W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Volume What is New
THE PURPOSES OF MAN
Multiplied Stories about Multiple Stories
A Matter of Multiple Levels of Unrealism
There are two immediately important points about the disjunction from the goodness and the resultant badness of man.
THE FIRST STORY
First, all are fallen, like a bundle of clothes in one bag, into one pool.
Secondly, some are restored, like a group of clothes sent to the dry-cleaners.
As we have been seeing earlier in this volume, this is not because they were less sullied, but because they have made haste and looked for salvation and found it: not that it was any less obvious than a hundred bill-boards could make it.
What, however, of those who prevaricate, adjudicate with fetid fetishesses from a propaganda past, or some spurious new invention on which to sate their furious lust to grab a universe not given to them, but for them ?
It is of value to ponder some of the levels of fantasy employed, in a serial fashion, to gain their vacuous, or more strictly, evacuative design. You want to pass God by on the other side of the street, ignore Him, have Him evacuate, dismiss Him, bypass, not be ruffled by His presence, make His absence mandatory for your life ... and so on. There are ways of procedure, traditionally popular.
First, there is the lurk of nothingness. This always has explicitly or implicitly to be invoked. It sounds studiously sedate to use technical terms, quasi-, pseudo- or actual, in introducing the NOTHING SPECIAL carriages. This does not mean that there is nothing special here, but that the carriage is dedicated to the concept of ultimate nothing, and carries those addicted to its liquors. It all 'arose' from nothing ... That special addiction is here given up to a whole carriage of its own, and seats are many.
One always remembers the approach of the old Chemistry teacher to things being said to 'arise'. The idea seems to have been this. If a thing comes into being, there is a reason in chemistry. This requires study, search, reasoning, checking, formulation if possible, information and so on, method and measure. Ignoring these considerations is unacceptable ignorance and mere bypass of the question. Some errors, he indicated, could be so bad in principle as to fail a student outright! That is merely an illustration of the vague talk one finds when many speak of origins, arisings, often from nothing which is so simple a contradiction of terms as to make words a mere pretence.
They can talk of quantum fluctuations, one of which leads from nothing to something, before retracting sometimes because of the folly of imagining that a BACKGROUND of quantum fluctuations as a GIVEN for their scheme and schema of accounting for the universe, is simply begging the question. To have such a fluctuation, you have force and time and space or productive plenitudes ready for them, law and so matter, and form which makes matter matter more abundantly, and architectural plans operative in the atoms with material grounds for their operation in that way, and molecules and endless seeming combinations and prohibitions about their behaviour, what will and does not work. This is NOTHING! A quantum is nothing ? its conditions for existence are nothing ? the forces of fluctuation are nothing, be these statistical or spoken of in terms of any number of theories from quantum mechanics to teleology, which works on not nothing. It reminds of the facile comment the young may make to questions. One might ask: What are you doing, John ? Oh, nothing comes the reply, not rich in accuracy.
Again, their starting point may be a point; it all comes from a point. But why a point ? If it is mathematical, it has no quantitative existence. Again, it may be deemed to be in space or shrouding space or set to send space, but the disappointing point is this, that it is a point. It has great pressure (invented before we start like all the rest), which involves force and resistance and of course neither is nor requires nothing for its operation. There is some reason vested in entirely irrational ways, for an explosion. We are not here concerned with considerations of movement as indicating such a concept, but of the event itself. Why ?
In this explosion concept as a beginning, instead of a collection of clashing waste (all of course derived from nothing under pressure, somehow equipped with a sort of conceptual pressure in the mode for such remarkable collation with nothing), this complex situation leads on to explosion, and that with remarkable potential, flatly contradicting the hypothesis once more. Amid, the contradictions in concept, however, we not only get this weird picture, but we get order! Thus with this fraudulent faith, what do we find ? It is that ungoverned forces on unseen potentials based on nothing are able to construct nice matter with orbits and classically engineered compartments, actions, reactions, conditioned, affirmative and negative features, involving masses of intricate mathematics, built on logic, which does not delay to join in and condition this nothing adroitly. This is supposedly done; though of course it also is not nothing, despite like an octopus, involving itself all over the place, in order to give structure and repetitive capacities to the models and exhibits, all of which are the responsibility of nothing, introduced to pressure and point, to provide a universe. There is nothing like it and it is like nothing.
All these additives from nowhere (for 'where' involves place, and hence placement and specifications enabling this to have point and meaning), can be listed in a quick overview
Productive of so much then is NOTHING with
no existence (if it existed it would be SOMETHING, an ontological entity,
with the special feature of existence),
no cause and effect (a fatally and formatted logical series),
no legislated or legalised mathematics or engineering,
no imaginary resources (a special case of potential),
no future or past,
no present, shape or summary overview possible of it:
so that looking logically from outside it,
it may be seen that it is height of absurdity to invent it as a source,
a flat inflammatory utterance to distance thought, reason, vision and operability
on all sides, and in all respects, for all time,
and for that matter, without time as in ingredient in its outline,
one more feature of dispossession.
