in comparison of life as it is, show enormous revolutionary diversities in ongoing creation, the problem is not solved but enhanced. You have to have what is contrary to the general nature of the case as evident for inspection, as to the special nature of the sub-cases, and to find it enhances its opposite. If that is not a contradiction in terms, then it would be hard ever to find one.

You also have to find that in this alien environment, preservation does not join with general drift to create a net loss of vast amounts of data. As Gould points out, however, this is PRECISELY what HAS HAPPENED. It is as its basis indicates, and the finding is as the deteriorative dynamic of the Second Law of Thermodynamics would indicate.

When system interference is only one of the options, and spoilt items are another, amid billions, the case is made ludicrous.  You advance by what is not holding its own now!

You reach it by what cannot advance ? what is never found empirically to do so, and has no basis for ever doing so ? Interference is advance in engineering, on a rush, rash basis ? Sacking poor engineers will not instal the masters of creativity! You have always, in any creation, to have all that it takes, whether it be a Boeing 707 or a cell, rather more complex. Removal of the pilots who least smash Boeings will not create them, or the next model. Disorder smacks not of order, disorganisation not of progress, interference not of system, hand exposure not of preservation. It should not; it does not; it is never shown to have been so.

The least of the integral, living evidential objects, single cells in man for example, are almost inexpressibly complex, nothing to do with undirected, unsystematic, unconceived, unprogressive action, from a source making a moron look wise by comparison: that of the naturalistic model.

In actual human life, you need the best for the utmost; but in its making, even the basic structure for all, the worst is fine, and the utterly disparate is just the thing! Such thinking may be fine in a socialistic world, where something or someone else ALWAYS does it for you; but in actual nature, this is not  the case, and nothing in it resembles that . It is pure imagination and impure methodology translated from the mind to what lacks it, with a withering indifference to the necessary qualities of automated mind products, and those that are direct. It is a world on its own, justly lamented by Gould. What is taught and thought is not what is found. Negatives do not cumulatively make positives, and absentees are not identical with present powers procured for production.



Small wonder Professor Stephen Jay Gould, renowned Professor at Harvard, was so troubled, as not hard to discern  in his  Wonderful Life*4 , about a topic. It was in the milieu of vastly decreasing major designs OVER TIME, and ludicrous gradualistic methods of getting the designed in the first place,  imperceptible and naked oddities which he despises. Small wonder also that another Harvard Professor, Lewontin makes such admissions about the enormity of much evolutionary imagination, and admits frankly to philosophical basis for it, not at all evidential necessity. This may be found in a relevant overall context, at Epilogue, Department of Bible and Spiritual Affairs, Vol. 2 (including *1). Here the point is covered in broad exposition, exhibiting the overweaning imposture as if it could mingle with experimentally attested fact, in various of its customary phases.

It is so difficult: to have all these things SAID concerning the orchestral productions of a mute 'nature', when NOTHING EVER HAPPENS to show it.  Complexity, in errors, in codon duplication and displacement, in oddities out of sustainable power, in playing about with the most sophisticated display of information and combination, command and obedience available to man in the visible level, is not the point. FUNCTIONALITY in terms of new laws, commands, creations, working developments that surpass mini-usefulness and become major realities, things created, not worked over: this is what we do not find.

The reason is obvious. For things like that you need first to fit in with the vast coding complexities, including several levels of oversight, and then to improve without thought on utter complexity, and then to preserve actual integrality (not some malfeasance of method parading as a creation, but a creation exhibiting itself as a generated reality). What is in view is not a parasite on system, already there, that can be breached, but an actuality that works in the same kind of upward phasings above what is already there, something informative, not deformative, and actual, not illusory: not a pretence, a kind of joke to talk about, but a creation, a placement of what was not there by any stretch of the imagination, but now is.

That is the need, and the attestation of the vast complexity and vitality of what the smallest cells of life,  and the missing follies, masterpieces of ineptitude, putative results of wrong way signs never read. Where is the upward surge ? why is the case clean of the billions of far greater monstrosities of technical failure, than presentations of technical success! How can there be such a flurry of success techniques that life forms are all but innumerable, when it should be a tornado of failure, with progressive mangles from unending degradation through clash and meaningless chaos of constructive follies.

What we find is precisely the work of mind and purpose, and what we do not find is precisely the work of undirected material recombinations and attestations of its own limited powers. Why invent ? Is this imaginative essay writing or observation of what is, has been and shows grounds for itself! Is reason altogether to be disowned in order to establish man as maestro, when his power contributed nothing!

 To observe in action, the quality attested by past evidence and present configurations, product of matter, showing its showing its powers thereby would be to the point. Let me know if you ever find it this empirical need for the naturalistic model. Talk does not do it. Imaginary programs do not make their contributions effective, since they have their own parameters based on the concepts in mind.

We do not NEED mind for this, to make it happen as a testimony that this has been the natural way to life and mind and spirit. Why ? it because supposedly, it happened without it. To talk about increase of information as an assumption, BECAUSE of variation begs the question direct, under all  circumstances, since it is a matter of commands and consequences introduced through massive walls of various mutual systems jointly at work, the intrusions have no notion of, sensitivity to or  conversance with what is there. If it is less, then that ignores the point that this is what is THERE. To imagine translation of the unmarshalled into effective code (not invasive fragmentation),  would resemble putting messages straight into intelligible code format without even trying, or ... knowing it! Let us not use what is there. Let code make itself and act; for without action nothing arises in physical life. It is a code-conditioned entity in nature.

If we are going to talk about what we FIND, then let us find information being created, not the endless parade of also-rans continually being invented, and never doing what is required. It is all hypothesis on hypothesis, idea on idea, non-observation to the POINT, one on another, surmise and hope, but never observable actuality. Making ideas into it, this is not it. Travelogues are not travel. Ideas about flying never flew any machine. You have to make it; and see it fly. This is what is missing, and in the making on the illusory hypothesis, you are not to be active in ANY way, or to assume ANY system. If it seems ridiculous to begin in such a way, so it is. But it is not the way of creation.

If you lack it all, how find it ? That is always the issue. Even if you magically have something nice and ready for systematic action, arrayed in terms of multiplied other systems, all concordant, you still have to go past all this magic, and make information which has parameters and requirements as an integral system of code-productive-receptive, inventive, controlling, concerting operational unity, making things happen as specified, and conforming to specifications in a staggeringly systematic manner. Those are the elements of what is functional in life. Making something else is not relevant. The idea is to get what we have without  its qualities or any rational grounds operative, including mind. It is not done simply because it cannot be done, for matter does not show such facilities, system does not have systematic originating dynamics available and a first minimal element of eternal energy is not posited as a base.

You need a working and accepting totality, arising unspecified, with no linguistic prelude, order installation system, correlation containing impresses, so that the virtual concepts become actual commands that are interpretable and work. Matter is NEVER found to do this (cf. SMR pp. 79ff.); and giving it sundry helps is difficult to differentiate from cheating.

Let us then see it do it, not talk about utter failure which is the actuality facing all efforts to make nothing the source, or what is ever not there (a total nullity), rather than what is always there and adequate, so securing results in accord with capacity. The attempt at deletion of God is as much attempted murder as any other such desire; and it is of the utmost interest that the attempt to delete Israel, no mean effort for the last 75 years, this or the Jews, has been pursued with similar vehemence. Neither effort works, the former because it is not open to man to  do so (his planning and power are both open and subject to the power of their origination); the latter because God has spoken otherwise (Genesis 17:7-8, Luke 24:24).

In fact, the God of the Bible (on whom see the 225 volumes on this site*5A, or even The gods of naturalism have no go!) has stated that HE DID CREATION, gave the INFORMATION by command (as the DNA reflects, in its operational mode), then stopped providing information in this way, so that the creation in major type was finished.

That is what was said.

That - in terms of the operational reality and its minimal complexity, micro-molecular hierarchical separation and discrete, individual action, while conforming to type - is what is found. What reason demands, biblical revelation confirms.

