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





and the Intimate Ultimatum

of Truth

Knowledge of the unknowable and unknowable Knowledge

From truth to error, leads to terror, so why the bombast!


Responding to an attempt at criticism of his presentation concerning Starlight, Time and the New Physics, John Hartnett makes some statements of no small appeal, and they have a distinct relationship, at one point,  to what has been remarked on this site earlier*1; yet in their individual nature, they deserve some attention. This is pointed out below, at some length, as marked in the endnote. There are indeed certain underlying principles to such issues which require attention, like a foundation for a house, however many bathrooms you may elect to install.

Hartnett acknowledges that it is a competitive matter, how much his envisagement solves in terms of fudge factor, mere presumptuous imaginations, on the part of those who try to have nature make itself in some way. It is always to have what is not there make itself, for obvious reasons, or to account for what arrives by its arrival, which is a mere logical impasse, begging the question. Avoiding such errors, he presents some elements of possible relationship between current underlying law and modes of final expression in creation.

These are far simpler and cohesive than irrational alternatives, and tend to focus their oddities; but do not in themselves, for all their very remarkable success in accounting for some data, become thereby the reality. They are merely consonant with it.

Such are hypotheses in this realm, with due discipline as to what you proceed from and on what basis. In scientific method is provided in coherence and data. In this, some things are ruled out, such as hypotheses built on 'evidence' of the denial of currently affirmed laws as basis, without ground for the contradiction of such laws, and in defiance of logic, while using it. Other things are brought into sight, for estimation of the transition from creating to creation, and may have value for the understanding.

It is clear what is ruled OUT. It is a question of what and by what method in scientific method, things may be ruled IN!

Hence it is far from surprising both that Hartnett is not sure that science as currently limited, in a universe created, will be able to find a satisfying account in terms of this interface. That is as it should be; what goes goes in its own way; what comes comes in its own way; and when the two are a matter of creation and operation, installation and maintenance, then this distinction is quite ultimate. These acknowledgements appear very much in order, in view of assertions made, and in this way duly received. This discursive event, this challenge and answer is to be found in The Technical Journal, pp. 55-56, in the volume 27(1) of 2013.

It is great not to stay with Kant in his confusions about the knowable and the unknowable, exposed in Predestination and Freewill Section IV, and in SMR Ch. 5, and to have access to what is completely knowable knowledge, with no logical clashes or antinomies or antilogies*1A. It is when God speaks that this knowledge is obtainable and testable, showing its unique power and providence in both verification and  validation which is quite unique*2, and unmatched in this world, as well as fulfilling*2A the call of the logic with which we are endowed, necessary for thought's operation.


Ultimate Penultimates and Ultimacy

The point therefore arises: How CAN science KNOW (or its exponents if personification does not appeal here), what happened when some items are from what is not repeated ? It is far  more incisive a matter still when the things not repeated are creative, and more so when the creation in question is that of the universe, including such voyeurs as man. Note here what is said of Shakespeare as an illustration of the principle, below.

What science CAN see is this: what has no other investigable explanation and is not contrary to known laws and methods of science. What else ? what does transgress in this way, as excludable. It is mere mish-mash then, method and matter in view, the one with the other, the realities probed for, and the imagination concurrent with contradiction, in control, not required where it goes, or required to show results where it goes, except with multiple residual contradictions between fact and forecast,  as it proceeds on its irregular and methodically mischievous way. Where these simple realities of life are not faced, then time and energy, thought and facilities are all wasted, as when a child insists that a car is really part magic, and insists and seeing it create new seats by some imaginary process which needs neither factory nor artisan, visible or invisible.

When it comes to the violators of these constraints and methods, basic underpinning of logic, the Big Bang is a major player. It starts with nothing or begging the question, and continues by assumption not verified, and insists despite the difficulties of not only having everything come from nothing and nowhere for no known reason, despite nothing's inability to do anything, and then having all sorts of things like pressure, and geometric elements, and space and propulsion, and energy, and explosions from infinitude of compression into reality with great and orderly results,  till one wonders in what universe the propounders were educated, or for what universe they wish to operate. It is fine to make up new universes with different laws, even fanciful ones like this, provided you can still distinguish between imaginative playfulness and stern reality: of universes, there is the one you make up and the one in which YOU are made up, and in this, NOT fancifully,  but in a logical structure, investigable brilliantly by your logic, when you use it. These two do not by any means coincide!

Organic evolution is the vitalistic counterpart. You gain life in a way not even duplicable, not even now that it is here; you gain  mind from the mindless beginnings, and the spirit of discernment,  discretion and logically weighing in the present of thought and  overview, imagination and purpose, from the processive power to  analyse, so that it is all GIVEN from nowhere, from the initial laws of physical composition to the laws of thought and the powers of a man's spirit: and this is science  ? It would on the contrary, make an excellent year 12 exercise, or maybe year one University, to show the irrationality of begging the question with an assurance which mocks the data.

In fact, such a step was once taken when one was lecturing, and even though the result was quitely announced after due presentation, Authority took fast  action to slay liberty, and even when faced with the fact that this needed saying, was logical, even when challenge was made to show any failure in logic made in the entire issue, there was still the prohibition. STOP this side of htings, or GO!  I went, not wanting my tongue lassoed by those who put preference above logic, and convenience (the ground stated for the exclusion of simple presentation of unchallenged truth) above truth. I pointed out that this is not the work of a university (which that body duly became), which is to hallow truth, and shamed indeed was such a position. It was easy to continue: forsake truth and its ways, and conform to what is now becoming a tradition instead of truth. Nothing doing! Truth is something to be worshipped in this, that it is based in the absolute, in God, where alone CAN it exist concerning ultimate realities. To forsake Him for mere opportunity to conform to the ludicrous, what species of choice would that be!

It could not be mine; for when the truth is found and validated and verified, and becomes what one lives by, such conceptions are not only foreign, but alien and unproductive. You CAN leave the ground in something like a hang-glider, and it IS fun, this one can readily conceive: a spur to the imagination and a thrill to the eye, a delight to the roving spirit. Yet you have to come back to it, or smash.

New knowledge does not contradict that on which it is based; but illustrates it, whether as in science it be largely provisional, or obtained by methods of survey which pass beyond the empirical, to the functionally constructive, to the formal foundations for any knowledge, of whatever kind, the provisional or the original, the constructive elements or the constitutive beginnings, where law, order, regularity and diversification all show themselves. Matter and early cells alike, though capable of being split up in various ways, in their active and functional  composites, are masterpieces of imposition and composition. There are methods of investigation, and there are results; and items coming to hand do not disrupt the basis on which they are found; they instead RELY on it! (cf. Keys to the Comfort ... Ch. 5, and Christ Incomparable ..., Ch. 5 Evidence and Reality... Ch. 2 and The Defining Drama Ch. 2).

It is not the logic by which any position may be rationally maintained and tested, which is newly instructed by this or that new event, in practice. Frequently what is instructed is not the logical basis, but the results of its  blatant ignoring of its requirements, as in the case of the dividing line between setting up 'nature', and causing it to be a running down phenomenon (cf. TMR Ch. 1), and setting out in it, once it is placed. Creation and operation are two different things, and blatantly attempting to move from methods of result to those of cause by the methods of the result, is merely careless thinking.

A snake-like gliding to the operational and post origination situation, to that active in the installation  and its power and methods, as if the one were the other, its modes in the same field, is a schoolboy howler. It is like confusing HOW and WHY a school laboratory was built, with the arrangement of classes, the ways of the science teacher personally and the exams set. When 'nature' is being invented, invested and made operative, from adequate grounds for its massive laws of thought and operation, that is an inventive environment; and it is an absolute one, since before nature, is the nature-producing dynamic and thrust. The one is not the other. To assume the one is the same as the other, when it is never found so to operate, nor are the modes for it to do so, ever found, not even when years of intensive research are directed to it, is not only unscientific. It is akin to solipsism, which does not work, and mereley misleads.

This sort of confusion of the powers of institution with the operative oddities and particularities of what is duly instituted,  represents a monstrous aberration. The way it is built may tell you something of the minimal power to create it (and it does), and the nature of the knowledge to be found there suggest something of the purposes for which it was built; but processively, its production and its running, creation and operation, occur with totally different (if successive) purpose in view, and require different power and procedure than does living in the structure! To build is one thing; to walk about the work in its is another. One  is to institute and to constitute; the other is to maintain and utilise.

There is no barrier to logic; but there IS one to presumption.

Care is not to be dismissed, just because the issues concern the very nature and destiny of man.

On the contrary, severe realism is required, and acutely careful logic, as one seeks for more information, however given,  concerning the modes, and more particularly, nature of the Constructor, Creator, Institutor, and the purposes in view for such conceptualisation of imagination, and effecting of such objects, in their unitary concentration with magnificent structural facilities for the point in view.



Naturally, when you consider thus the way of truth and the way of error, there is a serpentine and a straight line. It is only to be expected,  as it is consistently found, that such misdirected analytical methods as just noted, in a word 'naturalism in its most popular formulation, fail uniformly, leaving various forms of contusion of thought and contusion of schema. Indeed, some are so blatant in ignoring reality, that they even seek to criticise creation on the ground that it does not conform to naturalistic premises: almost as if some promiscuous person, seeking to show the comparative strength of his position on the sexual topic, were to start by saying that the straight-laced did NOT conform to promiscuity, and hence were in error.

That is not only begging the question, but forgetting entirely what the actual question is. What works best in its own terms, and how may these be established, or disestablished ?: NOT what in one contradicts the terms of the other, what schema differs from the other and is HENCE wrong. These things have to be SHOWN: that is the scientific and logical point.

There is an a fortiori to that. IF something contradicts the basic and underlying terms of logic, and yet uses logic to argue, then it is killed stone dead by self-contradiction which makes any other contradiction logically unnecessary. There the point lies.

Not only does naturalism lead to self-contradiction by the nature of its case, in various forms of begging the question, and removing its hope of validity, but it often leads to explosive statements, even by habitués of its bars and conferences. Thus quite comprehensible is Stephen Gould's cry to heaven in view of the opposite of what is required for some method of naturalism, in its height of nothing to something, something to marvellous inventiveness, being what is found. How could data DO such a thing!

HOW can this be so ! Well might be appeal to heaven, and had he done so in method, he would not have had to experience this revulsion and convolution of mind (cf. Wake Up World... Chs. 4-6, esp. Ch. 6). Again, another Harvard Professor, Lewontin, makes his admission belligerently, like some solider in a defeated army (as in The Splendour of Biblical Coverage... Ch. 3, this chapter entitled The Morbid Fascination with Myths).

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 is science in despite, not concurrence with its own methods; here is philosophy as chosen, a beginning for the mind s DESIRED, the antithesis of instruction from what is there. As noted in terms of what is called on this site, THE CULT OF THE FORBIDDEN*3, this just sets blinkers to science, and makes it a party of prejudice, and an implementer of philosophical dreams, take your choice, however militantly. 