If, in short, you want to evacuate god, or even God, or feel called to do so, or feel the need (and so on),
then nothing is an impossible choice, a mere poison of plural irrationality.
On any such basis, therefore, ANYTHING is a non-sequitur, whether it is assumed, subsumed
or made a shadowy silhouette, again, without the advantage of existence.
THE SECOND STORY
There are no more options in this field, but one: SOMETHING. That is the domain available.
It must be adequate for such a work
as the universe represents, and indeed, to be empirical,
in life, sufficient for so many thousands and millions of working and unified agencies, with their tie-ups and combinations, applications and miniaturisation, their symbolic representations and their correlative actions accordingly. Now no more is it possible or permissible within the field of rationality, to talk meaningfully in this account, of nothing. If it EVER was all, then it would from the above definition, ALWAYS have to be all. We however are not nothing, demonstrating its illusory fabrication.
Hence something HAS to be eternal. It does not, at this stage, matter too much what you call it, unless it is a deceptive, question-begging name. It must be adequate, actual and capable of actualising what it wants or purposes or desires. It has to have a result, not a mere sedate siting. If you want it to be a quality which covers a series of creative principles to be put (in our minds) into bio-matter, these of course would have to have what it takes to make from an (assumed nothing, or question begging something with a logic evading ground and source and resource for its powers), these powers which merely mimic those of the actually adequate God who in fact made matter, including bio-matter with the qualities that are experimentally demonstrated and empirically sustain the hypothesis.
But these are not found; and if they were, they would be adorning what does not display them in the current case, as a world system, which is part of all it is, the now part. This substitute, subversive of fact, toying with romance, unempirical, a mere fabled add-on to what has to come from nowhere in the first place, equipped with the necessary qualities, therefore irrationally pronounced, a dream of the mind, allusion of the tongue, illusion of thought, it has to be well-equipped (from nowhere or God), with what ?
Why with intelligence to know how to prepare each draft of sudden and sufficient uplift to create a working result, understanding to know what works, depth to discern the grounds for this and so arrive at the result in working order, decisiveness in order to be able to resolve whether and when to inject in a workable manner, power to perform what it discerns, mathematical prodigies of depth to know the intricacies and avail itself of them, thus a compilation of personal resolution, conceptual marvel, existence in order to harbour as a working entity all the necessary qualities ... Indeed, the principles reported of Denton*D, *1, who vigorously and rightly made objection relative to the fable of neo-Darwinism, appear but one more. Call it what you will, and its means what you create in your own mind, it is merely a man-made harbour for thought, shatteringly interrupted before its conclusion covers the entire field.
Such imaginary properties of bio-matter as indicated, are a mere substitute for God, buried invisibly, intangibly, undetectably, inoperably in terms of any discernible operation, including non-material qualities provided in specialisation as a COMPONENT of 'bio-matter'. By all testimony, it is immaterial in both senses. Empirically, rationally, systematically, observably, causatively it is null. Nothing plus null equals nothing.
Indeed, such a morass of self-contradiction is a brilliant example of how splendid minds may indulge in vapid fancy in the field of marrying matter and mastery, existence and producing it, cause and effect, dream and fantasy on the one hand and data requiring consistent, coherent, rationally impervious grounds for their existence, on the other. These require their come-uppance. They fit into a class.
This is a work as much needing doing in Apologetics as in the production of food for the hungry. Dreaming about how it might have come about, without grounds, rationality or performance, in ways never visible but resolute absentees in the empirical world, does not feed any body, just as theories of this kind do not feed the mind or satisfy reason. Fabricating in fancy, they match the equally unempirical use of aliens (merely bypassing THEIR origin, which contains the same questions, left unanswered) or powerful points, or other imaginary question begging components of the thought world. Like dreaming of food for the hungry, this does not produce it; but if it could and did then presto! as with any other magical work, let it be done. When what is argued FROM makes logic work, that is one thing; when what is argued for, without evidence, ground or rational support, is what is argued to, that is another.
When God spoke, it WAS done and the result appears in its beginning, but His purpose, and its end, these require His decision as in Genesis 1. Such is a TYPE of event both common and understandable to man, indeed we EXPERIENCE it, on our human level, as we create, our powers descriptively active and logically supported in so doing. WE are there. The result follows, once or more, at will. That is because we have what it takes, some more, some less.
Similarly, DNA is stored and not seen to be written. It does not happen systematically, as if by a programmatic prompt, but in a former epoch, in a deluge of detail, it is found there. It had to have a logical source, if reason is not rejected, and all argument ceases if it is.
It is quite the same in KIND humanly, as in the case where a playwright like Shakespeare does some amazing play, and stops. His intention is fulfilled. No more to the relevant scripts appear from his moving hand. No more is thought drafted to symbol and symbol tied to definable meaning, so that the thought can be both expressed, registered and made to be objectivised.