CONTINUITY of operations with continual net upward development in type, design, enrichment into higher and higher programs, inventive, with sheer thrust of multitudinous methods,  all working: this is what is not found. It is evidenced as ALREADY DONE, but as currently happening.

Nature has two segments: what was done and what is happening. The one abounds with synthetic marvels of an order of system staggering to, and surpassing the creative capacities of the human mind: the other continues with degradation, astute provisions for minor variation, and the general movement in terms of the increase of entropy. Entropy was never creative. It is the lag following creation, the effectual drag on what has been done by what does not match it and can catch it out, intruding, disturbing, like smoke. Professor Sanford, as noted, specialises in the amount of drag observable, and its practical and decidedly net negative results. That type of net process of course coincides precisely with the sorrow of Gould - the vast long-term loss of information on major designs available.

It is useless turning a long delayed funeral into a birthday party; it has a certain flavour of dissidence and vain hope. It needs more than words. ONE deed would help. ONE visibility would contribute. ONE script writing exercise would be impressive. ONE present to the point would help even a dismal party.

Turning the archeological past into the current may be fun; it has no place in science. Facts matter. On this, see SMR pp. 208ff., *22,  'Fostering Friendship with Facts.'

The facts are that there hs been as Gould points out, an enormous input of information, but where is it now ? in decline, he indicates. There was a vast spread of variants coming together, by his reading of the Cambrian in his Canadian site, and these reduced; it was not some struggling event of mystery trying to establish itself as expected. The name of the game was exuberance, not struggle; intellectual enterprise, abundance of optional systems in various cases, not a limping effort by a mind that was not there to construct a system not in mind.

It does not happen that way now. Check: show us a surge of vast new types of their own utter originality (like it or not, life is very original), and then  make it stop, as is the testimony of fact. Make 'nature' do it, being careful to use NO intelligence (the issue); and while at it, MAKE nothing make nature*5B, or an absentee nature make itself so that it can be there. Even formulation can become unintentional mockery, when the realities are faced. SO far from the self-creating (as distinct from the created) universe of this naturalistic type being congenial and welcome to understanding, it is from first to last, an exercise in make-believe. It all has to happen despite systematic lack, gap and logical outage and outrage, and when it consistently and insistently and on every side does not do so, talk about how it does so, in absence of the simplest relevant exhibit, is simply irrelevant. How can it be called anything but an imposture!

It is the POWER to produce at that level which is needed. Not a system from nowhere with an advance provision from nothing, making laws from their absence, mathematics from its voidance and all the rest from nothing.

Of course, if it is MADE through what has the power to make it, being eternal, then you do not proceed by talk, but by task. You also have the advantage that that source is not only logical but testable as noted. The conformity of the words in the DNA, as commands (Genesis 1), and those in the book, the Bible, as commands to what came to be and is to come in the forward movement of history (on its own basis, but that is another topic of several volumes),  make a logical treatise; and not an irrational imposture. Therefore they are to be infinitely preferred (cf. REASON, REVELATION and the REDEEMER).

Show knowledge by control; show adequacy by experimentation; show grounds by exhibition. Let it be OBSERVED. In fact, there was a rather hilarious case in which Professor Dawkins in an interview,  insisted that evolution could be observed (you would think he would have some idea, hopefully).

Why then was it not found  ? WHY could he NOT cite an observation of evolution ? could he ? Why then was it not done. In fact, he did not do so.

The question remained after the word-cast! The reason was allegedly this, as cited: It happens, it is just that we are never there when it does happen. Now as science this is not even up to balderdash. You OBSERVE what you do not see, are not even THERE in order to see; but it happens, and this is science! What is NEVER observed is a matter of observation. It is conceded in the quotation that it is "JUST THAT", when it comes to the observation of this phenomenon, no one is ever there to see it.  The words actually cited are these: "Evolution has been observed. It is just that it has not been observed while it is happening,"

NOT being there is a negative. Are you then to be there by a certain mysticism ? Is that scientific ? Is that resting on repeatable and testable experimentation about the nature of 'nature', when NO ONE observes! How could you repeat what is not observed in the first case, to show that it is not fancy, but fact!

That sums up casuistry. All the talk, there categorically from a major contestant, CANNOT deny that it is NEVER FOUND, SEEN, empirically extant as there for the observer. For the organic evolutionist, his science is in his mind; and that naturally can mean ANYTHING. Actual science is what IS found; and that is why it does not founder (except for various errors that may occur). When its method is the opposite of what is scientifically apposite, the time has come to note that philosophy has simply acquired the word 'science', and many scientists are evidently willing to let it do so. That is subjective. The situation has not changed.

What then ?Then don't worry about its oddity, which tries to work around the fact that to get anything, you need to have something available, and be something; and its further oddity, that has no reason for the bizarre start which they imagine, the upward move in face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Rather in the model, there is just a dismissal of law as beyond the beginning, then a re-invention it, to give something before the end. This IS imagination and not fact, all along, this model. Indeed, it has no reason for anything anyhow, no reason for the Big Bang imagined compression (it may seem nice in view of this and that 'to come' on its question-begging parameters, but there is not just convenience in view when facts are at issue).  What then causes the compressible, the pressurising capacity, the time and space dimensions (or potential ones) to make this feasible, the explosive creativity, the inventive commotion, the failed expansion scenario ?*5C.

Let us have two things, their cause and their consequence conforming to the cause. We can obtain neither. It is an anti-verified and an incoherent hypothesis. It does not cover the case.

WHY is it there, to be compressed, why the compressor, why space for the process, or potential space ?: there is a surfeit of unanswered questions which all come back to camouflage*5C. If it is nothing; it is gone. No go! If it is something, it must be adequate for what is to be done. Go, but not without what is normally called God, providing eternal energy and its apposite direction for coherent, systematic outcomes,  the underlying cause and basis eternally of all that is to be done, without which, nullity, and without divine eternity, the same: nullity and not only self-contradiction but evidential contradiction.

The causal process, WHY did it act, and WHY did it in the relevant field,  STOP. No evidence, no ground, ideas, untested, thoughts, uncorrected by any discernible or logical actuality is placed in the model. Let us emphasise the point further; It has no reason for reason, for the presence in the intimacies of construction of this, our universe, of the logically modes of presentation which ALLOW us to investigate it with a conformable system of logic. It is on this kind of a basis that we are able to find ground for and  make sense of its actions, basis for formats for its laws, grounds for the working out of the grounds with which it is supplied. Making up logic is not something which can be done unsystematically, since its nature is that of controlling system, not coincidental ramblings.

For reason to be an operative system, you need to have the background for it; in vain would you wait in something WITHOUT IT, not characterisable or nameable because that would itself involve reason. Reason is not something to come up in some unmet way from some unreasoned source and then become entirely reasonable. Unreason as a source of reason is like bankruptcy as a source of wealth or cancer as a source of health. It is not only irrelevant; it is a monstrous dabbling in the domain of dither.

There are limits, even for Alice in Wonderland; and a this sort of imaginary land is so far from not wonderful, that even trying to describe it is a contradiction in terms, and an end to argument.




Our universe does not work that way, and does not conform to the necessary tests for such an idea.When hgowever, it is taken as it is, it does work, both in consistency with logic and in actuality of enterprise (as shown in SMR, TMR, Deity and Design..., LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST, Who Answers Riddles and Where He Is, Darkness Departs). Then it is found rationally to meet the observable: it has two phases - coming to be, and the mode of continuation. The one is never found, only its denudation over a long time (like a fine old car, that still goes very well indeed!). The result of the stopped phase is here now, and it involves degradation of energic and formatted state. That is the way of creation, and it is the attested way here.