Yet such militant and inadequate ideology is now normally now used as an alternative to consistent creationism*4, logical rigour and scientific method. It is this which keeps to acknowledged and basic scientific laws in its dealing with extant categories, how the thing works now, and of logic in considering the implications (cf. SMR, TMR)*5.

Alas, when you try to unite as one, all things, to show both how something runs and may be maintained, and how it was produced, you are in a fantasy world of making what is there author of what was not there, before it was there to do it; and fantasies at war with simple fact must fail. Reality corrects them, and as Christ pointed out, shutting the eyes does not help sight (Matthew 13:15ff.). In fact, it eludes it even when it is available. Such self-delusion, self-deception, immolation of logic, such efforts to mythicise reality from mere ideas of part of things, given powers never found or seen, it is quite in line with former times, with no elemental advance in this department*6.

Ignoring logic tends to many things, which may justly be called fables (as foretold in II Timothy 4:3-4), that is results stipulated without a sufficient cause available; and it leads to another which might justly be called the realm of the  irrational. Confusing issues does not cease to be irrational when used as a method. 

When you consult the Bible, it meets the case for a testable construction manual, naturally a sustained best seller amid that item, in the list of things constructed, called mankind. Following it gives you marvellous freedoms, in a spectacular world of fact not built on a fabric of fantasy,  as if 'accounting' for the creation of silk by what it is now DOES. Indeed, it foretells the fruits of turning away from the wisdom of the Creator in ANY, and in particular, of doing so altogether; and these things have followed as prescribed, as forecast, a a prognosis fo such negative action on the part of man; and these same things are following now. Even when man does not follow the Lord, these things follow man, like the tail of a comet, which it has because of what it is and what it is doing.

The Bible in turn, even foretells the way of reaching the end of the maintenance phase for the creation - to which its misuse of liberty, then consigns it, when it opts out of deliverance by deity and the divine method of salvation in the Messiah sent, and provided. These things are happening in unison, in sequence and both in the observable and the psychic depths of mankind, just as prescribed by the source of salvation, for refusniks.

We cannot be generated once again, as a repeat of the first, for there is the overlay of what we have done already. What is provided is a re-generation (John 3, Titus 3), a new one which deals with the present one, which each of us carries. It is radical; but then so was creation. As with other creations, it first was not there, and then it was. That's creation. In this case, it is not a matter of what WE create with our God-given creativity, fashioning first in desire by spirit, then in mind by intellectual activity, and then in fact, by correlations of the same with knowledge and opportunity. It is one of making the sort of thing which can create in this highly derivative and intensively delightful fashion. Creation crafts not only ordered being, but orderings beings, not only with imagination, but imagination in the product, even enough to deny it, and use logic to do it. It is prodigiously creative, and this is simply one more area where man abuses his gifts, and like a runaway colt, kicks his flippant heels in reckless abandon. All this ? to achieve abandonment!

Despite this abuse, the Creator of all these things establishes the household if you will, of created creators in flesh, in a real world with its own limitations and open doors.

Thus regeneration for man is available (John 3), if repentance occurs (Luke 13), with a receiving of the ransom from the work of judgment, wrought by Christ in taking it for all who by faith take its outcome. Offered  to  all, is this ransom (Matthew 20:28), enough for all (I John 2:1-2);  and it is received by some; who are thus like panel-beaten cars, but this in an inner manner, reconstitutive indeed, and restored to the all important knowledge of God personally, and actively. Thus they come as new additions to the world of spiritual reality, not in confused contortions, but in the straight way which is that of holiness in the Lord, in HIS way.

When the maintenance phase is past, thus there is - as in so much of our own logical and creative work - a new building. Its operation - as often in buildings in turn - will be different. Indeed, those who use it will be those graduated through the grace of God through faith in the Saviour (Titus 2-3, Romans 6), and acceptance in it (Ephesians 1:6, Revelation 21-22).

For the contrary step: cutting down on God may seem cute; but God is not available for dissection. Dissection does not make frogs, and experience does not provide its ground. Waking up in a forest does not tell you how ei the ryou or it got there. Since you work wi th reasons, it is not surprising (SMR, TMR) to find it leads you to the answer, all neatly formulated and prepared, testable and validated *2.

There is not only a series of propositionally stateable items which are the truth, there is the WAY of truth, which never jibs at what happens, to conduct it away from thought, or what follows, to find some other trail; and there is the Spirit of Truth, that personal Being which from the Trinity of the Creator, the reality and the Word which carries it out, is the very Spirit which inhabits and draws to reality, sponsoring and blessing it in truth. These things do not happen when truth is derided, whether in propositional confrontation, or in dismissal or loathing of the Word who did the needed corrective task for man, in  the format of the Saviour, Jesus Christ, or in the denial of the very Spirit of Truth, to the end (cf. Acts 7:51ff.). Dissociation from deity leads to the way of error, for then there IS no truth, no absolute which communicates from  reality to experience (except for the denial of this reality or dismissal, or avoidance: a step which contradicts  the  removal of truth, in the model, since truth is supposedly used for grounds to affirm the denial of God, or His necessity). Only self-contradiction remains, to be supplemented by the contradiction of Him who bore the contradiction of sinners, and yet loving them,  did all needed for their reclamation (cf. The Lost Cross).


This Handbook, not this time in cells of our bodies, duplicable by a schema of a gloriously technical facility,  through which our bodies are made, but now for the minds that use this equipment and the spirits which consider and decide concerning it: it has an adequate display of features also. Thus, it is operational also  at the practical level, with explanation, dissertation, divulgement and revelation  all there in the Manual, the Bible. It details purpose, power, progress, the nature of liberty's office, the work of love and the meaning for both man and his world. That it leads to what is intensely personal holds no surprise, since man IS intensely personal, and did not leap out of nothing, whether by stages or all at once, since nothing has no effects; but rather was it so instituted, that given that causal thrust, it proceeded from what is adequate for the purpose, and was always there, to functional being. That is One conceptualising, instituting Author of persons, and programs alike, maker of body, mind and spirit, and what is needed for all, not least, restoration from the identity crisis in man and nations, from which they so often lurch into horrible violence of action, and vileness of thought, in reductionist fantasies.

Failing to know Him is like being a somewhat airy 'squatter' in a vacant house. The owner is aware that  He owns it, so with a little reflection, is the occupant.

God is sufficient to create, to maintain, to redeem, to proclaim the fact of all these things (cf. Isaiah 40, 52) and to verify what He says, in word, in event, in overview, in retrospect, in prospect as things come to their predicted culmination. .

Sleepers awake - comes the message, as discerned in Matthew 26:45, Jonah 1:6, Romans 13:11. It is too late for dreaming now.



For example, as to considerations of method, in reviews of current attestations of the way in which creation happened, in its latter stages, see The Defining Drama Chapter 3. After dealing with Genesis 1:1-2, it moves in such a topic as follows. Below is an excerpt.

Let us then consider models in which creation is present, in order to focus the nature of it, first in measure, and then absolutely, to see to what extent, if any, the time for starlight to transmit itself to earth relates specifically to the creation model as biblically presented, for the biblical agent, God Almighty.



If I should wish to create a house, the interaction of the parts, as in place, is by no means the topic. It might influence the way I should CHOOSE to create it, but it would not be the same thing at all. Their future operation in place, would not be identical with their being handed, handled, manipulated, put in place so that once in place with all the other pieces, they would operate in terms of the created thing called a house.  Their in-place interaction is for the most part excluded from the manipulation of emplacement. Until created into a house, their mode of action and interaction is that of handled goods in transit, in motion in a way distinctly different from that which occurs once they are in place. Other powers operate; a mind is at work not merely in terms of a design program, but in IMPLEMENTING it.

Action is to CONSTITUTE, to INSTITUTE, and only then does the thing house, act as a house does.

The action for most of the time leading to that finished product, excludes mere normal interaction of parts, and it is only to the extent that elements of creation have rendered SOME of them to be in place with others, that this beginning is possible, while creation occurs. However, the ACTUAL total nature of the creation, and of the action which is to characterise it, electricity, rain-water, forces of attrition relevant to the totality of the structure as revealed when creation of it ceases, is excluded from action until the thing is in place. Continually the power of creation is acting in a way which transcends the action of the thing when it is created.

Then the 'interference' and intervention of creation as such, ceases. Until then, it is the very order of the day; and the creation is the difference, the divergence, the category which is outré, alternative to the house in operation.

If now I had more power - and God lacks none, and creators always per se transcend their materials, with more or less effect, depending on their power - then I could place on top the roof of this house, using a small cube, and redirecting this concentrate, not necessarily possessed of any obvious relationship to the thing to be produced from it, and using chemical, physical or molecular intrusion, at my wish, I could imaginatively form it, as I desire to see it formulated.

Even beyond its own laws of operation, I could then impose creative forces to impel the whole to my will. My power, knowledge, choice of materials, power to conceive, to institute materials for processive purposes ONLY, and so on, would be the only limit. Of course, we are already moving from mere increase in power and wisdom, to NO LIMITS. That is our intention, for this is what faces God, NO LIMITS, in His creation of the heavens and the earth. They are a model of His design, desire and construction. Nothing constrains, impels or limits His choice of mode.

When God stretched out the heavens, there is no hint of 'deception' if He does not start events to which the system is unable to respond systematically, until it is in place. Metres to 'measure events' are not active until they are constructed and so connected as to be able to respond according to their organised systems, to the system to which they are to respond.

Further, from the time the system is so created that it is systematised into internal self record, there is nothing systematically to RECORD. The measurer, the responder, it is not yet there to record. It is UNDER CONSTRUCTION. That is the nature of what is being created, for a purpose, when it is not yet created, but under construction.

Again, as the Creator moves all He wants to be where He wants it - normal, once again, in the creation of ANY system, dependent only on power and intelligence, neither of which does God lack, transcending us beyond measure in His works: what then ? It is this.

LIGHT is merely one of the things, and inter-actability of this and the system being forged, it is another*2.

Thus, light can be hastened, or simply placed in situ at will, in the Creation - there is no need to travel as if He were a mere part of the universe. As placed, it can but need not, bear record of what its supervening placement implies, as the eye of God causes consequences to mirror causes at each inceptive phase of which He may have a desire to bear record, as of an operative system. There is no NEED of a vast increase in the velocity of light, and hence of a slow down later to our present understanding of its velocity, since its placement is not by transit but deposition. It may well have been far faster, in this, that many are the indications that this was the case, conceivably indeed at some point within the creation episodes (cf. TMR Ch. 7, Section E, and as marked, and the references there given, including those here noted*3). There is no constraint in terms of 'arrival' at end destination however.

If then light were of a greater velocity in this creation week, as 'stretched out' MAY signify, then we have neither the need for significant later slowing, nor other artificial impediment, after the creation week, for two reasons. First,  this would be WITHIN the creation week, so that there is no significant time for its arrival in the first place. Secondly, speed used in displacement and placement of light is an open question at the time of creation.