Systems which create themselves from what is inadequate for their existence, such as nothing, or traduced and transformed hybrids, which do not match by any test or production that to which they are tied, nor have a definable and testable base, are merely serfs of irrationality and productions of desire. The mind can do this, and often does; but that is imagination. In the case of the institution of the universe, it needs to pre-exist our minds and to produce them together with the logic by which they work, the provision for error and its correction (as found in DNA), and the privilege of existing. In terms of what is provided, this is merely tangential as distinct from logical, an example of nothing as with imaginative children delightedly dwelling on the impossible, some sort of program-creating quality shoved into matter. It is like this, since omission of God leaves nowhere else to put it and its past! It comes moreover with prodigious consequences whilst possessing neither ground nor observability, either in function or constitution. From science it is a divorcee, and from reason a non-citizen.
As to the nothing hypothesis, this being now always an antinomian breach itself, the various details are merely add to this underlying fact. Thus if it has bare existence, that is what some might call an ontological breach. Nothing is not good on BEING. It is outlawed in that field. If it has laws, or incorporates their cause, the same, standard laws or shapes and their origins (another breach at once suffered if the very idea of that highly technical and logically investigable fact of 'matter' be entertained), the same. Each addition is illicit, like a manufacturing company in default and bankrupt. It does not matter how many or various may be your claims of various assets, they are all in the mind only, and each one is a breach of reality, and a clash beyond all possibility. Nothing is not their father, and what is their father HAS to be extremely competent in producing ANY as well as ALL the empirically featured additives. It also has to be there, always since if ever absent, nothing would always be all.
Each addition is an irrational function, a fantasy and a contradiction, and yet these breaches mount as to the heavens. You always need all the qualities and powers for what is to come; deny them at the outset and they have nowhere to come from, as if to shoot reason. But this is neither wise nor necessary. Better than null result, is the observation of the evidence and its minimal cause, with all that is implied in that.
THIRD TO SIXTH STORIES
Actually, if is from the eternal source that all this has to come, one that differs from nothing in this myriad of ways. It cannot be two or we would have to find a reason for their mutual collaboration and effectual result, and this has nowhere to come from. What is required is what as one can do all this and has no beginning or limit, and so IS the eternally existent necessity. The power to understand what is made understandable to man, is also needed, for that is not nothing, and an input must be verified, as in imports at the docks, as having genuinely come from what is competent to provide, and not some illicit and criminal imposture, deception and merely provocative push.
In short, out of nothing, on this impossible deception, God has to come, and stages and phases and inputs and outputs (both from nowhere) have to come, requiring the omission to be rectified or logic to be lost, and all argumentation therefore with it by atheists, the same; and the One God therefore has to BE, without becoming for there is nowhere to come from otherwise, and to be eternally, be one and sustain what He has made against the clangour of wear, until it is so old that it is beyond repair as a working entity with the parameters all intact. He could of course have simply dismissed it; but obviously, this has not happened...
There is little difference on the end, and the need for it, among many; there is no difference in the ground for the beginning of creation, but some would hide it. It is however not hidden when man uses the logic which he applies to other affairs, and testing the results, finds the necessities which need to be faced; for they will not be outfaced.
You can build a house of cards, or components, but if there are no cards, the building is in vain. In addition, you need the place to put them, the cards themselves and ... you, in the illustration.
That is the next story, what it comes to when you start without God.
The fourth is this. The Necessary, Eternal, Multi-Competent Actualiser (you can call it Creator for short, or God, or the One with at least all these features and the power to project them) cannot be controlled or propelled or answerable by anything, since we started with nothing, and there is nowhere for such things to come from. If there were potential to create more for itself - that is add more powers and develop new dynamisms within itself and so forth, then that would have to come from this supremely efficient nothing, too; and apart from that, it would be a Mark II development with NOTHING as its sole source, and with a far greater task ahead of itself, than mere additions to an earth-heaven type creation. This would require transformation of the operative, of the producer, of the creator who is eternal in nature, and vast in competence, able to make astounding brilliance, and fashion those who have this GIVEN to them, for dying never produced life. It is its opposite.
The technical facility for such glamorous aspirations would have to surpass that of the Eternal One, to produce at the level of the productive power of the same, at a higher level of operation than the mere products. They would also have to be installed ... by the actual operator, who would then be the ultimate to whom reference is being made. But all of that is jejune, manufactured by imagination and contrary to the fixities found, whether in logic, mathematics, or in man's recorded abilities. Even if it were so, it would not be relevant to the question of OUR coming to be, the necessary ground for which we are displaying.
The fifth story follows. It is known that building specifications for babies are of vast, systematic, symbolic character, equivalent in portent to language - the purpose of which is to provide portent for people to follow. These are recorded, inspectable and as DNA, one of the major modes of creation of different forms of life. So far from coming because they were sick of being nothing with nothing to do*1, they have nowhere even to lodge. But they came. What came before them has to be adequate; and hence for writing, a mental task, there needs to be mind, and since this is FUNCTIONING engineering and architectural language, producing in man's case, an actual mind, again in breach of hypothesis, then directive and protective power has to be present, operative and victorious against any attack (coming of course from nothing, or else something created with will, such as man, for example).