That is the irrepressible advantage of logic and creation. It works. It has reason to do so. That is the next advantage. The reason is according to coincident revelation, that is the next one. It goes on, in verificatory continuity, akin except for the negative sign in front of declining efficiency, to the position for evolutionary nostrums.  Things DO indeed develop since the creation came; they develop weaknesses. Their theories to give a sense of legitimacy to their comedy, not only do not work, but their exponents reduce to ruin some of their competitors' odd ideas. It is impossible in this naturalistic use of nature to found nature, to find an idea that is rational; so the scope, and the disagreement between competing schools of evolutionism, is colossal.

The Bible gives reason for reality, in terms of the everlasting competence, energy and system makers at derivative levels, which endless min-systems like information typify. It gives reason for the creation, and its cessation. There is nothing it does not explain; and nothing which contravenes it, absurdities being exempted from context, through lack of reason. In reasoning, you have to perform the task,  not just assert. What meets all evidence, and is dashed by none, may be asserted and tested. Bypass does not really resolve the issue; you need the heart to start with.

Indeed, bypass of the eternal competency does not work in this case; you need to have it or have nothing. Nothing does nothing and comes to nothing. That however is not the point in this operation. We are actually talking of something manifestly made, and not making itself by any evidence, attestation or illustration, let alone before it is there to do it. It goes down; it declines just as it declines to advance to new designs. As Gould pointed out, accounting for going up when it is coming down is bizarre. Why, he asks, in heaven's name, is this so! His wearied question is  really the answer: It is in heaven's name that it HAS so acted, does have such a track record, and nothing else can or does leave such a testimony (cf. Department of Bible ...Vol. 4, Ch. 2).

Where systems lack certain features, like information, you need to work or to have work to construct them, their limits, modes, symbols, review panels, conformity patterns, logical underlay, linguistic kind, syntactic mode,  so that it is either comprehensible, or able to be programmatically treated as such by added systems. This would be needed to enable this indirect and repetitive method to work,  as by concealed concepts implicit in commands.

When we find matter doing all this on its own, with all kinds of helps and assumptions aside, just the thing supposedly the basis, it would be interesting. It would be unexampled. It would be a new universe with a new construction and constriction. It would be a different universe. As to matter, the stuff is exceedingly complex and bound by exceedingly sophisticated yet logically expressible laws.  The conferring of power to make up ideas, laws, constraints, concepts and commands with inborn prodigies for interactive felicities based on all but innumerable systems and sequences and mathematical magnitudes and formats, with life modes using assembly line techniques, past the bounds of human achievement,  is not one of them. There's nothing the matter with matter in its place; it is just not like that. Ask it by experiment, use it by research, appeal to by forces, but it just says, no, not like that. Ask nothing for matter ? it says the same.

If it were, then what ?

It  would so work.


In fact, causality is the clincher; sufficiency is the necessity. Creation is the name*4A.



concerning the presentation of this scientific, and of course religious arena - but then many have their own religions, such as naturalism, bald of evidence, rich in subjective diversification cf. *3 and *5 below).




A reference was made  to a presentation emanating from CMI, a group of experts,  Ph.D. scientists seeking to operate in the general domain of information, truth, method and science, with special reference to creation and matters deemed pertinent. Their article cautioned against swagger and carelessly making assumptions. The answer made various points, evidently holding a view for this case,  in contrast to the scientific caution note sounded by the CMI article.

The view propounded appeared to be this: that the evolutionary hypothesis, being a matter of observation, needed no such caution.  The persistent non-appearance of information, as  defined with scientific care by Professor Gitt, for a situation without intelligence, only needs to be shown an incorrect characterisation, as of course all similar demonstrations - relative to his work, Without Excuse.  Gitt declares this to be the case, information does not so arise, examining the issue methodically and with scientific rigour. Observationally as a simply material extrusion, information does not occur.

Certainly, the evidence is not found of information from matter 'arising' (after first dealing on that model, with matter itself 'arising'). Found are not little snippets of would-be information discovering mates, and in a magically wedded system, having connubial or intra-systematic and so relevant associations together, more and more productive of sense, significance, symbolic directives and objects of reference towards which to demonstrate the power to receive these would-be associations in their communicative skills. That does not dither or come hither on the screen of observable events, or any such things of an associate and significant kind, leading to the sharing of significance by symbols, to the point the significance is not lost, but translated into action. This is not found empirically. It is not observable, nor is anything of any kind leading from the domain of matter exclusively, to information. It does not register (cf. Genetic Entropy ... Ch. 9).

For  that to happen, one needs  to have for orderer and ordered, each the same linguistic system for coding, while the match of order in code, consistent code, and reception with right response to the same code, is thrown in, like turkey for Christmas, because it seems fitting. That is however,  for an unknown reason,  in this case, which is not surprising, since it is not found empirically to happen. Such assumptions of the mind, about what are in type affairs of the mind, may be sought, and marvellous affinities of oddments moving about may be assumed, and certainly this makes the imposture a little easier. It is just that it is not found. Ordering events in the mind of man is  scarcely an empirical observation, except in this case, of irrelevance and illustration of its application.

It is, in fact,  always hard to start with absolutely nothing (and also not be there yourself, in a situation having no 'there' either, and indeed null even AS a situation - nothing is very demanding), and then gather around by a process that isn't there, the things needed until it is ALL there! Such an idea seems right to many gamblers, perhaps, but not to the  requisitions of causality and logic. That is casuistry; needed is causality, and for that power and precision, logic and its operation, scope for its deployment. That is rather more than nothing, universally more.

Just as the basis for the concoction of information is a match, and the symbols are a catch, being just right for reception and  obedience, and the  logic inherent in all these transactions is assumed and drawn from the same nothing account for usage in the assumed construction (though in fact ruined by ignoring it), so various nothings that become somethings are drawn from the wells of tolerance. Truth, however, has no tolerance. It requires attestation, and does not stand on imagination, especially when this supplies all that is needed from no citable, rational source.

What is needed to  commence, it is taken to be 'there' or to  'arrive' also (like contestants coming to an  Olympic Games, with one organisation - but they have people and planes...). Now in fact, we do not find either  find universes or books being written, on a basis of matter alone, nor matter being made without a basis for its making, or new reaches of nothing becoming something in no system, or inscriptions being put out to make the smallest living cells in their entire complexity (best to explain evidence as found, not dream about imagination once again). Being able to imagine may be fun; being able to show grounds is more to the point. Showing their relevance is still more, and their operation as such in a suitable actual setting still more so.

We need not here proceed. This evolutionary reality, in which large bodies of information appear as  relatively simple, with their multiplicity of interactive systems, has nothing like it happening now, no new designs arrive (Professor Stephen Jay Gould hated their disappearance after he attested that  they first  DID come; and indeed, he finds the way the major designs came with diverse sub-models at the start, the opposite of expectations, and worse still, coming like that, they did worse, coming only to decrease enormously, this being the opposite of progress to a universe). Still, it is said that  organic evolution  is a matter of observation,  even if Dawkins  failed to cite a case when  challenged. Thus we discover not information by some material unbased base, but rather the belief in whatever belief system  is foreign to  logic.

It is even indicated that increases in  complexity show increase in information, though a crashed series of aircraft would occupy more space and take more analysis, requiring the underlying and the distortive both, for a review of various layers and enormous complexity rather than one of systematic relative simplicity in kind.

That point about the domain of increasing complexity and information is not at all actual. The actual changes over time, whatever view may be taken of their 'complexity' (in what respects ? )  may also involve a decrease in efficacy as a general model, as Professor Sanford  points out in "Genetic Entropy..." It is the increase which is to the point.

In fact, relative simplicity can involve more information in this, that if it is correct and coded conveniently, there is less conflict, contradiction, dysfunction and so more discharge to the point at issue. Information that works is the issue, not cumbersome, dysfunctional failed efforts, aborted ones. A maze of horrendous complexity in daftly arranged wirings could achieve full marks for complexity, and none for serving any useful purpose, such as helping to construct a universe from nothing, or information from matter, if you want to assume so far.

That ? making things without God, including the universe, by evolutionary procedures ? and whatever else is not there or assignable since it would require a cause and an eternal one, since without that, nothing has not future, and could not even begin to flower into something.