Creation and operation of a situation, are radically different concepts, and in creation, equally diverse realities. It is useless to talk of creation and to ignore its operation in 'explanation'. Nothing HAS to do anything, except what it is told; much as one places a cross-member in a car chassis, in a way which bears little relation to its displacement when, as part of a car that now is rumbling along, it has to keep certain relativities, such as nearness to the steering wheel. Functional relativities during an absolute act are largely irrelevant.

For that matter, if God decided and desired to bring light to the earth by simple displacement (it does not control Him, but He it, He is not in a system with it, but is creating a system AS HE WILL with the various ingredients, as always in creation, as desired, but in this, ABSOLUTELY as desired), then much will follow. Then not only the place it originates at His hand with whatever information it is intended (truthfully) to transmit, being a vehicle modified in speed, not disturbed in content, but all other being-created ingredients of the space-time-matter-gravity-expansion continuum are at His behest likewise, and NOT systematically related DURING creation, by any necessity at all.

Thus LIGHT to bring information may be harnessed or displaced or simply placed at will, and whatever else is desired not to be so displaced, there being no informational point in so acting, may work at its normal rate if so desired, while creation occurs. Light comes first, and then the forging, forming, formatting of matter in various and numerous ways. DURING creation you CANNOT in any case, let alone that of God, simply posit from the completion the mode of institution, what is to occur during the processing of creation, or dictate the variabilities of correlations, or for that matter , the integralities of the completed total formatting, in terms of current behaviour, such as we observe. Nor can you extrapolate on such a basis in any direction, not knowing the mind of the creator, and this, far less in the case of the infinitely wise God.

Moreover the scope of the universe in terms of OBJECTS in it, may have been far smaller, or there may have been an automatic incremental provision associated with such expansion as may have occurred. Light in day one may simply have been made co-extensive with whatever portion of the universe God desired it to inhabit; and this, by day 4, statedly involved the earth and stars, though not necessarily all of them. Again, gravity and Arp 'tiredness' and such  matters known or unknown, moving the resultant image of light, doubtless have been at work. In general, the principle of decay of design over time, as implied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, might be expected, whether great or small. This is why the now various expectations and understandings about light velocity decay, not necessarily after the completion of creation, are not at all surprising.

Thus a fully operational channel of communication, whether of the divine word to the divine work, or to agencies within the divine work,  is the de novo creation presentation. Its powers are not limited to the horizontal level, any more than are ours, when we create and make new alignments and arrangements by actions outside the later disposed system; indeed, far less than is the case with ours, since in the Creation, there are no limits, and at the outset, NOTHING is given. In the onset, as day 4 implies, functions may arise through activation or various enablings.

Foolish is the concept that God is limited by the maintenance aspect of the creation while instituting it; or for that matter, that no RESULTS of the institution will manifest themselves, or that all MUST. Creation is like that. You can contrive to start a given system in a given respect and relationship any time it will serve the purpose of the nature of the created thing you have in mind, its functions and performance criteria.


What God chooses to do in creation, that, it is His business.

Limiting God or His nascent system components either to our power
or matter's current modes or the events which this defines, is not
merely unnecessary, it is to create a creative model in defiance of creation.

It is to make a hybrid model, illicit, confused and for many, confusing.

LIGHT will contain record whether at, before or during its emplacement, depending solely on the desire, power and the mind of the Creator of the system*4. That light must bear record of its nascent and deployment phases is an hypothesis, whatever the actual intention, at once both naturalistic in model, and extraordinary in expectation, for any creation. A fortiori is this so, with the Lord!

It would be rather like expecting a milli-ammeter to record currents, or even preserve a record of currents to which it responds, before it was rendered operational by the completion of its design by its maker, or the turning on of the power relative to its emplaced operation. On the other hand, it would not be impossible that it could be made functional in some things, before the entirety was complete. Creation is not predictable, except by the Creator, when He is God.

The day on which stars and sun were created (cf. Let God be God Ch. 8) is not directly revealed. For the reasons given above, however, it is hard to ignore the sun as deposited at day one. Presentations concerning this are dealt with in detail in the reference here given.

A FORMING of the sun is noted in 14-16, for associated purposes, and without change of the verb, the stars are appended to this. The term specifically, in contrast to the use  of 'create' elsewhere, is form; and the divine purpose for the object which He here formed,  is the topic, not the existence.  After noting at this place,  the formation of the sun for its express purpose, which had to include the rendering of it visible and operational, relative to the multiple purpose assignment here made, conjoint matters in view of its actual task, the reference to making the stars is not alien. It is thus able to share the one verb. If it is forming for the one, it is difficult indeed to imagine it is other for the other! It is a forming session, then, for what has been created in the initial deposition of the heaven and the earth, announced at the outset.

Presumably the stars addition has bearing on the use of light at night, and for the purposes stipulated; and they are added in their functional whole at this time. It is added in semantic sequence as a lesser, but relevant addition to the light bearing purposes already noted. Whenever God made the sun and the stars, and the moon, whether when He made light or later, relates to the initial declaration; He created ALL and ordered light into existence, as in verse 1. Later He forms sun and moon, the stars also, and the purposes assigned are correlative to these actions.

 Whether, or in what form, they were created at the outset is not stated. ALL the heavens and earth were created at the outset. Light was then created; at that time, these light bearers may have also have been in existence; morning and evening relative to sun and moon suggest this; when certain purposes of sun and moon are later announced, then the stars which relate to such functions, are mentioned also.

The verb, it needs to be stressed, relative to star formation is NOT mentioned: it is a direct follow on from the case of the sun and the moon, so that the stars may well be able to conduct their contribution at the same time and for the same reason, with whatever additional formation may have seemed good. If it all happened in day 1, in gross and basic reality, then in the very interstices of utter creation comes the intrinsic reality of light, placed at will, at the velocity of will, in the state and stages of will, institutive and not per se countable in any processive mode or manner whatever.

In what form, then, in what precise designability,  the stars, sun and moon existed before clearing skies enabled stated purposes of creation in this regard to be fulfilled, we are not told. Implication appears highly constrictive that they were already there for day four, and had been since morning and evening commenced their roll, in association with each other, as shown so clearly in 14-16; but it is not the purpose, apparently, of the Author to tell us the initial configurations, merely the conformity to normal fluctuations of light and darkness, following the creation of the heavens and the earth, which would of course signify the entire rondeau of space and the correlations that follow as to function. We are being told in our terms, and our terms have meaning. There are no disjunctions but those stated; to invent others is unwise.

Light may or may not have been confined to such light-bearers. There is nothing 'unclear' if someone provides these facts and not those. What then becomes clear, for a good speaker, is that the emphasis relates to what IS stated, and this is what needs research.

The CREATION at the outset, then, would normally be expected to include the most massive and characteristic elements of the heavens and earth; and while this is not decisive, it is highly stimulating to thought and remarkable to its existence, if this were not so!

To create at the outset the heavens and the earth minus heavens, in their total or even major population, would seem rather an intrusive way of interpreting the statement. The "and the earth" (in that order, in verse 2) which follows, tends likewise to indicate that we are dealing with an earth made (as announced in verse 1): with the expectation that in some major sense the heavens likewise would be made, in parallel usage: not in entire particularity, but in major characteristic. All of these things are concordant with the expectation that stars, moon and sun were there in some not fully functional, preliminary fashion from verse 1's creation, providing the alternation of evening and morning, so characteristic of this situation, without qualification of any kind.

LIGHT came, DAY came, with its normal changes: apparently,  its normal means came with this, it is a natural thought, though with what degree of conformity to norm,  is not certain, and then later, FUNCTION of light-bearers is stated, and a forming to this end. That is all. The development is natural in continuity - light, then morning and evening, then stipulated purposes for sun and moon, with their operation in this situation, with reference to the stars in this domain of purpose. It is not felt necessary, apparently, for us to know in what way the disposition of light bearers was made, whether all at once - admittedly, rather a strange hypothesis in view or morning and evening emphasis being pervasive throughout - or in readiness, with the light relative, and then in purposive specification, for the objective then stated.

What is notable, is this, that as soon as a purpose is noted, and a word uttered, it is DONE. If LIGHT is the purpose, it is done, whatever the implement, unknown but heavily implied. If RULE over day and night is the purpose, it is DONE, with whatever has been shown, and with whatever relationship to earlier (heavy but not inevitable) implication.

Very well: you cannot force speech or rightly complain if your purpose does not equate at some time, with that of the person who is making a revelation to you. There is however in this case, Genesis 1, a decidedly beautiful economy of word, combination of implication and exposition, even in the grammar, so that if you simply follow what you are told - always a good idea when God is relating to you - you find the focus, the emphasis, the sequence after the irruption of actuality, and the modes and movements in a fluent yet precise style, and are instructed in His power, domain, purposes, with exhibition of the intimacy between purpose and performance in His creation.

Thus the LIGHT OVER DARKNESS, comes in verse 1; and the PURPOSES OVER LIGHT in verses 14ff.. These things God chooses to do, these to fulfil,  and in so doing, to report, to record, to reveal. It is actually fascinating to ponder these passages and possibilities within the record, always noting that what it declares is decreed and will happen; and perhaps this is precisely the divine desire for the readers, in terms of instructing them in care with humility, and majesty as well as its exposition in creation. In one sense, this invites us into being more perceptive and creative ourselves, while studying creation: and what more apt!

At the same time, such an approach rebukes the distortion of or addition to or subtraction from the text, so simple and clear that it requires a major effort to resist its thrust; and even this fails! ALL the word of God has but one message in these things, the certitude of His absolute creation, the sequences within it, the exceedingly importance of mobile life and of man, the orderly work of God, the immediate fulfilment of stipulated purpose, as and when decreed, and the extraordinary power which He used, so that our means or nature's current means are by NO means to be assumed operative while the divine hands themselves are moving things about, in their essence, in their design proclivities and in their performance criteria.


Again, in Lively Lessons in Spiritual Service, Ch. 5, we have from some three years ago, these words, an excerpt.  The uses and cautions concerning this phase of specialist reconstructive science are noted carefully. There are very profound and systematic limits to what may logically and with chaste care be assumed, hypothesised or hypostasised; and a vast difference lies between the itemisation of the observable, or what is based securely on explanatory surmise within the norms of what is there, and on the other hand,  what is the mode of institution.

Absolute knowledge comes from the absolute Source, by His Spirit to  ours, through His word which is weighed and sure (Psalm 111, Psalm 12, I Corinthians 2:9-13). Knowledge OF the absolute, that is of the basic certainties concerning God is a result of our logic being in tune with, in the same basic and underlying  mode as that which created the rest of the creation, so that we can successfully probe to find the actual laws (sometimes with much pain and refinement of OUR findings, over time,  as more data come and errors of method are pruned out more and more). As in Romans 1:17,  much is apparent in this way, since other ways do not show themselves, and this way continually reinforces itself in any domain, provided arrogant assumptions do not underpin its usages, or floating hypotheses do not 'arise' which deny the very method of instruction available to us.