Thus this Eternal One has to be eternally present and directive, nothing having been unable to stop its formulations, information and formations, together with the meaningful meeting of the symbol-receptor complex, which also is provided, in order to get action.
This is simply to itemise some of the powers of God which are impossible logically to deny. At far higher levels they may be, but it is impossible to be lower, and much higher than the case for man is a logical necessity. There has to be sufficient splendour in this Eternal One or nothing; and the latter in view of the available evidence, is not the case.
There are still further stories, which even at their own level, fall like the Twin Towers of New York. Let us notice some of them. The sixth is this.
What is actually falling is indeed the imaginary building of irrational desire which refuses to come when the atheist calls; but there is nothing surprising about that, for nothing is more than bed-ridden, and an unimaginative patient among the chronically ill: it cannot conceive AT ALL, being not only mindless and brainless, but impersonal and not even attaining to that, for that would be an impersonal BEING. And how could you be impersonal if you successfully make persons, and match their performance with your own patience and results ? Can you write a novel when you know nothing of persons ? It would be a novel kind of a novel, with nothing to it. A person-defective being will not know how to deal with this phenomenon. It is absent in his scope. Will and purpose and power and wit require a person, just as creation requires the ETERNAL presence of the same.
If then ignoring the initial and all-covering breach, in the arena of nothing and its transformations, we turn merely to ongoing matters, such as this to come next, we find collapse even as this level (the 7th fall).
How then could life form when its DNA is perilously incapable of continuing, even if it flew from the skies, without nano-productive machines, such as those for folding proteins, correcting DNA errors with fascinating little robotic agencies acting with extreme decisiveness and precision! It could not BE without them, or continue without them. Its decay would be ruinous, and of course Professor Sanford in his Genetic Entropy shows that in fact the human genome is increasingly harassed and in effectiveness fading; that this negativity is what is the case. This is so EVEN WITH the nano-machines and editing already incorporating; without the case is quick, we are advised! Thus, its change is degradation, not ascension; and such is to be observed. In cumulative failure: the master copy downgrades.
So far from the developing of itself with powers it does not have (there is no rule that machines have to be geniuses, but just that clever minds are needed to correlation vision and plan and understanding and output, that is, to fashion what does not have this power in itself, but is susceptible to direction by it from intelligence), instead it yields to the powers which are assembled for its actions, and to the law of thermodynamics. What is not made for eternity (in itself) does not proceed to eternity.
In other words, what bears the
imprint of what our language calls design*2,
by normal specification and meaning, bears the impact of slowly dissipating copies, and this loss would be much
faster if the machines did not incorporate marvellous ways of minimising the
continuing degradation of the genome. These marvellous mini-machines in
themselves stop a flood of failure; but even granted the presence in
advance of such devices, the downward trickle continues, copies deteriorate for
the generations of man, and over
thousands of years, this is set to prove, by its direction, simply fatal.
Trying to hide from design in life neither enables its invention without it, or its retention. It is a kind of repayment to those who in one specialty, try to invade another (in science wanting to become philosophers and doing exceedingly badly at it). As we see, the type of background often operative for mountains of discourse in this field, sometimes illicitly linked to science and outside its dominion, is simple assumption, supposition, and illusory supposition. Gratuitously underlying technical talk, this bypasses the need, the answer and the point.
Many believe it for one great reason, to use the words of an administrative teacher in what is now a University, where I was teaching and denied freedom to be logical and so left: "it is not convenient." Omitting the conspectus of truth, total coverage of the case, evidently would fit with the community's desires, and with such restrictions you get along ever so nicely in meeting their wish, without principle or will for something better getting in the way. That being the appearance of the matter, questions had to be asked.
Why, I asked, if there is no fault found with what I was presenting, was I to stop giving a most spectacular example of the misuse of scientific method ? Were not teachers throughout this seemingly fallen academic bastion teaching only one unsubstantiated sort of doctrine in the field of creation and evolution! It would not pass a simple test in method. Why then prevent me from bringing some balance into the position!
"It is not convenient" rings out in memory and it asks for judgment. Is not a university, I indicated, a place for the pursuit and perception of truth ? What is it now then!
But expediency ruled. Apply that to children, and truth, forsaken, and this becomes a brand far worse in its whippings, than anything merely physical could be. They are in this helped to lose perspective, the power to reason freely, or the inclination, or both, since often they want to pass, to proceed, to make money and have a profession, and have little time to be truthful and rational, if a decision has to be made. So are they exploited, whatever the intention.
In other words: If this is the way to get THERE, then why worry about the means ? That is summary for some.
Many may be far above such lassitude, but the current immense emphasis on the need to be immoral (by biblical standards, productive standards, responsibility standards, with discipline and care), is helping this slackness, seducing many and leading to ever more ludicrous neo-morals, quasi-ideals and customary failure points. That in turn, has to have social consequences that are not inconsequential. Such is now notorious in the data realm.