But WHO makes it ? the non-nothing ? and why is it that such concentrations of dynamically and functionally brilliant codes and commands and responses in a series of mutually accorded systems are not being found to be propounded now ? That is what is needed. What is needed has complexity; but complexity does not provide it. It is a resultant in working systems, in a stylised, ordered, organised, conceptualisable, commanding, multiple and mutually depending series of systems with one outlet in a singularity called, to take a case, man. Working systems are not found to come without work and energy and its direction and modes and environment to the point. Detached retinas are not good for seeing, and detached imaginations with multiple ruses of imagination thrown in are not good for constructions. Try it out. If you like it, SHOW IT. That is a caution.

Despite the fact, the so wonderful observations in question, which were cited in a response on someone's personal page, being claimed in an effort to rebut the need for special care in  dealing with generalisations in this field, as if the concept that they were there was overwhelming to  all considerations, were affirmed in the face of that, such care here being here held superfluous. Indeed, it was indicated to be irrelevant by this critic. Assured attestation of actuality in ideas about things coming to be, which do not show them or the necessary basis, however, does not substitute for life. It is sui generis, and there needs to be demonstration rather than remonstration that does not cover the case, or cite what is a necessary minimum.  Ideas are creative sometimes; but they do not create.

Thus this astonishing statement about observability of the desired process for organic evolution, apparently in terms of some anti-religious or anti-scientific method concept, was even more staggeringly given a ground which has no connection with actual valid reasoning. The ground for this negative reflection is simply the REASON given for the declaration of irrelevance of the article insisting on scientific caution in the area, applied to the scientific source. The ground, let us remind ourselves,  given for there being no need for that measure of care, was as follows: "... the fact is that evolution is an observed process in the current world, and is a straightforward explanation for current diversity and complexity of our environment."

The first is not found. Let us consider further.

As there are three factual errors in this reason, the result is not good.

First (1), evolution has never been observed; and that is why as noted below, Dawkins' view when making a similar erroneous claim, had to become entombed in flat self-contradiction. It has been observed (stage one). Where ? how ? Well, it has happened, and it is just that we were not there when it did so. That is the substance of it. The statement itself ? : "Evolution has been observed. It is just that it has not been observed while it is happening,"

Firstly, that is faith, not observation. Secondly, it is misuse of terminology. If a thing MUST be true because it is observed but those allegedly observing never managed to the there when the thing was (allegedly) observable, then this is a statement of faith, contrary to  acknowledged fact. To be observed, a thing must have the observer observing. When a claim is made, THAT CLAIM must be verified.

Being putatively observable because of your great faith in some illusory process (or any other),  without reason, without means, without visibility, only with excuses, is merely an act of blind  faith. If you mean you meant it was observable only in your own mind, then you need to say so. Science is not built on that kind of observation, though ideas from that source can be TESTED; but that is the necessity. Incidentally, the test has to be successful, past all chiding.

What then may be understood in such a case and presentation ? If you cannot observe it, then by faith you believe that it is so sure that it COULD be observed if ONLY you SOMETIME COULD be there when it actually was observable. The it is in effect observable. However, it is precisely then that is not observable, for who can repeat the experiment in your own mind, or find in this universe what is seen only in your own mental sub-version of it. Are we examining a person or a universe! thought or matter ?

Thus does observation desert its post,  and so could a judge declare that it was so sure that X had committed a murder, that it was only the point that no one happened to be there, that stops it being said to have been observed; and thus he condemns on  the FACT that the thing was observed.

Casuists have here a lesson in complicity with flat,  self-contradiction, and that kind so-called 'faith' which announces things unknown, unattested, and without known ground,  as if they were utterly otherwise. Such is often found in the cult of the forbidden (cf. SMR pp. 150ff., 330ff. ). In this, by simple prejudice and non-scientific, exclusivistic authoritarianism, certain areas for drawing truth are compulsively excluded, independently of results when they are used. Symptomatic of inglorious, dictatorial political systems, this is alien to truth, presupposing its content in an anti-heuristic harrumph.

It differs from biblical  faith in this, that the latter has super-abundant evidence,  total openness to all test, needs no casuistry, is happy with investigation by reason, meets the logical with relish, the observational as part of the program, exhibits the empirical as and where relevant, whether in terms of the historical, the literary, the scientific, and in particular, the predictive, from the past, and that past but applying to what is now present or to the future now being progressively enacted, all  as one, each in turn. Its scope is so free and full,  and found in so many phases that their summation fills books (cf. SMR, TMR, Deity and Design..., LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST). There is no principial question from philosophy or other discipline which can contend with it, and without it, there is no way of even possibly knowing truth*2A . Such has been the attestation on every side. That has filled the millions of words on this site, and the due regard for the things shown, why they can be shown, why they are not always shown, and why clamour is often made when they are shown; as well of course as acclamation.

Such a testimony as that is not based on  a claim of observability of current processes which quixotically cannot be observed. It does not deal with evidential twisting, for whatever or any reason, but with evidential testimony, and the relevant logical sub-structure and operational felicity behind it.

For something to be observed it is ultimately necessary for it to be defined past contention. Evolution in the case in question is that mode of gaining the current display of matter, mind and spirit (as in man for example) from an unknown, null or  and variably referenced source by an unknown method leading to life in an unshown manner. This is supposed to be such that once all this is done, the removal of what is not so good on the imagined way up to this assemblage from the house of imagination, is collated for no known reason, with advanced technology of literally the highest, multi-systematic kind, which comes from wherever in order to be with facility adjusted to the heavily intellectual kind of setting already imagined to be in place. Such a thing is never found. If it were, even far down the track of unbased assumption, matter would be a different phenomenon, and failure another type.\

Thus in this world if you try what does not have the observable facility to do a job, and keep at it without intelligence, you WILL find vast mistakes. We however do not find this burden of the dysfunctional as the main item in the paleographic display. Even the earliest cells, are like a city, Denton advises, and no intermediates are found, while what is found is subject to hierarchical placement with a particularity which is distinctive, at the microbiological level. It is like a university class drawn from the nursery, in which all pass.

Reproductions of this facilely imagined  facility, or parallel productions are deemed to move on in a way not known and certainly not shown. Yet it is known that this type of change may be said to be there, showing that this type of process is actually occurring before us in the very character of what is termed 'nature', for some reason. The reason however is as unknown in type, as all the rest of what appears as hype. It is neither seen nor heard; found nor discovered; operative for the  repetitive display of its objectivity, nor found to have examples of its current efficacy overall, as designs decrease, and entropy in fact, degrades the existing information, according to scientific law and observation.

Removal is the method of arrival, and reduction of dysfunction is the manner in which function is gained. The rest then follows, but not to anything relevant to getting what is there, from what was not there; or indeed at all.

Of course, some who do not face facts, may not like this definition; but it is a summation of what is being said, without the garlands and the substitution of hope and romance for fact. Suppose however, it were defined as a process within an observable universe in which poor reproductions tend to disappear and utterly transformed ones (by methods utterly contrary to each other, depending on which version is in view), appear so that we can SEE that the upward movement to get things is not a species of variation on constructed lines, but a natural process. Admittedly it would have a ground unknown, disputed, conceived variously, even by its proponents, as is only natural, since what is NOT to be found, but only theorised does not have the discipline of facts. Its failures do not remove it (contrary to scientific method), and its fallacies are not of concern (cf. SMR pp. 140ff.)..

So the entirety of productions, legal, mental, aesthetic, psychic, physical, truth itself, logic, comes from removal of what is not so good as some other variants are deemed to be... but of what! at what ? from where ? as shown relevantly in what place and at what time ? (cf. The Dawkins Meta-Mythical Creation, Ch. 9 in The Kingdoms of this World ...)