Relative knowledge comes in a situation where the results of the absolute are used, probed,  applied. It is susceptible to revision; but the method remains, and once denies, denies without antilogy, power to argue to the contrary. Attack reason and your ability consistently to reason still, is the basis of your attack, so that you quite  simply contradict yourself, at the ultimate level. We are made like that, and it is good;  for it saves time which is precious, in getting to the point, when one is willing to act consistently. Indeed, GOD says in Romans 1:17ff., that man has in his liberty a positive flair for suppressing the truth and imagining palpable enormities. It is not less so now that in any other period of recorded, discursive history (cf.*6 below),  where the  thoughts of man are known.

When we try to move from the field of relative knowledge to that of absolute knowledge, and this is in the domain of creation where, as in all known creation, there are realms of thought and understanding and imagination, of discipline and of purpose, of planning and procedure, some invented specifically for the purpose: then there are great restraints. Assuming current laws in the making of the floor to laws, in creation of the universe itself, is obviously a contradiction in terms. WHILE you are making them, and before they are made, are they to be yet utilised ?

Probing for possible application of  some laws before creation itself of the universe is complete, may be pondered on a step by step basis, but liberty is greatly restricted,  for in creativity the capacity to revise, recall, refine, is always present and too much knowledge of this in the case of the Infinite Creative Being can be an embarrassment, as when one meets a teacher from an earlier stage in one's life, and remembers some of the incredible assumptions or ignorances one may have displayed. Man will have an opportunity to  face such things in due course, when  everything is brought to light.

In the meantime, modes of dismissal of crass reductionism as in materialistic theories (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7), involving survey from a less imposing position are in order as logical impasse is reached; but their own creativities have to be carefully examined. In this field of the ultimate, If a better mode is found, in criticism both empirically and rationally of  reductionist palaver, fine. It should not be too difficult, in demolishing a house built on  sand, without logical foundation in its  construction, to do this!  Restraint is needed, therefore, in  dealing with the creative side of the  reconstruction of what has happened, even in the later stages of creation.

With certain  basic requisites now in place, for valid thought, the  result of review and putation in this field is to be expected to be far better, more sustainable than the case without it; and it is. The precise interface, however,  between creation and maintenance, as the former finishes, are matters of care. In moving into this field of envisaging the modes of creation, and the more deeply, the  less are we in the domain of the certain and secure; merely showing rather the antilogies and antinomies of alternative thought, such as materialism and its half-way houses, smuggling in this and that without apparently noticing the imposition (as in It Calls ...  Ch. 7). Using in passing a better basis with a more consistent resultant, and removing the flamboyant use of such models, which are often imposed by casual thinkers, as if there were some NEED to reconcile the  logical reality of creation with ideas of how it NOW works, such more disciplined thinkers do better. In outline it is obvious; in the interstices of the FORM and NATURE of how God did it and in surmising the mode of its issuance into our own field of history, however, there is a more limited role.

As then to the basics, the confusion is readily seen: the made and the making are different in this, that the made is not yet made, and the needs for that result are not those for the maintenance.

Indeed, you  might as well  try to  reconcile the pages of a book of Shakespeare, how it works relative to your own mind and your own eyes, centuries later, with the processes of mind and thought in terms of which he first penned his script.

This said, the excerpt from Lively Lessons ... Ch. 5, noted above, is as follows.



(cf. Possess Your Possessions Vol. 8, Ch. 2, esp. *1)

Failed materialist theories are merely application of the general logic solipsisms they possess (cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 9, Repent or Perish Ch. 7). Creationist approaches when using the intimacies of science, however, ensured of superiority as they are, because soundly logically based in principle, must be careful of some of their procedural assumptions, lest eventually, even in their own field, they should inadvertently curtail understanding and fail to combine elements of diverse aspects. Nevertheless they have much potential value.

It appears that according to recent theories, it is not only a matter of length, breadth and height, but space-time, with mass impactive on the same, and gravity an agent. Hartnett in his work, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, notes that "relativity has long taught us that space and time are not universal absolutes but depend on the circumstances of the observer. In any case, the rate at which time flows is not the same everywhere in the universe."

One of the many contradictions of the Big Bang hypothesis is this: that points in the universe separated, in theory, by billions of light years, are all at the same temperature; and the time for such equalisation is far greater than the Big Bang hypothesis allows (Starlight, Time and the New Physics pp. 23-24)...

The concept of vastly faster velocity of light is dismissed with the concept that the slowing down would expose huge blue shifts, and light from the stars not getting here till much later, the stars would become invisible. That of course assumes that the supernatural did not MAKE things happen and CREATE the things in view, using modes of institution vastly different from those of constitution. In any theory about creation, it is always not only plausible but necessary not to leave out the creative part: this, at that stage, contrary to the present phase, is what it IS. When you explicitly seek to find a model which reaches to some extent back into creation, then the 'miraculous' is the norm, in this, that the Supernatural Creator is DOING creation as theme.

Thus if you imagine a violinist creating music, and then apply the way he acts to that of the mere violinist 'interpreter' of the music, rules are broken in many directions. He does not follow the score; accepted principles are routinely violated; he does not allow for the obvious flow and so on. He is MAKING it, not playing it.

In fact, it is all subject to innovation, intervention and creation. Not so,  and in nowhere like similar fashion, is the behaviour and liberty of the violinist as mere player of the music.

Similarly if God stopped the fast speed light, and thus occasioned a blue shift for the viewer at the time of the change, with whatever possible consequences after this, He can do it in any manner that is creatively attractive, appealing and revealing of what He wants to show. Creation is like that. Thus Hartnett on p. 116, Dismantling the Big Bang,  notes that for the observer at the time of the slow-down, on his complex model, an observer on earth might have noticed the blue shift. The acceleration of expansion over, the shift might be seen. Then it is past.

Again, on the expanding universe concept, with SPACE itself what is expanding, there is a ready answer, as Hartnett with care seeks to show, for such temperature equalisation to have ample time, just as there is opportunity for starlight to reach the earth in good time to show those stars to man on this orb, since originally the universe on this model, was far less expanded, than it now is, space, in these terms,  having extended so vastly and so fast. The space-velocity model of Hartnett allows for days on earth to equate to billions of years in fast, outward-moving space, so that time is no problem: the theoretical mathematics, it was these which required the labour!

Many things might be seen on many hypotheses, depending on their nature and modes of interaction, but in the case in point, one would perhaps expect to see the light from stars already at the earth, proceeding now far more slowly, reaching one with information, not soon from the source, but from the light already nearly here as it began smoothly to release data at another rate, from its reservoir, as it were, on the stop (that is reduction) before earth. This stoppage could occur anywhere, as desired by deity.

In any case, the way in which astronomy changes its parameters makes so many 'impossible' things 'obvious' that it is hard to be too serious about it all. This is by no means to demean the enormous effort and research and the fastidiously careful endeavours to correlate various mathematical and astronomical ideas, nor does it reduce their value; it is merely to observe that in the nature of the case, today's obstacles not infrequently become tomorrow's impact statement, and today's obvious points, tomorrow's abhorrence.

That said, however, the work of such as Hartnett does solve problems which the materialist, naturally and necessarily cannot solve. How could he ? His theory is already impossible in a basic and systematic way, in terms of logical impasse, antilogy, antinomy, solecism, reductionist fallacies and the like that to apply it is merely a waste of MORE time (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7).

Thus, for the Big Bang model of the functional atheist,  we find certain astronomical objects at certain sites to be  too OLD for that theory, too near the supposed start, just as structures appear too elaborate too soon, too grouped,  in the same way, not fitting the theoretically desired structural impositions in the system thus proposed. Scope for solution of such a problem of course exists in the Hartnett creationist model, with its time dilation relative to the earth. Such topics as these are dealt with in  TMR Ch. 7; and this is merely to mention some of the problems resulting from trying to simplify to the point of the simplistic, and to ignore rational checking and grounds for existence, motion and not mere commotion,  to the point of being scientistic.

In the darkness - rather than the light - of such monistic monoliths to anti-causation (cf. Causes, Predestination and Freewill Section IV, SMR Ch. 5), which use what they deny in logical procedure, and die when exposed to empirical fact, constantly inventing  what Hartnett calls 'fudge factors' such as dark energy and dark matter ad lib (cf. his Starlight, Time and the New Physics and Dismantling the Big Bang), it is excellent to find original and creative work being done by those who do not subscribe to such logical vacuities as foundational to their system.

Accordingly, when in any case of the development of information, law, structure, form, formatting, inter-relationship of language or other symbolic devices in a dictionary-specification, impact and result type manufacturing analogy, and this with phase within phase, inter-connections all but innumerable, and cohesion of programming with provisions for action, all in one synthetic whole, it is useless to have matter as it is, or might be, or is thought to have been, and so forth, doing the job. The cosmos of action is not of this kind, and whatever you want to call what does this sort of thing, matter is not it. You COULD call it a mental-conceptual, command-symbol-assigning, complexly-conglomerative-multi-penetration-dynamically-inventive-time disposing-model-of-integral-character,equipped-with-ideational-flow-and-ultimate-unity: type of action. But then, what of the agent who does this ?

He needs to have the facilities for which these functionalities are the appropriate, and not the contradictory, features.

Hence it is never going to be possible to build  up living things, in their fastidious mathematics, the mathematics with its intricately-operationally-brilliant modes of system in the first place, in a material environment with serenely precise specifications for its minding its own business, amid astral things derived from some orderly things imported from nowhere, with torrents of energy arriving from the same nothing which envelops all, so that nothing may come  from it, as logic dies. It is fatuous to use reason while reviling, or conniving in its demise.

Starting with orderly, organised, mathematically empowered entities enshrining operational powers imported from nowhere, just because some other things depart, as if death created life and nothing created what dies, is not really short of antinomy. If this is not mere antilogy, then call it philosophy (cf. Deity and Design ... Section 8); but every canon of logic is mere fodder to its chattering concepts, as if it were uncontrollably clashing its teeth,  in a world where concept and law, more and more amazing, develop before our increasingly knowledgeable eyes as mankind, chews the materialist cud, which is distasteful, sour and coming ultimately from cows that are not there.

There is another path. Thus, for example, Hartnett is with some innovation and considerable success, developing further the concept of a five dimensional field for astronomy, pursuing elements of the work of Einstein and Carmeli. Thus,  space-time, formed by adding the latter to the three-dimensional, to form a composite with its various rules, now has in addition to gravitational curving for complexity and precision of orientation and so operation,  the increment of space-velocity (in some arenas) or replacement of space-time (in others*1), so that this is the element to be noted.

With this, using former work of Carmeli, and others, he is dispensing with the need for dark matter and negative energy, items which he deems fillers or fudge factors, never verified, inventions in massive amounts for materialistic conceptions, which assuming much, now assume more. In fact, in the end it is all assumption, since the moment you depart,  as Paul Davies did, from nothing as the prevenient thing (though that of course is in itself a self-contradiction, and hence the change of that scholar on this point was a wise departure, to that extent), you merely import from nowhere (which of course, itself, is not by definition, there at all), what you want, as fillers for ideas, which given existence in this or that form and format, continue to evolve, dipping into the grab bag of innovation and marvel (one with no bottom and base, no cause and no meaning) for arisings to follow in the best, abhorrently condemned modes of school-boy non-science.