Our building grows*3.
SEVENTH TO TENTH STORIES
Then there is the unfounded tower for the seventh and eighth stories.
We note that in the supposed plan, the proposed method, on the ultimate basis of nothing, but now peering up into the higher level of clouds, you have to proceed with nano-machines, necessary agencies for getting and KEEPING existence and functionality of what you portend, virtually perfect and perfected; for if this mathematical intricacy is even displaced, the artful brilliance of its current condition (which even so, has long suffered many downgradings through faulty copyings) can turn out not wonders but horrors (micro-brains is just an example). Indeed brains at all would represent a necessity of accompanying powers, put into programmatic form, which require an intellection beyond ours. Even with the thing in a working model before us (ourselves namely, available for centuries of investigation), it is still beyond the methods of mortals. If it were not so, let us see them make an alternative system that is equivalent, and THAT WORKS.
Story 8 does no better.
Gradualism is not only a fallacy in such complex affairs of vast intricacy, technical display and billion type, intimately organised collation, that is a FACT of observation. It is a cover term. A dolt does not have mental discipline, this being part of the definition of the term. A cog does not have mind, and that is the same. What is without mind does not show mind, which has functional specifications of its own, debarring it; and what is with mind has quality input already, which nothing non-mental (unless even more marvellous) can cause to be.
What it takes has to be present, like master-tools which do not lie around. (If they do, SHOW them that we may KNOW them! but in fact, even we who have the products in our own persons, do not even CONSTITUTE what would be needed, for our minds can make things both profound and remarkable in art and artifice, indirection and statistical deployment, inheriting probability methods of estimates as basis for responses in certain circumstances, on and on like political intrigues, but have in one way or another to build. Yet we cannot perform such functions as we possess.
The type is there; the copying of parts of it is there; the competence is not. From the resource bag of nothing, something like this is many dimensions away. It has to contain mind and ideas and purpose and profundity and form and logic and instructibility with the instruction. Direction is the key. The key is even exposed in the DNA, lying on the table, ready to be picked up, if your hands were big enough, your knowledge sufficiently profound and your capacities reached beyond all control, to the institution of what has its own will, not a merely diffuse copy, cunningly hidden, of your own. If that is to be your creation, let us once again, see it. In practice, the more you devise for its direction, the control even if disseminated, is concerned.
Even as he now is, man also does not create life with its capacity to be morally derailed (as in deliberately destroying itself for fun or as a protest, or as better than its estimate of what continuing life would be), to evaluate principles and assign them priorities, and then carry them out autonomously as far as the inward resolve is concerned, a practice associated with internalised conscience and guilt, and very often the seeking for pardon for the same, when misused. On the contrary, our contrivances which we make to act, do not possess person (and if it were not called 'person', it would not alter what it IS and can be with our delimited powers), and spirit with its roving imagination NOT directed into facile facilities, but roaming. That is one reason why many fear robots which through a technical glitch or impactive hitch might be misdirected as they serve, and so predictably (in principle) harm or kill.
Gradualism, in general, as a naturalistic fantasy does not evoke the functions of what is not there, move at the level in need of being for effective action; and getting it by parts can merely make risible the attempt for the whole by parts, for unlike the gaffes of many who merely dream, the case is that there is no direction available, and protection of what lacks it does not create it. Build up is like break down, indifferent, except that break down is universal as an option, whereas build up without any direction requires multitudes of means such as those mentioned above, and these must WORK FULLY FUNCTIONALLY or else the NECESSARY jobs are not done. In fact, the ludicrous case is an even worse mis-match with reality. There is on this schema, the burden of a load of useless, slightly build preliminary modules, nano-machines and organisational structure. This has to be lived with and it does not pay its way, but weighs initially non-functionally, on competition in this scenario. Thus it must suffer this cumbersome additive, AS an age-long negative. It is like carrying an extra suit-case in a race. It hardly improves things for the proposed 'advance' in the directionless world in view.
The Tenth Story does not give a magnificent view, or any view, being imaginary.
The burden of the non-operative has been noted. This is the more so the more multi-partite (and we have billions of cells even in the brain, which have to work together in interwoven specialties of progression and sequence) is the envisioned construction in the imaginary millions of years. Indeed, some prefer billions and more of these are sometimes added as if in afterthought as the ignorantly postulated, counter-evidential guesswork proceeds, bypassing technical testimonies to the contrary*4, and following reductionist omissions of relevant data. Not only would these imagined ages have to be the butt for the immediately operative proto-machinery involved in workable life, but both they and what they serve at higher levels, would need to be not only possible but operative at once, the precise and pathetic contradiction of gradualism.