Even this is never seen. Enormous efforts to make it appear have been sustained for a long period, as in the notable case of the fruitfly Drosophila; but in the dismal  results (disjunction, loss of vitality, oddities as to be expected) did not deliver. Advances in design quality were found utterly NOT to appear (cf. TMR Ch. 1, *2 ). What one would  expect to occur when bouncing X-rays indiscriminately into exquisitely and fastidiously organised equipment of vast, multi-functionality is what did appear: loss, devitalisation and disorder. When one first looked at medicine, this fruitfly was heavy, even sensational news. THIS would show them. It did; but what it showed was the error of the conception and the ignorance of the effort. Such is not the way of intellect, reason, multiple system, logic, cohesion, call and consequence, the symbolic and the substantial and their inter-relationship. As Jesus the Christ made so plain, figs to not come from thistles. That would be easy, compared with these irrational ramifications in favour of organic evolutionary notions. That does not happen; that it is why it is unobservable; this if possible, even less!

As to the concepts of mini-mergers, microbiology (cf. Dancers, Prancers ...Ch.  5) shows the opposite: discrete placement of types without relevant order into a mathematical,multi-system kind of discrete basis being not merely unobservable, but its absence the rational rule and the visual case. NEVER is anything shown in a series of available sequence, which moves from one type of thing to another, in the way relevant to the evolutionary hypothesis; and never is not good enough for a law. Indeed,   as Karl Popper puts it (SMR pp. 145ff.), there is no law of evolution. It is not that sort of a process. It is to construct laws by no law, to make what it lacks, to overcome the opposite by making its contrary;  and it has neither rational hinterland nor empirical observability, being observed only as a dream in the heart of the believer.

Even its method to the relevant pitch for the proposal, has never been observed to achieve such results. This failure of observable mutation to reach into this creative class has been noted and


stressed enormously by many leading scientists, such as Nilsson,


pondered miserably in Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould,
who felt forced to note the opposite macro-process, that of degradation, loss
and  massive DEPARTURES in major kinds  from the scene (op. cit. p. 49),
and to affirm he could see no intrinsic superiority in what often endured, over what did not
(op. cti. p. 239)..

He became noted for denying the mini-movement concept for postulated construction, denouncing all such hypothesis vehemently, while also a Professor from Harvard University. It has been


rubbished as untenable by  Lewontin, another Harvard Professor,
one who even pugnaciously  insisted on admitting
the frequently ludicrous character of aspects of the organic evolutionary hypothesis, and


mocked by  Dr Pierre-Paul Grassé (past-President, French Acadamie des Sciences)
in his "Evolution of living Organisms,").

It has been


expressed as an outrage, emphatically by former Cambridge Professor Fred Hoyle
in his stark insistence on 'the intelligent universe',  while


exposed and acknowledged directly or indirectly,  in its virtual delusive force 
by such as Polish geneticist Professor Maciej Hiertych, former Head of the Genetics Department
of the Polish Academy of Sciences,


and discountenanced by Dr Jay L Wile, who draws on the conclusion that ït is
"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."

Thus you cannot PROCEED by destruction, which is moreover cumulative (cf. SMR pp. 252H).

Løvtrup (cf. SMR 252A), author of: Darwinism, the Refutation of a Myth,  puts it:


"... neither in Nature nor under experimental conditions
have any substantial effect ever been obtained
through systematic accumulation of micromutations."

That is an observational matter, as distinct from projections from philosophies and intelligently made computer programs based on various assumptions fitting the aligned minds of their propounders. In the end, it is what is found. As Giertych puts it, there is a question: is there this or that  ?

"An increase in information in nature or a loss of it ?
Is nature moving from chaos to ever-increasing organisation,
or from organize state towards ever-increasing chaos ?
Evolution is not a conclusion drawn from observations," (bold added, cf. SMR pp. 252H, and Genetic Entropy ... Ch. 6).

 Gould had the same problem with disappearing major designs. An upward move to reduction is the strangest thing; for how do expand by reduction, or develop by withdrawal! and indeed, there has been noted a peril for the mere continuance of the human genome due to its observed increasing load of genomic fall and failure, diversion or attrition*1A. As normal in this sphere, the actually observable fact is in confrontation with the expectation of the theory, unverified and virtually harangued by a dumb nature, yet one better able to show what is what and what is not, than the deluded (cf. II Thessalonians 2:10).

 is a strange observation for the opposite, withdrawal when progress is touted, loss when gain is in view. Here we are in the realm of opposites, things claimed, which relevantly to the issue, are not found; things accessing vast data realms in a tightly ordered basis of command direction, being moved backwards in efficacy, in steps. These are real and observable steps, but they are to the point at issue, backward ones.

Their brilliance is being dimmed or damaged, while their precision, always a place for joy in any design, is being polluted. If now the hypothesis of organic evolution were of a type which showed why there would be a reduction in already created living matter, it would be of some value. It would accord with observable fact. As it is, however, it is the opposite. it becomes an obstructive substitute for research, and an obliterative membrane with which to cover thought. As so often occurs when man loses rudder and direction, faith and reason in any field, whether war or government or passion, delusion becomes all but an entry level ticket for participation in that kind of culture.

One watches in gaunt sorrow as monsters rule minds, and attempt by force, through spiritual seduction,  academic pretension or fear, to gain their way. Afterwards, as in all but countless cases, it is not only regretted, but viewed as a virtual mindlessness that 'seized', hypnotised or drafted people. The Bible has grounds for this actually observable datum, but its nature can be watched all but endlessly in the various regimes, academic, political, educational and so on. It may seem strange, but alienation is one of the most observable of human dysfunctions, when misapplied (cf. Ephesians 4:17-19, Roman s 1:17ff.), and its outcomes have much in common when misaligned with actualities, as is often the case. It can act like a fever, regretted on restoration; and sometimes, there is found no restoration. It is not automatic.

It may seem strange to some: Not quite however: for when the arch enemy of truth operates, usually under cover like many other types of agencies, he has as at Eden, as in the Judean wilderness, appealing notes to secure appalling results. These failures are by no means necessary; so that through a flush of feeling or desire or ambition or self-regard or self-congratulation, many follow this whole maze of cognate confusions, to their drab destiny in what is biblically defined as darkness. Their numbers and types are multitudinous, just as man's creativity is vast, and its misuse corresponding in potential.

It is thus refreshing to find that Cornell's Dr J.C. Sanford (Ch. 5 esp., "Genetic Entropy..."), deals with the far greater deterioration rate in our genome than any development rate which could be hoped for, whatever  be the kind; but what of the development ? where is it seen ? As Sanford shows, deterioration is the actuality, whatever desires and ideas may be used to replace actual observation. Said Professor George Gaylord Simpson at Harvard (bold added), "Gaps among known order, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large," in agreement with Denton on the hierarchic systematics found in the classification at the microbiological level.  Only in daydreaming, said Grassé, is there a way for the mutational theory of ascent, or more precisely, for this to occur would require continual miracle, and "there is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it," p. 103, "Evolution of Living Organisms."

This is a strange observational milieu (2) for what is alleged to be a 'natural explanation! Natural is precisely what it is not, for nature does not oblige by showing such scripts, either in overall survey in the current time, or in what relates to the need. It is not found to happen. Variations do not so produce. Resultants to the point are not found. Mathematical means for variation by incredibly subtle means ARE found (cf.

Nothing from start to finish is explained by such extrapolations amid depressions, losses and perils even for continuance, far less starting. So far from showing the way to increasing complexity (3), it shows the initial complexity intact in kind, from the start, and duress which it is now suffering in the macro-movements. It horrified Gould, but it was not daydreaming in that case.

Something better than this is needed, and the evidence in logic and empirical modes and their combinatrions, is considered during this article.




See Dr Sanford's Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome , Third Edition, 2008, and subsequent presentations.



Thus in History, Review and Overview, Ch. 5, slightly extended, we have what is given below starting in red print.

There are apparent in the totality of life processes, processive units, processive language, multi-functional cerebral oversight, intimate reactivities with arrayed systems adapted to numerous features and functions in cellular, organic and dynamic living, many features which to ignore in an 'explanation' is like ignoring an enemy's power to fight back, or a nation's powers  to  enlist many prepared features for foreseen prospects. Thus not only is there the irreducible complexity of Bebe. That is only a beginning.