The scramble-gamble of evolutionism is continually trying to find NON-OBSERVABLE naturalistic basis for things imagined in the past; and this is neither science nor logic of any kind. If you are trapped, in defiance of causation (cf. Causes) in the present as the lesson-task-master for the past, it is like someone with a sports care, insisting on restricting the very field of enquiry of its origin, to what the thing now does, in trying to account for it, evidently moved by some obsessive overshoot of logic. Then, however, even if so circumscribed by erratic assumption, it would be at least some relaxation of the anti-scientific restriction of fields of enquiry, if you did at least follow what  you FIND in your circumscribed field of imagination.

Failing on both counts makes this kind of approach farcical to the point that it is not possible to take it seriously, its logic contradicting the basis of logic, except to the extent one might try to rescue some from its mortal fibrillations and endlessly groping failures, in pursuing results of imports of much from nowhere. Some of these failures, Hartnett outlines in Dismantling the Big Bang.

Let us however return to what is at least concerned to be precisely in conformity with existing data and causal conception, and we find first the Einsteinian mathematics involving both simplicity and profundity, and then this Carmeli conception thrust, with its use of much of Einstein as a sub-set. As it is developed, it faces theoretically what practically is the whole phase of the observations in the empirical universe, sought out as far as may be, a spatial totality and time-co-ordinating system,  inundated with  conceptual manipulation, ideational coherence and operations in what could almost, justly be called a 'mathematical universe.' That of course is merely the structural side; but that is our present topic.

Hartnett extends the applications and applies the extension to solve the dark matter and 'dark', negatively pushing energy,  and cosmological constant  fudges - that is, assumptions without evidence, conceived because the procedures do not work without them! Whereas the Big Bang requires a negative pressure  to keep the galaxies apart, a thing imagined, Carmeli, we learn, uses merely the normal pulling gravity, a non-exotic and known element in the affair. Types of things unfound, ad hoc importations for a failed theory, are not needed. What IS known is used instead, to meet other knowns, such as observational data!

While these more observation-based and tested theories are useful for observing how the logical flaw manifests itself in the application of the ideas of something-from-nothing (in quality, quantity, logic or any of the cosmoi *2),  in the entirety of what the universe manifests and displays, yet it is well as noted re Humphreys, not too quickly to assume the absence of the direct action of the Creator, when tracing out the results of this or that construction-on-the-way.

It is ALWAYS in ALL creation, the option of the creative artist or writer or dramatist to make introductions into the productions, themselves the direct results of the will and power and INTENTION, of the maker. In some cases, it is imperative NOT to incorporate the modes of entry or removal into the visible result, this being the object of the imagination-into-reality parade; while in others it is important that one does so. It depends on the CONCEPTION, to be created, the IMPACT and the purpose of the impact. Nevertheless, the progress in application and resolution through such theories as creationists are developing - answering and meeting serially the categorical problems of the naturalists, already guaranteed unsolvable because they reject prevenient, correlatively causal necessity - is useful.

It is rather like the case where one smells an horrific odour. It is apparent then that something is vastly out of order. As one traces the interstices of the exploding factory, or other cause, one finds more and more rational grounds for the appalling result, and eventually solves it. This however does not come through excluding in advance, any purposive action, or insisting on spontaneous combustion.

As in any competently conceived, coherent and unitary construction, when you check it, test it, understand it, you see the concept-method-means-coherence combinations in both the realms of the practical and the theoretical, perhaps even discerning the modes of transition from the one to the other. Where the powers involved are categorically beyond you, then interviewing those responsible is apt. Testing what they say is then scientific. It is not scientific to exclude them, and the results of relevant interviews, duly tested in their claims, are not scientifically excluded but included. It IS scientific to consider the consequences of their assertions, the coherence of evidence with these, and with the nature and direction of the purpose. A match is decisive. A resolution of problems has the same effect. Both together leave what a priori excludes the fit, the equivalent of  a lock-out, worked against rationality, managing superbly oblivious,  in contrary assumptions that do not work.

In fact, as to these concoctions, coherences, concept-performance combinations as discernible in finding and applying rigorously precise laws, they involve highly specialised combinations of correlatives, both logical and operational. These practical realities are not merely the opposite of chance (a term applicable to a given system in its own interstices, by itself, relative to the absence of interfering purpose), but within the cosmos of conception-construction.

The mathematics of the construction met by the mind of man, in the world outside,  and that in the mind of man, cohering like brothers, there is a vast land of opportunity to discover with what made the mind of man logical, the logic in the field of enquiry, namely the universe; for the one fits into the other, like a high-grade and specialised spanner, thrust in the right manner and place, into a most neatly contrived, specialist car.

They are, quite simply, functional correlatives, and the base is logic, together with the empirical discoveries of principle, innovation, data formatting and information to BE formatted, set in a domain of conceptual contriving power and creative intelligence, information deposition, maintenance and application and the substances necessary for the commands given, to be performed. These are all delivering the composites for the operation of the creations themselves (like cars running BECAUSE made for running),  in time and on time, with facilitators, like enzymes for proteins, in place, as the ground-plans in the DNA order it about and the mini-motors also  specified, located and made operative in the apt manner, help to build them.

It is a field of operation with the unique criteria of the overarching, logical constraint summoning derivatives into existence through what the Bible calls the LOGOS, the cause, order, word, the instituting, effectuating, conceiving, controlling Creator. Moving into the field from the eternity of Godhead, this Logos, the Lord, provides the induction of matter and the transience of matter to be formatted as a format for mind and the whole as a receptacle for the spirit of man, who tries to operate all according to his own will, or the will of God who made him.

These, then,  are the operational cosmoi, the conceptual cosmoi, the command cosmoi, the integrative cosmoi of dynamic reality. They are not something else. It is utterly vain to try to find vocabulary for items which have a specific, specialised entity-action observability, which does not connote what is denoted.

In man, it has almost always to appear,  this yearning within him for explanation, correlation, rationality, systematisation; for in him is the system in operative though derived form, of what runs in the universe and the two like twins, like being together, as the match is productive of understanding and functional facility for man, and the Maker, having imparter, moves to impart still further, from origination to maintenance, from this to introduction and communication, and from this to the creative solution to the self-induced plight of man.

Logic and its constraints, the empirical and its constructions, the laws and their elucidative operations, in man and in his field of observation, they match as do what is created by the same originative LOGOS which makes of logic a servant, its instruments caused, its constructions contained, the imagination back of it implemented.

This creative imagination in man,  in logical constraint for meaning and facility, indeed utility itself,  is something to which matter is neither heir nor subject. It is an impacted butt for impartation, not a subject for consideration. It acts. Mans seeks. 

That yearning and aspiration in man,  in turn, is a resultant of the correlativity objectively discernible in the mind of man and its modes, as a creative force, and found  in the productions of what made Him, as a mode of action. What is in man in his derived mind-spirit capacities appears in the rest of the creation as environmental ground for discovery. (Human) MIND as made by (instituting) mind thus investigates MATTER as made by (instituting) MIND, and finds for its own mental operations that it can be very mindful of the matter, since its internal and subjective parameters and powers virtually mirror  the rationality in the modes inherent for such work.

It is on display in creation, and its laws. It is found,  the structural gift of the internal operational dynamic in man which issues, when rightly applied, in mini-creations of his own, always subject to whatever constraints of law and logic have been made operative in the systems to which he looks, in observing the universe outside, and himself, in the inner domain. .

Theories, then, which take account of this, and move where the total presentation of the model takes account of all these things, have enormous facility not only because they meet the areas of observation by description, but because the LOGOS being the basis, they can progressively find verification, for what logic in causative power made, logic searches out, as well it may, since man is statedly in the Bible, in the image of God. This correlation is verification.

This is quite the opposite where such is ignored or disdained. Trouble arises as if a terrorist militant, n the information-science surge, with its laws, as in the astronomical impasses reached by the materialists, apparent long before they are applied in unworkable theories, where, quite simply, in this way or that, at this level or the other, what is missing in the causal efflux, is ASSUMED. Since this becomes constitutionally, a illogical question-begging, an exclusion of cause and an inclusion of result at will, as the work of caprice proceeds, it exists operationally as a smuggling operation, bringing in the powers of the Creator without acknowledgement (cf.  SMR pp. 422Eff.). How ludicrous this can become, is illustrated well by Hartnett (Dismantling the Big Bang) when he notes that two of the outstanding minds in their fields in ancient Universities have clearly failed fundamentally to meet the requirements in their alleged cover!

Thus on p. 59, relative to Hawking's book,  A Brief History of Time, we read that "a few sentences after Professor Hawking claimed that his  big-bang theory had explained all the evidence, that scholar admitted that among a few remaining unanswered questions was the origin of stars and galaxies." In other words, to explain the universe, you engage in an operation which leaves out most of its macro-structure! He notes how Professor Carl Sagan of Cornell University, says of Hawking's book, that this leaves the Creator nothing to do.

He could have said, then, rather that all that was left to do in the universe, on this model, was for God to make the stars and galaxies. It seems rather like saying that you have now explained how a car makes itself, with all its mathematical parameters, with no mathematics required. You assume it done, and then note it needs not doing. Causatively this is catastrophic, a mortal wo0und! (cf. Causes and SMR Ch. 5)

By studying cars, you find out about their whole causal basis: here is a work available not only for untrained mechanics, but for those of no intelligence whatever, morons being permitted to apply as supernumerary, but for their own happiness, to do the thing (since matter has less intelligence than that, when you move ex-intelligence, a chief point at issue). You can explain how the car is thus made, and need nothing, nothing at all, but certain laws and other non-chance items, to have it done without any skill at all! Marvellous! In a Degree course, you have shown how to fill in the application papers, and all that is left to do is ... the Degree, the substantive work.

Again,  the way the thing starts, that little matter, this is left out, a 'mystery'. So far from these things, however, as many like to declare, being matters of presuppositions, or prejudice, take your pick, they are matters of integral necessity, based on an irremovable causality as noted before, and this pre-selects if you are to use reason at all (cf. SMR Ch. 3). It is merely then a matter of following reason to what it dauntlessly requires and verifying empirically what results, as shown in some detail, in sequence,  in SMR. The status of the whole is  unique and comprehensive as exhibited in the work,

Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ,



Bible or Blight, Christ or Confusion:
The Comprehensive Resolution of Man's Intractable Problems
is Found Only in the Bible, the Word of God.

What then ? Assume this and that, INCLUDING that it starts, and you will do fine, if you import all the laws and procedures and make the results out of the usual grab-bag of nothing, filled with the choices of works of intellectual calibre, which stick around somehow, as byproducts of nothing, even though it CAN have nothing to do with it. Invent the situation while you are at it, and the laws of causation so that you can trace things as they progress, while ignoring these in having the things to begin at all. Why not just right a fairy story; why bother with factual requirements and empirical reality at all!