Why bluster ? You have to have a sufficient, efficient, effective and effectual source all the time for such materials as these: not only irreducible into their respective components for operation, but part of the parade of need for what is functionally precise, relatively mature and well positioned, being technically correct and as such, installed with design as a part of the matrix: for that then has to qualify for the definition, at arrival. Indeed, many are the relevant features involved (cf. The Divine Sublimity ... Ch. 2*5). There is not only moreover, the dysfunctional drag of the peripherals (the contributory machinery elements), but that of what, these not in working order, supposedly for an age, do not help, so that helpless in terms of their contributors, they are merely the more so in themselves, where the difference must lie for the lie of improvement. This ? it is to be by waiting on the inadequate, unskilled, unendowed which is supposedly operative. It too is merely one step up on the failure even to be relevant, and indeed failure to be competitive, even if competition invented what was not there to choose from; it has its own set of unanswered problems.
When you breach logic, as here is
done in evolutionism, entirely or in part, then you must except it to take its
vengeance in due course, if not at once, on your breach of plan and performance,
reality and imagination in their respective places.
THE ELEVENTH FLOOR
That brings us to the eleventh floor. LOGIC is conceptual, and for concepts to be entertained or dis-enfranchised, valid or invalid, in the system of logic in which they inhere and which inheres in them in researches of HOW it all does it, mind is needed. It is this facility which binds or torments, teases or breezes through the possibilities with brio or plodding effort, but moves in this realm. It is more than amusing to find so well-known a figure in the exposed camp we are examining, as Dr Hawking, scion of Cambridge, telling us as noted in an earlier Chapter, that the universe would have to resolve on the question of whether (or not) to be BOTHERED coming into existence. In other words, an effectual force (or it would make no difference how bothered or unbothered it might be) would be ASSUMED to be in existence with a resolution before it, involving thought and decision and therefore will. That would be directed as to the little point, being already in existence, of whether it is to be persuaded to come into existence or not.
You may say it is just an imaginative mode; but it is precisely the imaginative, in this or that form, which is taken for granted whether in producing this or that (Hawking makes it clear he himself is not particularly bothered how it all comes, thus leaving out the first fundamental of thought, to know what it is based on, folly or fraud or reality). This approach is both slack and bizarre.
There is always in nothing-creation combinations this point: envisage what you
will and how you will, you need logic for valid argument (about whatever), and
logic needs mind and emplacement to match, if you are to comprehend what
goes on BY ITS FACILITATION. Use it and it must relate to what you are
envisaging; don't admit its validity, and you conclude, you
terminate the relevance of your own, the missing link in your imagination. This invalidates your own talk and leaves it in such a case, a union of irrelevant irreverence.
The shadow of SOMETHING ALREADY THERE to enable ANYTHING that was not there, to be there, is always undismissible, indefeasible, indefectible, irrefragable: it is a matter of recognising it and its minimal powers of invention, creation, performance. That routinely is implied, its avoidance even at times activating masterpieces of confusion, illusion in profusion.
Thus you need logic and this being a conceptual nexus, you need mind and you need this retrospectively and prospectively if you want to envisage the past or the future. You need to have it and to find its works as you study.
You need it for conceptual phases and their origins and their results, for their export in effectuality, so that the creation should even exist. Not believing in it does not alter it, nor does the assumption that it did not apply in the fields of your LOGICAL argumentation, help. Without logic you cannot reason about the thing at any stage, or give an answer. Atheism is just a name for not giving an answer, and yet abusing reason by using it for your presentation. If it is not valid, your part is finished, and you have resigned your argumentative place. If it is, then sequence is required which contains reason, not vague distillates of hope and suffused confusion.
Simple stage by stage breaches in building an imaginary, conceptual universe instead of the actual extant one at any part, are ineffectual. How much more the totality of the multiple facade feature, which acts like some cladding on building imported into this land nowadays, which may catch fire and bring down the whole building with it. These stages merely verify the initial failure, illustrate it and show its many degrees of being ineffectual. To start, you have to have everything logically required for anything, let alone anything so classically organised, arranged, ordered, specified and endowed as atoms, and their space, timing and power, with their implicit reasons assumed for great things, not like an ambitious dud swept in from a mental storm, but AS one which works and does so for a good reason. When that reason is tested, it is found abundantly confirmed (cf. LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST).
There has to be a refund of any relationship of evolutionism, partial or total, without the total power of God, mind and will, and any relationship of it to reality, dreams apart. If there are real and unreal dreams (about foolishness or wisdom), then they must be separated from ATTAINMENT, in any case. That is to be found!
We have been finding this total, inclusive power needed from the first just as likewise on the imaginary way into the present, with all its amplitude brought out nicely by the grounds of failure of atheism with its correlative aides de camp: to wit, though it is not always so named, the band of evolutionism. Even if you desired some kind of a god to accompany the materialistically engendered evolutionism, that god is either enabling it or not. If the latter, it is irrelevant to the point at issue. If the former, then any question of development within himself has already been dismissed, for it is a mere anthropomorphism, an inward dower developing. God may indeed descend and condescend to the human level, and did as the Bible shows and history confirms (cf. SMR and Ch. 6 therein), but man does not have what it takes to develop into an uncreated original, with power to transcend creation. Nor does he show it! Nor does anything else unoriginal have the power to translate itself into the original, which requires BEING there. Failure to be so means eternal inability to become so. You missed out on that ? no fraud can alter that.