It is all or nothing. It is not only

 irreducible complexity, but

indivisible integrity,

indissoluble co-operation,

meta-systematic composure,

inter-and intra-systematic proliferation,

coherence of logic and symbolic notation with
executive receptors, skilled to catch meaning and execute orders, 

continuity of sequence from

connotation, to denotation, to implementation,

in a series of systematics incomprehensible except in totality.

(Indeed see SMR pp. 332Gff., Stepping Out for Christ Ch. 9, Repent or Perish Ch. 7, in End-notes,  for further considerations!  See The Bible ... Ch. 4 - 5, especially the later, on Perspicuity, another feature and Bewilderment ... Beauty ... Ch. 3. on Exuberance, a further one again.)

The path of true reductionism, false to science, of course, but currently squalidly almost normal in some sectors of its practitioners, when it comes to origins,  is most commonly to ignore what you have got, and to explain what is not there. Gould and Nilsson, Løvtrup and Thompson all have protested. Re the notable Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Professor W.R. Thompson, see SMR pp. 199ff., 312ff.. Notably, in parallel with Denton in one vital aspect of continuity, he declared this:

 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.

It is however the essence of the challenge to meet the case as it is, in all of its sequential, symbolic, integral and mutually intimate and pervasively singular procedures, whether in code type, implementation, co-ordination or exuberance of methodology; and to do so in a world which likes energy for construction and time for destruction. The other point about the construction ? it is direction. The third ? something to do as directed. In this world, and by any form of valid logic, the specifications of life paralleling the requisites of intelligence with available power. The mental concept of symbolism, as in the DNA, this type of reference to various proteins for example being deployed, is a perquisite of the implemental system, as Gitt points out, and it is so systematically, matter being led by laws that underlie it, mind using language which expresses it, symbols  being substitutes for matter, that direct it where it has no structure for going without such intrusion and command. Command, for that matter, inscribed is a mental work, signifying not securing, in and by itself.

The result, life, it matches nothing but mind, requires nothing less than something as far beyond mere genius as the heavens above the earth, requisitions an artist, artificer and maker down to the last electron and the least of the biota. Paintings do not paint themselves, Raphaels do not come by omission of the artist, and life is as far beyond these things in what it demands, as a genius beyond a talented toddler.

The perspectives and nuances of art, its undertones and its overtones, its sentiments and its modes of communications to receptors called human beings, who may decide to pretend not to like it as a competitive device, such is their programmatic liberty of will in certain arenas: these do not arise from what does not cognise them; but only in what goes far further than that. It must with enterprise* not only appreciate but perform, and not only perform, but meaningfully perform, and activate the executive elements of the body of the artist to ensure that the result actually appears; and that the way in which it does so can be 'read'. The mind despatches the vision, the spirit develops it, the body corresponds to make it in material form, no more an accomplice than a revolver to a criminal, or food to the intent of the saint.

Art is merely one facet of life. ALL functions must be accounted for in any reputable endeavour to present its basis.

As soon as one discovers one phase, feature or facet of human life in particular, there are realities within, meanings beyond, there is all the grooming of a thorough-bred horse, all the intestinal reality of a cathedral, the coherence of a great speech, the intricacy of superb mathematics, the intimacies as of love, such is the subtlety and the inter-dimensional as well as intra-dimensional sophistication, as if intelligence were easy, and brilliance a manner of life.

Matter does not mean; mind does; spirit does not find its totality when conforming; it may act to disrupt for a reason, and the reason itself, be either constructive or destructive, philosophical or political, raving or realistic, seeking redress for a conceived injustice, or to make things more evil than ever, and that on the basis of chosen priorities and particular thirsts, lusts or understandings, depending on the case in this enormous elasticity of spirit and mind. 






Causes, Predestination and Freewill, Section 4, Delusive Drift ... Ch. 3)


See for example, the work of famous medical researcher and innovator, Dr Paul Brand, in his work, "In His Image," 2008. An excerpt from another part of this web page, is appended. For the total presentation from which this, with additions, is taken, use this link.

Reason works because God uses it, and made for man a version that works in a created scenario. It enables man to dig up the laws, already formulable,  and some of the created criteria, and so the reason of man is able to understand in measure, till finding what God has to say, he gains more information, finds more brilliant laws, 'discovers' them, and yet not himself... Yet information  in turn is a carefully co-ordinated series of concepts, commands and co-ordinations which is not made by matter without intelligence, and if by intelligence, then by the creativity of mind. It is not found, naturally enough, to act without mind*13, a product of which it precisely parallels. The information for the physical basis for the operation of man's mind is set significantly in his DNA; but even this series of interlocking systems and sub-systems, does not tell man who he is, and why,  and for what. 

The brain sector alone, when duly and automatically grown after pro-creation between male and female, is awesome in its action, direction, management, initiatives, circuits, contacts, contracts, impacts, inducements, connections and preparations. To take but one illustrative figure from the book, In  His Image (pp. 142ff.), by medical specialist and famous medical pioneer, Dr Paul Brand, consider  this, in the acme of the systematic. One cubic millimetre , the size of a pin-point, can contain one billion connections amongst cells. One cell can have up to 10,000 varied connections, likened to a private telephone. These communicate in multiple order, with other systems of hormones operative and contributing to apt recognition of chemicals, with the decision to accept or reject them, depending on the surrounding circumstances and the total, multiply interactive information system.

It is not operationally a set of orders, but of information systems, enshrining orders, displaying mutuality, differing from an encyclopedia in this, that it performs what is purported, and actualised what is organised, secures what is symbolised and shows authority over what it disposes, but what it imposes. But let us consider more of the intricacies of this totalistic information network, which is really a directive portfolio; and whatever one's opinions of political mazes and directives, these things involve not only mind, but will and wit, for they are not bits, nor data only, but an institutive organ, a constitutive reality and a continuity control station, equipped with power to act in a mental symmetry of cause and effect at a level not found in matter, but continually outputted by man himself, who holds breath by means of it. Brand gives us more medical data, as such.

He sums up research to the effect that there are some ten billion brain cells, alone, and with each with up to ten thousand private connections for other cells, there is an ultimate in system,  some sending, some receiving control or communication messages, or synthesisable components of the same, and that such is the connectivity for the vast parade of messages that one gram of brain tissue may contain as many as 400,000,000,000 junctions between the synapses of the cells. There are preparations, intimations, records, enterprises afoot. It is, to use his image, as if each nerve cell has up to ten thousand of its private lines to use.

No such sheer intellectual, engineering, communication, dirigible system has been even near to man's own creation, his own creativity itself a creation, and here in works utterly surpassed, even far beyond the most concentrated computations, the most discerning symbolic thought and the best semantic depictions he can by intelligence originate. In considering causes it is not good to devalue the best, or ignore the most accomplished, or to secede from WORKS as a criterion of ABILITY and power.

It is indeed, a fulfilment in the human body of what definition requires for the term 'creation', as shown in the Chapter*4A on definitions. When you add to this, that it is alive and responsive and reactive in itself, then you major on marvel, and when further, you realise that this massive centre, leaving the CIA structure in the USA, like a child's postage stamp collection by comparison, when vested in a human person, is itself an organ available for use in the institution of purpose, aim, desire, vision, imagination, design, and the record of decisions, developments, ideas and thoughts of many orders of magnitude of coverage in multiplied and related fields, and indeed, for bypass through will, of the same, and its findings, if so desired by the person whose brain it is, like a bow to be used as desired*13A, then what ? Then it may be that the beginning of an understanding of creation creeps into even the most dedicated blindness. Indeed, a culmination of realisation is due for recognition; but that in itself, is a further marvel: we can wilfully or for  strategic purpose de-recognise what the brain attests, and what the logic underlying both brain and spirit in man, suggests. It is one logic. It too is so interwoven that strict adherence to its laws leads to exposure of laws set in the macro-creation, in the physical world, laws in turn, formulable in mentally stringent terms, based on ideas, like E=MC2.