The beginning ? A given. What begins ? A given. What is achieved ? Omit nearly all, Why it is achieved, use a phrase, but don't indicate the phasing-dynamics. It is simply a mode of inventing things that a given imagined start, and all the system, laws, logical and mechanical required, as inserts here and there  as you go, and add the power to proceed (like baking soda in a recipe), and the spheres and correlative conceptual cosmoi which must operate in their own domains, all brought from nowhere at the right time, and you can, without actually explaining ANY of it, only showing results if this and that be GIVEN, reach the point where  the whole universe lies open before your mystic mentality. With Hawking, at that, you might elect to be leaving out stars and galaxies of course, and man's mind naturally (don't probe!), and his imaginative, willing spirit (don't move into reality, keep it simple).

It becomes in all gravity, a parallel to writing children's stories, with the addition that instead of having, for example Peter Pan FLY in (how, why ?), you have systems come in.

You can then indulge imagination, gloriously free of factual BASES as of the structural constraints of logic, and rather like cross-word enthusiasts, find out what WOULD happen, if you take the lead of the clue and fill it in within the bounds. You satisfy your puzzle, after first writing it down. Congratulations.

Now having said this, one must nevertheless face the fact that brilliant and helpful as some of these developing theories are, notably expanding from the work of Christians who are scientists, and showing capacity for explaining major and continually unresolved problems for the nothing base, as they are, there is both a reason for this, and a caution. The reason ? It is because of their in-principle realism and conceptual integration, that they prevail; for in any such realm of work, the leaving out of the characterisable operative cause MUST leave mere assumptions and presumptions and antilogies sprinkled about like powder in an actress's dressing room (that is, the result of directed action).

Once elegant hypothesis is formed by the enquirer, relating with structural care to evidence in the way scientific method is justly famous for prescribing, rather than his seeking to force non-related theories onto intimately comprehensible series, situations and compressions of information; and once such a species of hypothesis as this, is rationally and realistically set to work, the payload being intelligently examined, at least we are in the path of science, not specious scientism. Accordingly, when this sort of work is done, the comparison of the theories and their resolving power is pathetic: Hartnett for example in the two works cited, extensively indicates the flaws multiple and mounting, in what seeks to avoid the basis of it all.

The one meets the needs with some care, the other leaves it with an intensive disregard for the norms of the method. One examines with logic, the logical array, the other rejects whole domains out of hand, and has irreparable antinomies resulting. When you go into detail, the principles behind, merely show themselves in impasses, such for example as Harnett notes in Dismantling the Big Bang, pp. 112ff.. The resolution of chronic problems such as these, and the fudge factors of dark matter as a large fraction of the universe, and dark energy, never observed, is one of the results of his presentation, using concepts both from Einstein and Carmeli, on a Christian base, and in his Starlight, Time and the New Physics, he explores in some depth, the concepts involved, and compares their performance with ostensible options.

This presents one of the more developed creationist scenarios, and has a very considerable plausibility; though of course, the work of Humphreys awaits further development, and the possibilities of creative enterprise being unintentionally excluded at any point remains a considerable caution.

Meanwhile, there remains the stark necessity of creation from what is eternal and unconstrained by nature, the rational option that scorns 'nothing', creation indeed  whether

bullet of matter with its laws and intricate bundling and constraints, or
bullet of life with its composed information
with symbolic results by command
integrated to produce the constructions from materiality which we use, or
bullet of information with its refusal to be created by material fiddling*3, or
bullet of a structural basis for those very different functions, mentality and spirituality:

this is pursued in its various domains with consistent verificatory joy

(cf. Design or Deity ... Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ).

When you find the actual basis (the name is 'God' and his identity is as shown, in the Bible), test it, the revelation and the reason, and match it all, then on such a procedure, finding the base, and the basis, and then the results and testing these against both the structure stated and the results discernible, there is facility and especially consistent, concerted rationality and applicability in all things, on a highly testable basis. In particular, we find that this leads to and exhibits additional and confirmatory attestations, as in this field of astronomy.

This obviously gives to consequential hypothesis a profound advantage, since the impossible is hard to describe, and the anti-causal dressed in the language of causality for its very statement, is impossible to render coherent: mere antinomy. In other words, start with rationality and end with it; but scamp the necessities of your procedure and naturally your mathematics will fail, your hypotheses erode, your calamitous consequences will rise, and psychologically, the passion for omitting the truth may become volcanic. Such is man without God, with his Cult of the Forbidden*4, when he seeks to exclude any domain from his view, in seeking answers.

As a result, such methods are leaving those who want special circumstances with no base for their information, their products quite dead in the starry universe of their imaginations, while these mental scintillations are controlling their thoughts and inserting their needs, as if data were dead together with logic as twins in mini-coffins. On the other hand, fine predictions are being made and verified. In the case of Dr Humphreys, for example, a quite amazing prediction based on a creationist, scientific model, gave in a specific case, magnetic results for enormously more accurate*5 than any from materialism's lairs.

Accordingly, Hartnett at this stage has found a way of making an illusory seeming dark matter and negative energy, distinct demands of the Big Bang, never verified, far less occasioning the hypothesis, to become simply unnecessary. By this means, his approach currently removes an embarrassment by having a basis which does not require unevidenced and unattested ingredients, but finds scope in what IS found, for explanation. As so often, when strict adherence to logical principle and evidence were used with some constraint, to develop the idea, it is found  as it develops, to fit with considerable aplomb into the field to which it is directed. That of course is another of the features sought in terms of scientific method.

Now for the caution! While then, such theories are of vast value, and even if they eventually develop in this way or that, they act as controlled, inventive, innovative endeavours to match empirical facts and logical principles as more and more data become available about the information on which this universe with its laws has come to operate, and further, they represent scientific thrusts at the top level: yet they must not move too confidently. Thus, in terms of blue shift, consider the creative possibilities. ONCE your model is creation (as logic requires cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!). then instead of its being mal apropos to bring in the Creator, it becomes more so to omit His activities. Whether with man (on small scale and with limited scope) or with God (with no limits, but highly expressive in logical formats), the case is this. Creation involves creativity, and not mere conformity to what the created thing is (literally) disposed to do, once it is created. There are liberties above the laws to be instituted, for the moulding of situations which do not depend on the limitations of what HAS BEEN created.

Hence, if you are moving steel girders about on an upper floor of a building site's construction, you do not WANT the sway and vibration to be part of the system. It merely is a nuisance or constraint. If you have the power, you would tend to annul these oddities which might be applicable were you not present in creative mode. The INTERFERENCE with the 'natural', that is the mode of the final product, is as natural to creation, as it is unnatural or better, unusual, at the merely material level, without it.

Hence with the blue shift, God might well, as in the girder analogy, decide that He did not want this or that natural resultant of moving this or that feature, velocity or radioactivity, since this was irrelevant to His ideas of construction, and perhaps contrary to the best mode of construction. He would, to pursue the analogy, 'still' the vibration, just as a skilled engineer might stop waggling by this or that device, except that God has an option of using a device, or acting direct, as in the creation itself. That is His affair.

At all times, therefore, one must not use extant modes to 'control' one's model of nascent modes, inchoate activities in the formation phase. This applies to relativity, Einsteinian or that of the expanded mode of Carmeli. With this constraint, however, not to go too far, and not simply to guess what the Lord did, whether by using Occam's razor or any other close shave with reality, there is vast scope for empirically constrained theories, and resultant verification on a competitive basis as is normal to scientific method.

While, as Hartnett in detail shows,  the Big Bang has so many problems, that obviously it should have been dumped long ago, pending something that does not abundantly contradict its own premises, in favour of newer theories, such as those more recently made more popular, of which Arp has been an empirical source, whatever his constructions, and Carmeli a mathematical entrepreneur, Humphreys a surging source of imaginative concept and prediction, and Hartnett a strong worker in mathematical and astronomical development in a coherent sort of way: we must beware of too much assumption in the field of creative action IN creation.



See  Design or Deity ... Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ


See the following on this point.

See indexes, including:

TMR    5 7 , It Bubbles ... Ch.    9, esp. *1A, The Bright Light ...  7,
 Repent or Perish
, Ch.  7, pp.
152ff.; Ch.   2;
Christ, the Wisdom ... Ch.   6; BAB 29,  19;
A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 
1-3;  SMR   3,   
Little Things
Ch.  5,   Wake Up World! ... Ch.  5, End-Note 1A,
Tender Times ... Ch.

SMR Ch. 6, Christ,  the Wisdom  ... Ch. 8, The Magnificence of the Messiah
with more direct emphasis on Jesus the Christ;

Barbs ...
29 19;  
TMR 9, Grand Biblical Perspectives Ch.
What is the Chaff to the Wheat!  Chs. 3, 4, 10, 11,
Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny Chs.   3, *3,   8.

With these consult the very large and systematic work:






In the area of time, examined as to type in the Appendix, we have far past the combersome attempts of some to have intuitive, devilish, or mere canniness or flair in looking to the future, here or there, in this or in that, the Bible provides what ONLY GOD COULD provide. That is, time  appears as one might find a large, mountain and stream filled landscape, looking down from an aeroplane above it all, beyond it all in its surface configuration. It is an objectively apparent thing from that height, so that the relationships of mountain and stream, and even houses on the ground, may be discerned, which ones would be reached first from the given direction of the plane's movement, and which next.

That is an illustration. In principle the oversight of God is total, and the occurrence of events,

whether for the blessing

or cursing,

or the allowance of things to proceed in a mere superficial constraint of forces and inputs of various kinds, so that this might show its own type of blessing or its own special brand of cursing (as with those who insist on allowing their children to tinker with the family car, and inherit consequences in due course, or to avoid discipline, and find the outcomes in due time, or who fail to show them a loving understanding, and find this outcome):

proceeds as appointed, permitted (cf. Psalm 1:4-5), enabled or ensured.


If the Lord decides to stifle the outcome, amend it, change the situation in inventive kindness,
or ensure it,


either positively because of an intervention of mercy
following an appeal of heart in His name
(as in II Kings 19:20 - 20:20, in the case of Hezekiah),


or through the change desired by a repentant people (as in Jonah and Nineveh),


or because of other considerations, events or developments (as in the more complex case when Jehoshaphat of Judah woefully and foolishly continued his military relationship with the fallen and idolatrous northern Kingdom II Kings 3:1-19),


or through the application of promises to the case, some being conditional, so that they still  apply, when He hears the cry (Psalm 106:39-44);


or negatively through the force of negative promises, despite many a mercy and warning, as in II Kings 17:9-23, in terms of Leviticus 26, and notably in the case of Joash, as in II Chronicles 24:24;


or again positively, despite the evil dynamic, when a divine restraint (as in Jonah 4), worked in passionate mercy,


and even in the midst of suffering after much disregard and breach
through the wilful disjunction of faithlessness from the people
(as when Daniel appealed, after the 70 years in Babylon, as found in Daniel 9,
leading on to Ezra and Nehemiah in their reconstruction
after the ruin dealt out by Babylon, as predicted (Jeremiah 25);
for the Lord is ALWAYS faithful;


or in some measure onlly, because some blessing is lost (as with David -  II Samuel 12:8):

then this intervention, like all others, becomes the dominant feature, and that to the level appointed, and the time in view.