Thus such a god as envisaged beside evolutionism
would have to be willing to use destruction for construction, abolition for
creation, and institute through tortures to His ongoing pursuits, their downfall
in dismal and contra-design torment, and is therefore a myth, a contradiction in
terms. Indeed, for the all-sufficient creator (anything on which He would depend would mean we are not then dealing with the Creator, for whom there is NOTHING on which to depend in any case), to deal thus for satisfaction would indicate Him to be dissatisfied. That would mean this: subject to undesired initial conditions or their offshoots, and that would again mean that the god being discussed, is not God and hence once more is irrelevant. The fact remains that the only testably triumphant book in the realm of the Creator, and indeed the rational account for all things, is the Bible; and as it says, so is the logical and empirical evidence, say what you will. Saying will not alter it, for facts speak when you listen to them, and hear their logical involvements*6).
Thus we go further and note that the whole fiasco of an evolution-type, atheist or quasi-atheist building is anti-scientific. Unscientific certainly, but it gainsays scientific method (cf. Scientific Method). Use the latter and you have to FIND what you wish to explain, not explain what you do not find, as in the case of genomic entropy, the Big Bang, information production as found in the DNA, this without a mind, but with gradual upgrading into higher life forms. Even this urges in, not to this world, but into imaginative contra-empirical minds, amid a vast loss of basic designs from the so-called Cambrian times to the present (cf. Wonderful Life, Stephen Gould, Wake Up World...Chs.4 - 6 ), That is a sort of infused confusion, and you find even Gould calling on heaven in his distresses. Again, said he, in the time line of developing events, you do not find one little contributor arriving first, and then moving into many sub-types, but many being reduced, an inversion.
But confusion has no limits, and error has no end, unless
Now let us resume, the gainsaying of scientific method being in point.
Indeed, it is not only
a contradiction of scientific method in all this which has disappointed; it is not just
it is its antithesis!
Thus negation is negated - two negatives make here a positive.
It is simply necessary that God be affirmed or logic lost
and with it, any relevance of argument,
thus indicating not only multiple, systematic
but the attack itself here as the assailant of God, whatever the intention of some.
The character of such suppositions removes any consistent capacity to argue for it, like an atomic bomb its many structures. Thus such approaches become characterisable as work of fallacious frenzy, obsession or ideational obsession, demanding expression, unempirical conformity, educative monopoly, part of the fast developing international expression of war on God, as foretold in Revelation 19:19.
It is always great to see God ahead of developments, better to see His word describing how it will be, and yet again, more perfected to find details of how this will be expressed. II Timothy 4:1-4 tells us of precisely what this Chapter has concerned. It is like a report before the event, rather than merely after it! Many, the Bible declares, will "turn aside to fables". They have, the prediction rang, "itching ears", that is, were moved and constraints by desire for this sort of thing, being unstable and unsettled.
Thus they will be popular*7, not just to titivate kids, but to seduce adults.
*D Denton's in some ways remarkable work, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is now reported with a follow-up, Evolution: A Theory Still in Crisis (cf. Journal of Creation, Volume 30(2), 2016). It is views of this reported KIND which are exposed in this Chapter, which deals with kinds.
*1 PROFICIENCY, PROGRESS AND REGRESS
See Ch. 1 above for the notorious case of what might be called Hawking's 'shadow god' which seems to stay around, almost like a quasi-Hawking, considering what it would like, or call for, or constitute as an available resource. HOW could it be bothered (or not) to create a universe, this it could seemingly ponder, even when its imaginary absence is in view, in order to see what it would take to make one and so come into existence! It is begging the question just as all atheism has to do just the same. When it comes to principles or various informed formulations to do this or that, we remind ourselves that these, if relevant to actuality, relate to what occurs, not what is merely imagined; and the overcoming of the obstacles in MAKING it occur, is the testimony of their presence, which in turn, has a causal basis as to what it is and does.
Neither are the imagined aliens of some, nor the principles of others conceptualised but not concretised, thought but not found in terms of empirical information, more useful than dreams of any other kind. Routinely excised is the formulator for the formulations imagined to be lurking space, or in matter; while the imagined beings ora principles continue to be affirmed without sign or signal, the powers without trace or the creative wonders without acknowledgement of the prowess to provide, and the ingenuity to insert.
In empirical fact, in terms of observation of data, the entire scope of work in its fastidious fervour has come from the first and then stopped, like a volcano of creativity, except that volcanoes do not have that genius to form, but rather to deform. What has resulted from THIS great work then ? It has left results integral and whole, and as Denton so well attests, not susceptive to little accretions, and as Gould so emphasised, not a matter of some kind of gradualism, nor could they gain by dysfunctional generations of developing uselessness in imaginary progress, before they work. There is no progress in inoperative futility, far less for thousands of year during development. As to Gould, says he, the basic designs have greatly reduced since the first till the present. It is indeed a strange manner of growth which has to have a null process of removal as its ground. A ground for something is needed only when the something happens. Imagination produces no prerequisites.
Moreover, says Professor Sanford, the human genome has actively deteriorated over time. It is not progress but regress, such as is normal for designs in a partly hostile environment over time. The marvel from the first is that their ingeniously, multi-partite engineering and mathematical provisions have made them last so well, with brilliant modes of remedy incorporated for a multitude of vital ills. They are however subject to deterioration, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not take pause, despite such marvellous maintenance provision to delay the day. Spiritual things are eternal, as is their intrinsic source; material ones per se, are not being made for their day.
But what of the empirically void idea of principles or powers which some may conceive of as inherent in matter ? It is in the mind ? yes, but where is it to be found in kind, where the data lie asking for explanation ?
Mental discovery can be fun; actual performance is the translation of actuality. The trend of Denton's more recent idea would appear to be parallel to that of the industrious and learned Professor Nilsson (SMR pp. 105 -111), who in frustration at not finding the supposed results of the evolutionary powers, simply and in effect said (not entirely unlike Denton, it seems), Well look, take an orchid, it just ... came. However, WHY it came and from what is the point at issue which unhappily is avoided, making the case for such drafted ideas to be void.
The answer, like the tested empirical data on life, is ingenious from the first, vast to prodigy in scope, without the evidence of the list of endless utterly ridiculous foozles that non-intelligence would be heir to, if only it had something to work with, itself as a dynamic for resource with all its accoutrements, so far from nothing, and ingenuity to discover functional features from the void.
Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny, esp. Sections 2 and 8.
See SMR, pp. 332Gff.,and 315A, A Pattern for Man.
See for example the following.
Evolution's Achilles' Heels - Edited by Dr Robert Carter,
Dismantling the Big Bang, Williams and Hartnett,
Refuting Evolution and Refuting Compromise, Dr Jonathan Sarfati,
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, J. Woodmorappe)
An excerpt from that site has the following.
Thus in History, Review and Overview Ch. 5 we lined up some of the features and foci found in, associated with or exhibited by the visible creation.
It is all or nothing. It is not only
irreducible complexity, but
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.)
To this was added another dimension of reality.
What we are facing then, is not only all the above. It is also directional dynamic with integral meaning, once exceedingly fast-moving, now long arrested. As well have spare tyres and spanners and gear levers in incomprehensible confusion lying about, as think of this or that chemical as if this were at all to the point. The electrons have their partitions and procedures; the atoms likewise; as do the molecules; the compounds are characterisable; the genes have their task and the DNA its blueprint. Each is a construction. Each has required the art of the artifice and the power for the presentation. ALL require a totality of systematisation to render coherent their interaction, univocal their meaning and practical their interaction
All this may be seen in its setting there. Again, in Bewilderment ... or the Beauty of Christ's Holiness Ch. 3, we find with references and background the singular and undeviating testimonies of
The latter is treated in that same Ch. 3, and the former in The Bible ... The Doctrine of Deity Ch. 5,
To all this, further extension is made in The Vitality, the Perspicuity and the Wisdom of the God of Creation and Redemption Ch. 1, summed in an end-note as follows.
Looking at the evidence of life and its sub-sectors therefore, certain features may now be noted. In addition to irreducible complexity, there is:
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,
demarcation in a series of systematics
incomprehensible except in totality,
meaningful in comprehensiveness,
in part arraignable by will.
To these, from Glory, Vainglory and Goodness, Ch. 1, we add
physical, ethical, moral, aesthetic,
discursive, ruminative, intellectually integrative,
spiritually imaginative and
metaphysically cohesive unity of perspective, operation and concentration,
potential for unitary understanding
explicative of all,
derived from the summit of experience and
comprehension in the Creator.
LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST
WHO ANSWERS RIDDLES
AND WHERE HE IS, DARKNESS DEPARTS
World Amiss, Heaven Aboard Ch. 15,
where the billions of virtual voices
of the cells in the genome for man cry out concerning the two genders; for there is a way prescribed (indeed inscribed)
for man and another for woman, and these being complementary, are conjoined in concept,
and their virtual command is - THIS and not THAT. That is the construction command set down for the generations. You can invent or seek to amend gender,
or anything at all, some of these being in your power by divine donation, some not.
Your constitutive cells
however have their directions. In that billions of them contain these instructions,
billions of voices
WITHIN even the loudest orators for gender manipulation,
contradict what lies in their very selves.
the standard for man; and as in most designed things,
there comes a time when they begin
to wear out. In this case, for the copyings over thousands of years
may contain cumulative blemishes;
and so variations like microcephaly appear. But this obviously is not the mainstream or the
essential typing, the active one; and in the case of gender, it is not the projection for future generations ones incorporated in man, any more than it has been in the past.
of this new and disoriented dissociation from the underlying command in the DNA
is great, as is the more general misuse of myth in serious, investigative