For further and detailed analysis of the requirements for DNA at a minimum level, and the question begging, empirically ludicrous assumptions, see The Sacred, the Secular and the Sublime Ch. 7. The empirical, for obvious reasons remains far from these egregious hypotheses, for the very good reason that not only are they never illustrated in 'nature' in the mode in view for the gnostic concepts of nature creating nature before it is there to do it, but it would be an unexampled universe if they were.



On this, see  further:

TMR, Barbs 6    -7, and

Ch. 2 above, for example,

with Delusive Drift ... Ch. 3.



In detail also, That Magnificent Rock, Ch. 1 supplies much relevant data about actualities and laws, contrary to imaginations and word-play. The facts move in one direction only in the assessment, since the principles of the other option do not logically stand. This is all of the nature of verification, and anti-verification. In fact, the number of scientific- method based reasons for rejecting evolution is vast. The failure to do so is one of the reasons for the immense displeasure of Professor Løvtrup, who like Professor Stephen Jay Gould, looked for some other way than the drone of non-fulfilling Darwinism and its intellectual atrocities, and empirical lacks, and evidential impasses. As seen  in his Wonderful Life, he was astounded like Professor Hoyle of Cambridge, at the mere concept of self-creating, minio-method, maximal result marvels.  He found the evidence not only missing, but extravagantly contradicted. It is after  all, hard for nature to make nature before it is there to do it.  That does not really take a great deal of thought.

Both Gould and Løvtrup roved about for some other way, but neither was successful. Nothing proposed has ever worked in practice, where evidence does not wait on advertisement and its concoctions and conceptions, and artifices, ever-changing, never effective, but on what really can be made to happen (without, for the model, of course, human or parallel or superior intervention)  in any style, manner or phase, of intelligence. This being the QUESTION can only in jest be made part of the answer, as if to say: Give me a million and I'll show you how to make a second. That is not the question. Getting the first million is.



See for example SMR Ch. 2 and Delusive Drift ... Ch. 4.


*4 See Wake Up World! ... Chs.-  6.



       For the  definitional approach to creation, and its necessary attribution to our universe, see Volume 3, of
              Department of Bible Affairs, Vol. 3, at Chapter 6




If myth be defined as result without cause, then the naturalistic hypothesis is precisely this: that is its whole trouble, that it invents results prodigiously and continuously, never verifiably, while it can never find anything for an adequate cause. That is because what is self-attested with maximal verification as the actual cause of the universe, its eternal Maker, is frequently the object of a desire that He be snuffed. You can do that; but not with reason, or result except in your mind, and indeed spirit.

At that, then, in His eternity, He is immune to that, the whole of time itself in the domain of product, a regulated and defined result. It is made to incorporate freedom in its place (cf. Department of Bible ... Vol. 3, Ch. 4); but its place is not to delete its formulator and oversight.

That He condescended to become man, that as man He might bear the sin which severs eternal life, and prevents its accrual, does not alter the position. His bodily resurrection was part of a long announced plan, fulfilled at the time appointed (cf. The Christian Prescription Ch. 2, Christ the Citadel, Ch. 2). God keeps appointments, for good (constructive) or evil (that is judgment in that sense). See also SMR pp. 973Aff.. He speaks in time of time with a timeliness that is eminently testable , and repeatedly asserted with this difference from organic evolutionary theory: what HE says, always happens when its time is due. On this presentation, see Isaiah 41, 46, 48.



As in *4B above, Isaiah 41, 46, 48 shows a divine challenge to the creation called man (Isaiah 45:12,18-19), and in particular to duplicate His evidenced capacity to foretell the future and direct ultimate events. In 48, there is an elaborate irony, not undue, where God indicates a certain suddenness in one of the coming predictions, because of a certain deviousness in many in Israel, so that they do not like to admit the source of these instructions (48:6-8).

See also The Pitter-Patter ... Ch. 4, and SMR Chs. 8-9, including p.973A with Joyful Jottings 22-25, and The Christian Prescription Ch. 2.



What is needed for information is not variation but transmissible content with conceptualisable point and meaning, so that what appears, as in any program, is accountable, but not to itself, for it holds so many variable and constitutive elements that the very auto-generative concept in stages from nothing is clearly a mere mirage of meaning, itself discernible and directable by mind. In particular, for anything relevant to a sustainable account of the origin of information, you have to have:


an alphabet, or symbol-content organisation of stability and functionality;


all the laws and modes of such underlying realities as time and space,
including the space between 'letters' or other symbols of communication,
and matter of course,
that anything may be signified in type that accords with our topic and subject;


all the semantics and grammar needed for linguistic or quasi-linguistic exercise
with transferable and recognisable meaning, whatever be the mode,
first or second-hand, through programs, of that meaning; 


the receptor facility and functionality for the compliance with the commands,
when it comes to construction;


the ingredients for building, for it is not thought that is built,
but for example, babies, or new cells,
in accord with the evidence,  always vastly complex,
each of cytological exhibits with inbuilt energy source and intensive systematics in method;
and these are only basic ingredients;


the timing of the ingredients, so that as the command, so the availability,
and as the miniaturised movement, so the miniaturised sending, and as both,
the all but endless concomitants, that a constraint of such organisation
may be concordant in all simultaneity and cross-functional operation;


and in short, not only irreducible complexity, but overwhelmingly operative integrality,
so that not only the method of building from code command, in the origins exercise
at which we are looking, but the outcome, is safeguarded
as a matter of normal concourse and consequence.

Moreover we have to have an underlying constraint for code construction as by constriction from code, for compelling outcome, since bits do not function in a composite and mutually reliant creation, as such being irrelevant, lacking colleagues for contiguous creation and inter-functional facility. Furthermore, we need the equally underlying natural laws, enabling consistency and necessary consequence for due causation, and the presence of logic, to enable cause to be, and consequence to be obtained; and since logic is rational systematics, we need the rational source,  able to dispose and dispense reason in a material construction or indeed in ANY construction; and we need a purposeful and consistently available intellect, with facilities far in advance of our own, in miniaturisation as well as astute methodology.


a mere incidental quality of a vast systematics in law, code, time,  space, timing, command, reception, implementation,

without movement toward which we are not even starting on the essence of information:

requiring that there is something that is to be communicated,

that it is suitable and ultimately assessable in intent or command with due reference to grammar and semantics,

that there is work to be done with what does the work,

with the nature of the work

and with the effectiveness of the  transmission of what is to be done or  recognised,
even what in  fact is done in due sequence and  regard to all the other correlative commands.

Dr Werner Gitt, in his work, "Without Excuse," already mentioned, written in co-operation with two other Ph.D. writers, Bob Compton and Jorge Fernandez, indicates that universal information, carefully defined from the data, cannot be defined in the terms inherent in the coverage of matter, and is decisively separable from material conveyors.

In fact, thought is not a material entity (cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 9, Repent or Perish Ch. 7), since its emission and its consequences are not tied to any one modal format, and proceed or are refutable without reference to any particular expression system, being prone to error and coverage respectively, and irrelevant to time and space and colour and  which code is chosen, but tied to logic, rationality that is invasive and pervasive, if it is to be valid. It comes, apart  from materiality, visibility and time, space and graphics, or expression in units, instead having co-ordination with another world in which such facilities are not necessarily even available or creatively relevant, where ideas dominate and are reproved or facilitated on worth, which is assessable, and not merely observable. These come into play (or rather work) as reflections in set format from the base, directive information available,  whether in the form of code and program, or by direct interposition from its source.