How He longs for a better outcome, and institutes it as grace with wisdom according to His own divine counsel (Ephesians 1:11, Matthew 23:37ff., Isaiah 48:15ff.); but He is holy and holiness becomes His people, and while the Lord is intensely merciful, and full of compassion and of an understanding heart that misses nothing and constantly seeks for good where evil has not finally brought disaster, yet judgment is not delayed forever, though it wait for long (as with Sodom and Gomorrah, which some nations now seem to be seeking to imitate, or even emulate).

In the midst of His longsuffering and mercy, often misinterpreted leading to more follies till there is no remedy (as in II Chronicles 36:16), there is knowledge, foreknowledge, wisdom and wit, elicitation, even on the brink of the volcano when strange fires lead on till they ascend to find it in their follies and wildness (as in Jeremiah 17, when a startling new offer is made to the people). He can scan backwards of forwards, view and review, and not even time is a hindrance, since He made it and is above and beyond it, but well  aware of this, His own invention, for He has no limits. How great is His wisdom and how filled with goodness is He, sublime in mercy, inscrutable to the presumption, a fountain of mercy as He is sought!

With all of this in view, and He knows by more than fast forward, indeed in terms of His own eternal counsel what is to be done, yet not for that without feeling, but with it all the more: what then ?

Then you have not only the matters as signified above, but the insertion of predictive prophecies aplenty, both detailed (as in Psalm 16, 22, Isaiah 53, Jeremiah 25, Zechariah 9:6ff., 11, Leviticus 26, Jeremiah 50-51, Ezekiel 26:19-21, or Isaiah 13 or Matthew 24) and generic (though at times mixed with detail, as in Luke 21, Ezekiel 36-39),  and at times portraying a dynamic trend (Proverbs 14:34).Only ONE has this systematic and specific awareness, and only ONE CAN therefore have such a scope in advance, past the minimal and intrusive efforts of lesser beings. More importantly, if possible, only ONE HAS DONE THIS, the task proportionate to the powers, the powers to His eternal Being; for only ONE made time, and sees it and can divide it (as in Daniel 9) into parts in whatever scope and sequence He desires.

As noted in the Appendix on Time, this is a specific case in the domain of Envisaged Time, when the One envisaging it, also KNOWS it in terms of coming REAL TIME.



On the cult of the forbidden, see not only The Splendour of Biblical Coverage... Ch. 3, as noted above, but also Little Angel Ch. 8. This Chapter is entitled Academic Blood Letting Disdains Blood.

In this, in particular, we find the following (taken largely from SMR pp. 150ff., but in this new context, with additional material of interest).

On all these matters, see the trilogy, The gods of naturalism have no go!

This excursion into scientific theory and its nature, scientific method and its formulation, and current controversy and its analysis is presented to stimulate you into thought. Culture is not a sufficient condition for thought and acute analysis is always in order. It is what can make certain responses more incisive, sharp, clear and arresting. It helps remove confusion. Further, discoveries can the more readily be made when the cult of the forbidden is not followed, which pre-determines arbitrarily of what dimensions the hypothesis must be composed, a merely philosophic intrusion. In scientific method, evidence must be pondered and conclusions subjected to the discipline of reality in all spheres, without prejudice.

The wrong-headed trend to reject culturally, as at one tertiary institution at which the author taught, because it is not convenient, and not because it is wrong, without indeed giving it due rational interaction with those who present it, is in essence a form of cult. Is not what is culturally dictated in the dereliction of duty towards reason and evidence, a cult ? And in how many universities does one find evidence from Staff or students, of this deplorable cultic phenomenon: creation, or the grand issues of reality are forbidden a priori.

What however is the 'cult of the forbidden' ? It is that cultural negativity, fear or subtlety (depending on motive) whereby certain matters are (ostensibly) ruled in advance of all evidence, 'out of court' - the court of culture. Whether it be deemed to be politics, religion or other field, the result is a mental crimping that too readily becomes downright dishonesty if not, indeed, hypocrisy, in which dimension the noted scientist Løvtrup is most (justly) critical - cf. SMR pp. 202, as seen in his work, Darwinism, The Refutation of a Myth. In this parody of scientific method, certain things are out of cultural bounds, being inconsistent with desire, ethos, illusion or delusion; irrespective of their truth. Even research as Løvtrup notes, can be compromised in this way.

In its opposition to creationism in religion, it may involve the detestable folly of pretending that evidential procedures are irrelevant, and, worse still, that it is illegal to be logical and alert with evidence and reason, lest emotions be roused. This subordinates truth to convenience and not for long may one justifiably expect the continuance of such folly, or of any society where it distinctively rules.

Reality is a dangerous enemy with whom to trifle by such policy and contempt. By this means, irrelevant irrationalities and absurdities - such as is organic evolution in terms of scientific method - may be 'allowed', in that by a mythical or even at times mystical oversight, their merely mythical powers are ignored; whereas the more scientifically oriented view of creation is 'excluded' as 'religious'. (Cf. pp. 211-222, 226-234, 330-334 infra.)  Myth, the attribution of executive power to what gives no attestation of its very existence, is not to be desired in any rational pursuit.

On the contrary, coherent, confirmed rationally sustainable presentation as in creation, short-circuits nothing by mere human fiat, for does it need to; for creationism acknowledges the just result of free verificatory procedures on this basis, compared with those of other and alien kinds.

Thus, Christianity unlike this organic evolutionary degradation,  with open heart and incisive mind is quite freely availab1e for 'inspection' - and meets any intelligently administered critical test with overwhelming results, that are as unified as they are unique; and it alone systematically meets logical requirements of consistency and rationality. (Refer SMR Chapters 1, 3 and 10). This becomes relevant for biblical creationism, as one particular variety of it, which has no humanly imposed limits to its field or its testability, no arbitrary exclusivism, but speaks by its works.

Contrary to this and to this openness,  this cult of the forbidden has become an anti-logical discriminatory device, protective of irrationalisms and, in educational circles, often excluding the only logically sustainable answer even from consideration! Endless ragings between competing theories, with this excluded, is a PREDICTABLE as it is an ACTUAL result. It is also verification. If you refuse that 2 plus 2 equals 4, there is sure to be strife among the exclusivists!

It is time students were made aware of their options, and educated fairly in this realm.


See SMR pp. 145ff., The gods of naturalism have no go!, for example.



On the three major laws in physics as noted by Professor Thomas Barnes, the following is instructive.

·  SCIENTIFIC METHOD. This is the double action reality. Both positively and negatively, there is only one answer. All that is lacking is the will to adopt it.


·  Why then, in the full scope of the evidence and the concepts already seen, is creationism not taken as the only 'theory' which can currently be considered scientifically, rather than the only one that cannot! (See SMR pp. 129, 135-144,149-150,158-259, 161, 202-203, 208-209, 213, 252A-C, 290, 315C-3l6; cf.332E-G.) The rules are broken in this - that it is not so received.

·  Only over the smoking ruin of scientific method can die-hard fantasies live.

·  There is in fact a metaphysical paralysis of thought which has made the many consider this:

·  a) that if PROCESS be not ASSUMED to be the author of process... in the sense that what is CURRENT to the eye is not the father of what is current; or, to put it differently,

·  b) if PRESENTLY OBSERVABLE THINGS or a CURRENT, CONTEMPORARY REGIMEN are not the source of living things,

then this is unscientific. But that nostrum, precisely it refuses to conform to simple fact because of prior theory, so that scientific method is hijacked,  the scientistic replaces the scientific, and the former using the name of the latter, refuses to conform to the testimony of actuality as it declares itself.

·  That however has nothing to do with science. It merely represents a sort of statistical norm, given the state of the religion of many scientists, of their gratuitous assumptions, and philosophic irrationalities, which they prefer to carry, that EVEN at the COLLISION with scientific method, they WILL not go where it requires. In a strong and vital sense, it is a strike: unconscious perhaps in many, but not at all in some!

·  IN FACT: To LIMIT and REDUCE the scope of hypothesis to some preferred sanctum, some sanctuary hidden free from the face of the requirements of reality: this is

·  a) precisely what science is not, and

·  b) what scientific method forbids.

·  It is what begs the question a priori, and sets mere philosophy in state at the head of science, with prejudice for its queen by its side. From this its place, it mocks science. (Cf. pp. 252I supra, and 332E-G infra, SMR.)

·  The source however should be conceived especially in terms of its product, the hypothesis should be esteemed in accord with its power to cover the data, the case - to work to meet specifications of test in neutral and fair play. WHATEVER theory works, whichever is uniquely verified - is relatable well to other effective theories, the one suffering no loss to every test for verification: this in science has superiority.

·  What fails verification in adequate test, even one, is already excluded; what knows no verification is not included. Thus to refuse a 'theory' on the basis of its source... is like academic racism: 'Give us an answer from an 'accepted' source, or its merit will be entirely disregarded!' - so goes the philosophy of alienated prejudice. This is the 'word' of this discriminatory metaphysics masquerading as science. Let it! it has nothing to do with science. When it also 'accepts' what tests of verification exclude, then it is merely comedy.

·  The simple fact is this:

The LAW of CONSERVATION OF MASS AND ENERGY is exactly in accord with the scientific hypothesis of creation. SO TOO is

the LAW OF BIOGENESIS; and so thirdly is


·  Of these: ONE states how life is uniquely and exclusively observed at this time, to come FROM life; another states the situation concerning matter, and its stasis - there is a competency, it is what it is, is not increasing (the view that it was doing so, was thrown out, after some trial by Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge University for example); and the third notes the trend to downgrading of what is already built.

·  Thus it is THERE, without disclosing from WITHIN ITSELF, or any components, collection of components or criteria, HOW it got here. It decreases its specialised specificities, as is normal with our own designs exposed to general conditions which impact on them; and life in particular is derivative from LIFE. This of course is precisely what the Bible said: The things that are seen are not derived from what is visible (Hebrews 1:1-3); their trend is to wear out (Isaiah 51:6), and life was achieved in a specific, distinct creative act, also NOT from within the interstices, powers and properties of other material things.

·  It is quite impressive when the three chief laws of physics are derivable from a Book which has been around in major elements to the point, for nearly three and one half millenia, without revision, without need for it. On the other hand, this is precisely what one would expect from a source which is in fact the Creator of the things that :

1.   are there.

2.   are duly wearing out according to program announced verbally long before, and

3.   incorporate a specific called life which, in our format for it and with the human spirit added, comes only from life as stated at the outset by what you could almost call, for the sake of impact, the Manufacturer. His handbook is an astoundingly good one; and at the level which is appropriate to such a Being.

·  It was Professor Tom Barnes (*4) , as Physics Professor of the University of El Paso Texas who conveniently noted these three laws and emphasised their spiritual relevance, and in particular indicated the confirmation of creationism.

·  Not merely indeed are they harmonisable with it: they are close to RESTATEMENTS OF IT! That then, it is not bad for a start.

Instead of collisions such as the Naturalistic Fallacy has in its evolutionism, which are constantly and indeed increasingly the subject of excruciating self-examination by what are perhaps the more sensitive, as also frequently the most eminent of the secularists: instead of such anguish as 'nature from nature' theoreticians experience in their reflections, now often published, there is in the logical performances of creationism, just the opposite. Here, it all fits into place where logic, experimental fact and the due use of scientific method coincide in a methodological trilogy.

·  Comparatively recently the science of INFORMATION THEORY now finds itself also uniquely in accord with the tenets of CREATIONISM in terms of observational data, relative to DNA. The latter is now a major player in the research game and of paramount importance, because of the fact that it, the master crafting code in living creatures, IS an information storing medium par excellence: and axiomatic with information theory is that information tends to be lost, reduced over time: directed or directional energy is required for the opposite trend (*2).



·  According to Dr Michael Denton, DNA is something in the nature of perfection in its miniaturisation, sophistication and methodology. Thus that other new science, MICROBIOLOGY is also and in overwhelming detail, as Denton shows in his EVOLUTION: A THEORY IN CRISIS, wholly favourable to NON-GRADUAL creationist that does not come by any type of 'chance', be it never so strangely defined. (Cf. SMR pp. 99, Ch. 3, and pp. 218-232, 120.)


·  To demand law from chance is simply a contradiction in terms: one IS what the other by definition is not. Observable facts can nowhere be shown to vary from these realities. Paul Davies has taken the 'illogic' (the day seems to demand a new word for it, though the underlying process is old) a step further in now wanting everything from nothing, a step retrograde even from the desperate and slightly humorous yearnings - though poignant - of the ancient Greeks.

·  The Greeks of old wanted all aspects from one aspect, time and again, either physically, as in the case of air or water or fire, or philosophically in the case of pan-change or pan-stability as master key concepts. Now the delusive concept of 'nothing', an item lacking such things as a future by definition, is the ultra-desperado of all desperation.

·  This is entirely the classical reductio ad absurdum, the illogical and revealing consequence of the defiance of logic and scientific method which for so long has made buffoonry of science in the illicit schemas of many. (Consult pp. 139-185 infra.) Follow this course and folly is the result. It is absurdity; and the normal procedure in mathematics when you reach this by one of two available courses, is to check the other. This one is OUT!

·  It is time, once again, the garbage can approach to God is discarded with other waste products of man, and the necessities of governance,
as logic requires if it is to be used at all, are restored to God. Without this, the race fast becomes a fast-track to destruction if not dissolution, and the world a waste area of wills and airs, the wonder of rebellion and the wantonry of illusion.

Further on this same Second Law of Thermodynamics is a much latter finding from Cornell University, through the leadership of Professor Sanford. This is remarked in the Appendix to Waiting for Wonder., from which the following excerpt is taken.

As was earlier pointed out (op. cit. Volume 21(3), 2007, on pp. 111ff.), in a fascinating article by well-known biologist, Alex Williams:

 "DNA information is overlapping-multi-layered and multi-dimensional; it reads both backwards and forward; and the 'junk' is far more functional than the protein code, so there is no fossilized history of evolution.  No human engineer has ever even imagined, let alone  designed an information storage device anything like it."

He proceeds to note that "the vast majority:  is "meta-information - information about how to use information." Let us reflect on all of this. Now in the midst of wildly misnamed 'junk', we find the jewels of the crown, interpretative and collative, directive and explicatory background to the busy engineering of the protein-coding DNA. How often has it been necessary to point out on this site that magic is inoperative. You do not have things 'arise', for they require cause, and that in detail, and if you are going to have specific marvels of construction, you need specific marvels either of the power to construct, or of what such power has made in order that it may do it. With that, you need all that construction of a given finesse involves in imagination, conceptualisation and creativity, functions of person.

You do NOT, repeat NOT, have things wafting their way in on the wings of philosophy, rudely awakening specialists who are either unwitting or unwary or both, to the realms of delusion. You want it, it must be paid for, in cause cost. This world is not a dreamland.

Thus, to have this ultra-sophisticated, mathematical maestro level advent, you need the simultaneous advent of what is coded for command and what is coded to receive command; what is the instituted language for the production and reproduction of the same, and the performance of it. With this also, you need of course, what is available to BE commanded, commendably synchronised in its presence with the orders; for to order is of no use, whether chemically or in the Army, unless you have someone/something to order. A General without those to command is of little worth, and they must be integrated in one system where the fact of command and the mode of expression is understood, both to give and to get, while the means to institute, whatever these may be, persons, products or both, have to be synchronised with the issue of orders to the point that there is no mere wafting of sound, but intelligible symbols uttered in a plan of speech which allows semantic interpretation, programmed or personal, to act in the desired time-frame.

Thus there is for example, in the human kind case, need of making a threefold simultaneity of two coding specialisations not only with the same language, but with the same specification-symbol entry equivalents, to give and to receive; and with the correlative commands, the capacity to bring the stuff up for action upon it. For that, of course, it must be both there and in commandable condition, with all due technical specifications for the state in which it chemically exists,  and is physiologically reachable.

Williams is especially interested in meta-information, which is information about information, such as any student, whether over long years or shorter ones, needs to understand in order to be semantically functional. You have to know language in order to convey it, how it works, where it goes and does not, and to be really effective, why!  *T1

Thus, from Williams, we have further data (p. 115, op. cit.).

Not only is this meta-information case what is found, he declares, but in the regions yet to be more fully investigated, there appears to be a situation where all or almost all of this type of DNA is engaged in the work of gene regulation. This is an arena of current thrust in investigation. Rearrangements and circuits, orders, need some device to protect and to inject, and this meta-information seems full of it. Brilliant devices to use massive information structures to gain specialised variations on them, come with that fluency of mobility in the fixity of underlying structure which allows generic specifications to be adroitly adapted, like Mark I and Mark II automobiles, for example, as people await with expectation what variation on their desired make will be forthcoming. The mobile genetic units called transposons are one such device, which in one aspect, almost seem to resemble working mechanics, hands-on.

Williams moves (op.cit. p. 116), to note the work of Dr John Sanford of Cornell University, citing the latter's Entropy & Mystery of the Genome. Here, the mutative exercise considered is the genome, which as with most designs exposed to the elements, involves deterioration, not progress. This is what could be called the Gould phenomenon: things in terms of design KINDS or types,  are going down, not up (cf. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Ch. 6). This is in part the Werner Gitt phenomenon: information does NOT arise without intelligence. There are laws, and these need to be known and applied*T1 (Journal of Creation 2009, 23(2), pp. 96-109).

In other words, these are areas of a kind relative to humankind, the way they go at the physical and physiological level, in overview.

What then of this finding of Sanford of Cornell ? That is the correlative both of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and of the basics of information science. His contribution is reported as showing that "deleterious mutations are accumulating at an alarming rate in the human population and that both natural selection and even the worst possible nightmare scenario of eugenics is powerless to stop it." This results from the enormous synthesis of variables, in holistic accords, weak points arising after several thousands of years, in hidden and varied ways. What there is to select from is being impaired, and the old chestnut, that to remove the worst creates the best is seen in its practical drabness. The best is going down.

As a matter of cultural interest, one may note this: As to such decline, you see it in schools too, where declining standards make the best more and more what used to be nearer to the middle: and this is so in English in particular, where there has been some sort of ecstasy, it might seem, in reckless ignorance as if creativity were some kind of squirming of the psyche, and needed no expertise. To be sure creativity is great and wonderful; but the power to create well is itself not without discipline. In fact our liberty and our due use of it to implement it well, both are needed; there is simply no point in rushing to extremes, ignoring this or that facet or feature of humankind, or its construction.

That however is a cultural aside, where will is involved, as also a wearisome wander streak, as man becomes more bombastic about the accomplishments of his race, and less concerned about what it can be in his own life and spirit, its source and responsibilities. In the language of the Song of Solomon, he is learning to neglect his own vineyard, where tractors are often to be seen rooting up some of the best vines. They did it by the million in the World Wars. Let us however return to the physiological side.

Williams proceeds to the genetic point that "everyone is a mutant, many times over." Suppression can help eliminate some of the defections from the pre-derangement situation, but it does not remove others, hidden in the forest of myriads of data in various bundles. The rate of deterioration being immense, there is therefore an increasing basis for more degradation, and since control genes have a magnified aperture for action, this moves things yet more adroitly off the sensitively poised course. Inhibitive editing programs for gene copying, pure marvels of wisdom, tend to delay the inevitable (except for divine action), but they do not eliminate it; and if miracle is in view for our race in its current mode, it is alas not in receptive mode.

The due results of ignoring reality, reason, certified revelation, the word of the living God in the Bible and as Jesus Christ, these accrue; and as in many physical processes, so in this spiritual one, once the decline starts, its forces can interact and quicken the consequences, as when a bus sliding a little, then tilts and tips down a decline.

Renewal is certainly not directed at the world itself, which fails inwardly and outwardly simultaneously. Nor is that accidental; for God moves with finesse both morally and materially. The renewal which is available, now as always, is at the individual and Church level, where God is plighted to His people in this same Jesus Christ, and revives, renews, blesses, refreshes, give understanding and resolution, rescue and strength (cf. Acts 3:19ff., Colossians 1:9ff., I Peter 1:3ff.). This is the spiritual opportunity made by the God who made man, and it is for man by faith, through which, in full accord with reason, he reaches the Lord of life, and learns to work with and for Him, before His salvation complete, He comes to judge, to rule, and to complete the work for this universe of His: for as to Him, to create a universe, or a new heavens and new earth, it is as for an author to write a book.

But what of the world ? Life is not really a grand and gory tea-party in which you slay what is unfit, and so become better. All deteriorate rather rapidly, the opposite to evolutionary progress, and fully in line with Gould's famous apostrophe to the heavens, as he looked at the so-named Cambrian era material in the Burgess deposits. HOW are we to explain progress when in terms of major design types, we have regress! that was the core of his almost cantankerous response to his findings (cf. Wake Up World! Ch. 6). Without God, man plods.

From God, through sod and spirit, and then, if unwilling to be chastened and changed, the body back to sod, and the spirit mired in guilt. It is better,  far better, to trace the evidence and the logic to God, and finding His unique presentation as noted above, follow it to what HE would like, and best of all, it is most intriguingly wonderful, but not found by tantrums, rather from truth, written in the sod, if you will, in DNA, and for the creation, man, in the Bible (as in *2 above).


See for example, Spiritual Refreshings ...Ch. 13.