One reason  for the failure of the concept that nature before it existed, created nature, and nothing created nature in any mode, is that there lacks a coherence of logic, which is the equivalent of irrationality. Another reason against the odd concept, actual or inferential, of  magical arisings is that they lack specificity of method, testability of what is specified and grounds for the arising, banishing causality which however, in absence, equally banishes logic all over again. It is a null method. That is the fundamental reason why bad non-efforts to make cells are not found scattered in a vast confusion and  congregation over the times past, tell-tales of endless failures, and bits of things without the necessary correlatives are mere variation, irrelevant to the order of reason and causality in view. It is a discordance so vast as to literally meaningless. It delves into what is not only not cognate,  the norm in scientific method, but what is not there. Efforts to escape into vagueness are mere devious or deviating contrivances to ignore both logic as such and scientific method in its own stringencies. Things in this sphere need not only formulation, but testing.

On creation, for example, see Department of Bible ... Vol. 3, Ch. 6.

On other necessary criteria in living forms, see *1B above.



See The Lord of Longsuffering, Prince of Peace, Lord of Command, Ch. 2,    *2, from which the excerpt below is taken.

Below is an excerpt from this volume, to the point..

Professor  Lewontin of Harvard University in biological science, makes the matter clear, and this is not the first such admission from scientists, what is the philosophic point.

Lewontin, notable figure in the aggressive evolutionary program wrote this: ("Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997 - emphasis in original)):

Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Here we see many non-scientific philosophical assumptions, some impossible logically, set not as an admission of a zealot, acknowledging the fault of putting personal ideas into a container unit, into which science is to be sovereignly suppressed, a sort of papal pronunciamento on doctrine, with a new kind of authority without ground, but as a glorying, in true religious zeal.

He freely admits how ludicrous is much in materialistically captured science, as shown in recent  volumes as in SMR and Repent or Perish Ch. 7 and Christ Incomparable ... Ch. 2,  where such basic concepts are shown to be logically incoherent. It has to appear so, the point he admits,  because it is so, and this truncated insistence, based on nothing, a mere preference, MUST produce such ludicrous results, such just-so stories, since it abandons just use of logic and causality, and what this requires. These admittedly appalling looking results come as  simple verification that such cut-down science is incompetent. that it does produce such results, when what is removed from the actual evidence, in terms of what has been  called THE CULT OF THE FORBIDDEN (cf. SMR pp. 150ff., 330ff.), not only ruins scientific credibility in these forbidden cultish procedures, but cuts away truth, and leaves a desolated result, much like Hiroshima.

I have often felt rather sorry for working horses, with blinkers shutting out whole fields of vision, and while protecting them from starts, removing from sight what they have no option to possess. If however, it were possible for a horse, as it is for a man or woman, to put on its own blinkers, my sorrow for the victim would be more than tempered by the knowledge it was self-harm, and loss of a whole field of vision by desire to be shielded from what is there. This is in essence what is being done not only by philosophers who happen  also to be scientists, in this satisfying neither the demands and canons of logic nor the salient requirements of scientific method, but without option, as a bond on students from  tender  years to what is for many, the Ph.D. level. The ways this is done, are many; and Løvtrup outlines some, while on this site frequent reference is made to others. This is not a matter for sadness, for it is most grievous, but for the certain knowledge of judgment.

Commitment in  science, if it is to retain any respectability, is not, as with the Romanist body, to a preferred philosophy, which gave it ludicrous results. Rather, it is to the whole realm of investigation, the entire empirical read-out; and results should be the basis of hypothesis, not the appalling residue when ludicrous hypotheses are insisted on. AT ONCE, when verification  fails, and the theory is contradicted, in science, that ends it. It is not necessary to live a whole life of contradiction, while bravely asserting that you will fight them on the beaches of materialism. What is irrational is SURE to be defeated, at  length, by reason, and this is the case here.



The volumes became numerous partly to enable a thorough examination of verification and validation, as well as logic and causation and the empirical and biblical presentations in detail, the information contained, the rigorous tests enabled, so that in one highly varied site, the coverage, including the confirmation and demonstration of the Gospel,  could attest what is after  all declared by the Bible,  as here found, to be manifest (Romans 1:17ff.). That is, God declares that the communication with the installation and preservation, and its source is utterly obvious.

Just as grit spoils simple wheel function, so rebellion spoils clarity in thought, especially when it is personal in nature. That complicates things, but not the issues, and provision is made for this sphere as well. The attractive point here is that though disease of body can irreparably destroy wonders of creation (cf. Ch.  above), nothing alters God or His power or the results of it, as in the attestation of history to precisely what He has said.

The fact that the Creator-Redeemer, Jesus Christ, increasingly rejected by an increasingly rejected world, is the recipient of praise in the procedure is exceedingly delightful. Praise where praise is due is part of understanding, and of need; for man is made for God, not God for man (cf. Galatians 1:10), and when the roles are reversed, you get what can hardly be better described than - the sort of world we have. It is  filled partly with wonderful things from God, and partly with utterly foul, lying and guilty things from man, and there is a way of escape, salvation (Hebrews 2:1ff.,6:1ff., Titus 2-3, Romans 3); and on the other hand, there is what the Bible calls the way of error, where alas the phenomenon of systematic lying becomes like rain, just an  event. The results are rather more (Department of Bible Affairs, Vol. 3, at Chapter 6).



See on the empirical evidence here, SMR pp. 252H - 251L.

On vain efforts to coerce 'nature' into acting, as made, as if it were in fact, the Maker, see TMR Ch. 1, for example,  at    *2.

See Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic, Ch. 3.
See also, The Sacred, the Secular and the Sublime Ch. 7

What we never see is nothing making things. We never see it doing the script for it, to create it (as distinct from subtle variations in script, known as mutations, or responses, built-in adaptability, or transfers of existing information). How could we! it takes some doing, as authors and actors should know, with an array of labours back of the apparently relatively straightforward programmatics (cf. the study, Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed ... Ch. 4).

For that, you need what it takes, to create not bit, but a totality of which bits may later be analysed and thought upon, but which are mere intermediaries in the creation, the  systematics of which may also be analysed out, but these too came in their own mode. Integrality in creation is one of its chief components, and ignoring it is jejune, unempirical, eye-closing before bed-time (cf. Genetic Entropy ..., op cit. Ch. 6).

Similarly, just as reductionism occurs  in the pretence of observability of the script writing actions, of an enactive type never duplicated for thousands of years in their mode and totality, so it occurs all over again in the failure to account for what is actually there, ONCE it has come. From Dizzy Dashes ... and the Brilliant Harmony of Inevitable Truth Ch. 6, we thus have this.

What on any naturalistic or monistic ground


in metaphysics is mere discord (cf. SMR Chs.   3,   10),


in aesthetics mere mumble (cf. SMR Ch. 5


in ethics platitude without meaning (News 19),


in epistemology mere vacuity (cf. TMR Ch. 5),


in politics defeatism (cf. Questions and Answers Ch. 7), or else towers built on invisible clouds,


all reductionist, irrational or both (cf. What is the Chaff to the Wheat Chs.   3 and),


now, on the supernatural origin of the regimented and volitional natural area,  becomes




in essence predictable, and


assuredly verifiable on the ground of the creator, whose verified word is without inhibition


exhibiting the fitting conclusion, like a thunder-clap to a murder.

In all things on such a basis, it leaves nothing in the least difficult, whereas on the other model, there is nothing but failure, for there is never explanation for knowledge, existence, division, beauty or morals, but only tired reductionisms, without power, without ground and without the necessary result. It is simple fact that creationism in general, but more specifically biblical creationism with the creator who has acted and declared Himself verifiably in the Bible (cf. SMR Chs. 1-3, 10, 8-9, 5), accounts for everything as nothing else either does or can (cf. Reason, Revelation and the RedeemerCh. 2 above).




See for example

The Defining Drama Ch.  3,

Christ the Cumulative and the Culmination Ch.   9,

Cascade of Mercy, Torrent of Truth
Ch.   6,

Lively Lessons ...
Ch.   5,

Dig Deeper ... Ch.   1

The Way of Truth and the Way of Error  Ch. 8.

See also Alex Williams and John Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang.