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


Chapter 6



Defiled in Defiant Defeat in Drab Delusions:


In that Combination of the Rambunctious Unrealism

And Rumbustious Irrationality

Which Vainly Assails Scientific Method



Darwin held that characteristics gained during a life-time could be inherited, and that the sky was the limit - not the actual constructive God of creation, but 'Nature'.

While not a Larmarckian, Darwin in dabbling in the concept of inherited characteristics in this manner (cf. Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny p. 205) et alia, had this similarity, and with the thought that the better would 'arrive', he had a further element of comparison. Problems drove him to drink from the Aristotelian, Lamarckian pond.

Indeed, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy we find that there was reason why Darwin's dabbling grew to epidemic proportions. One is noted. The Scottish engineer, H.F. Jenkin's breeding argumentation (1867) about limits and cross-breeding gave Darwin no small difficulty, and in Kelvin's limitation on the time dimensions for history, there was a challenge to the variation concept of Darwin's earlier work of 1859. Darwin without much delay (1868), presented in Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication what has all the look of response.

Formulated, it is alleged, before the Jenkin publication, it was nevertheless PUBLISHED in the following year! Small reason indeed was there not to formulate SOMETHING, since nothing could confirm the paleontological absenteeism, which had it been at any other factory than that of thought, would have discontinued the entire manufacture. ALL were missing. NOTHING could be done. Darwin seemed dazed as he admitted the absenteeism in its gross enormity.

What then was the erudite reply of the trainee for the ministry, not for biology, Darwin ? What did he say.

Here arrived from his pen the usual, and indeed, necessarily, the only type of answer available, since facts were inscrutably adverse. There was to be a new theory, as old in essence as least as Aristotle with his pangenesis, which might enable some acquired characteristics to be passed on. Conveniently invisible "gemmules" were assumed and then assigned to exist in body cells, and on the theory, were presumed to be subject to external environmental impact.

Thus changed as life proceeded in the generation concerned, these units in some unknown way transmitted what they learned to the sex cells which took the trouble to have this installed and made available in the next reproductive situation, so that voilà! there is the new thing, all happily coming from what papa did! No, you are wrong, not from what papa schematically drew, mathematically developed, or with engineering skill, introduced into the astonished world; not at all. What papa did was simply to HAVE the gemmules, which HAD the capacity to be influenced, and HAD the power to transmit what the capacity managed to grab, and to send it on to sex department, which HAD to power to integrate it, and systematise it, so that the next generation HAD ...

Oh come, this is fairy-story-itis! Everything just is, and the question is just begged, as it ALWAYS is in this field, for NOTHING ever does the thing - you know, the genius thing required with the wit, imagination and multi-disciplinary specialty and inter-disciplinary synthetic magnificence of thought actually NEEDED.

What then ? ALL you have to do is think, and all nature has to do is to follow your thoughts, as if they were the Creator, and you do not even have to work out HOW the thing you think of is done, let alone catch anything actually DOING it. This way fairy stories are normally told, as unscientifically as possible; and as a fairy story, this has appeal. It is so absolutely devoid of science. Indeed, as science it is buffoonery, whether from Darwin or the preceding Buffon in his tiresomely otiose speculative non-empiricism to the point. Indeed in principle,  the history of evolutionary thought is just this: how to imagine what does not happen, get the verificatory results which do not come, avoid the necessities which apply by inventing the conditions which are not relevant, so that the inadequate becomes adequate, the impossible done and the extinguished hope comes afire.

For all this, in the last analysis, there is ONLY ONE WAY. Do what the drunkard does in his less scientific moments: take the wish for the thought, the thought for the action and simply imagine it! What then in the cases before us ?

The vitalised was vacuous, the mechanical was merely mesmeric; while Gould later dabbled in phrases to haul in help, Darwin used phases to enable it: both referred to nothing but imagination.

It was however their own imagination. The imagination necessary is for the creativity in life's forms, functions, features and startlingly brilliant architectural, innovative ultra-genius, as if a million novelists had conspired together, and employing ultra-scientists had made ultra-constructions with such powers as drawfed all any could do. Yet they could not do this, since none had the imagination or the power to perform it the ceiling being long surpassed.

When the prodigies of brilliance in the Cambrian hit Darwin, it was a mini-calamity, a total reversal of theoretical speculation; but no matter, wait for Gould to publicise it in its full splendour, the account, on the theoretical basis concerned, of how designs made themselves up first of all, to the uttermost, and then as the method by which they actually came, did it slowly (à la Darwin), or without blush, with speed a la Gould. NEVER is there anything to do it. Gould has a dream installing itself sometime not near the present; Darwin has a gemmule doing it; and they dream and do nothing to the point.

'Nature' has nothing to offer in paleontological myriads, which Darwin pined for, saw the need for and did not find; and as we see, that is just the beginning of it, since the beginning approximates the theoretical end! What a fixation that the theory goes on, though it has the exact opposite of what it requires, and not merely a total absenteeism from the empirical factory, which after all, is where the action is!

Nor has it in observable machinery to match the machinations, or a spirit that does these things which attests its current operating power, nor in any other way.

Since it has nothing to offer, in past or present, in principle or in procedure, in equipment or attestation of equipment function as it is observed, as its nature is analysed and its propensities measured and codified: then causally there is only one further way to go. It becomes necessary to find what caused this exquisite yet designer-limited thing called 'nature', this 'nature' equipped with products but no producer, attesting ultra-original exhibits, fixed in the contemporary kind notation, as Simpson so clearly attests, as Thompson, as Gould in essence, as Nilsson, so that the mentality found becomes the mentality operative.

If not in 'nature', then where else ?




It was there all along, this necessity which nothing replaces, though naturalism squirms like a guilty prisoner at the dock, as various witnesses expose his ineptitude and folly.  It was there all along, this necessity for the result; and nothing replaces it. It is not however with 'nothing'  that we are dealing, but with something as far different as it is possible to go, from that inoperative vacancy of power, form and reality. It is not with nothing that we are left, but with a set of qualities and qualifications in  creativity  as far from the exhibited, inherent powers of 'nature' in the realm of self-making, in its iridescent creative thrust, as is infinity from zero ... at least.

Now to seek for the maximally divergent from a field, from the field as its source, in terms of its necessary inherent character, while it thrashes away in its actual character: this  is as far from scientific method as is the East from the West. Following the requisition which evidence requires, therefore, we proceed to the logically necessary minimum worker (SMR Ch. 1, 3, 10), self-attesting (SMR Chs. 8-9), logically valid alone (TMR Ch. 5, Barbs ... 6   - 7, Repent or Perish ... Ch. 7 cf. Reason, Revelation and the Redeemer),  at the operation of whose imagination and fiat, through the DUE inscription of his word in DNA and whatever other linguistic, symbol-command devices might be found suitable, the term Creator becomes apt.

What seeks to thrash matter, whether atoms, or quarks, whether photons or DNA, whether inscriptive devices or executive bio-chemical compilation, into becoming imagination, into meeting what it lacks in discernible equipment as in observable result, is merely stuck on a procedural prejudice, justly terms the Cult of the Forbidden. It INSISTS that author is not the producer of Book; but Book produces book; that the pages rates of deterioration are relevant to the author's rate of production and such fare, based on antithesis to logic, validity and evidence alike.

Naturalism and its spouse, humanism, require merely their epitaph: invalid, irrelevant, unscientific, incoherent, irrational and obfuscatory.

Indeed, it might start, this due epitaph:

Here lies naturalism,

with humanism embedded,

As it lied, so it lies,
Laid not to rest,

But to the everlasting follies of restlessness:

Based on nothing, it has come to even less.

 Let us however return from this dismal scene, fitting for fathering, and functional in its constituents, not least for fathering the ghastly twentieth century wars of pride and mannishness, inane hopes of grandeur which have led in their nescience, not to a new reality, but into blood and rubble. Let us instead,  proceed with our review of this ludicrous and particular phase to follow.

Whether then from vitalistic hope, or from dead hopelessness, from the womb of the non-inventive, it is a magical vein that has been followed in the voluminous and inherently incompetent fiascos into organic evolutionism. It requires more than Houdini, a sort of whodunnit, where what is never found becomes what must be. It is almost like a theoretical exhibit of Carl Jung's concerns about modern man as so frequently STUCK and EMPTY.

In a sense, it is like Gould in the end, who wanted to insert a dynamic at the first, while Darwin would like to see it operative in general, the only thing being that as he notes in his 1872 passage, he does not find any such tendency.

"After long reflection, I cannot avoid the conviction that no innate tendency to progressive development exists."

You remember we saw this in 2) above!





Progress, to arrive, must invent itself. It must hard-wire its DNA, specify the cumulative requirements for unitary operation, cause them to be functional in unison at once, prevent their being a drag before operational, and then provide evidence  paleontologically and in the laboratory, that this is a marvel of creative capacity which the investigation of matter and DNA has never revealed. That is, if we really wish to move from fairy tale rest from our labours, to reality, to science and empirical realities.

It is not really science to make such inventiveness to repose (cf. Dayspring, esp. *2, Ancient Words, Modern Deeds Chs. 9,   13), where it can be found only when it is imposed - by the imagination of the experimenter, whose eye sees nothing of the kind, only an inner eye, which vies with reality, rather like the Lamarckian cow, to which we come shortly.

Magic and evolution is of course the only way to avoid logical structuring, and the work of scientific method in finding what IS attested, DOES work, but no longer works in this field, since that latter is the observable fact, and causation requires the imposition of limits, laws, constraints and restraints what by has power to do it.

When you look for this, it is found to be the STATEMENT found in the always verified arena, the Bible, to that effect. Further, it is the nature of creation that it is something someone personal DOES, and it starts and finishes at will. That is harmonious with the concept, with the verified word and the observable results. This is the nature of the data before us. That is how creation goes. Imagination requires mind and conceptualisation as bearer, as well as purpose as prompter for the said imagination to be caused to operate into reality, since reality is a tough customer, and refuses dreams as alternative to work. SOMEONE has to do it, whether God or man; and where matter or man as part of nature, cannot, then God.

It is not magical, but both anthropological and theological; it is not an invention of fantasy but the strict requisition of logic. It is found where that sort of thing is found, in precise fashion, wrought in intelligence, devised in imagination with which to a supernal degree, creation abounds, and executed when so desired.

The logical requirement becomes the spiritual attestation, and the demands of validity become the congratulation of actuality, the necessities for verification become the saturation of history, and the personal becomes the advent of Jesus Christ, the time foretold precisely (Highway of Holiness Ch. 4). Even in this last impact, the prescribed miraculous and gracious work to be done, predicted, are fulfilled to the last particle*1, so that none has ever in any way been able to show one lapse, one lag, one omission or one fault, whether in the contemporary era, or any of those succeeding.

As to the faint hopes of Lamarck, that nostrum, we cite from

Earth Spasm, Conscience Chasm and Renewal of Life, Ch. 1, below.

This is extended for our present purpose;  and in the immediate context in the above volume, it  concerned the concept of ‘selfish genes’ always after number one with no small enterprise and acumen about their torrid brows. Machinating metaphors abound!

Being selfish, as some things undoubtedly are (part of the curse as specified in Biblical Blessings Ch. 7 cf. Romans 8), can act as a parable, a parody and a rebuke. One way however in which it is not specifiable as acting, in any scientific sense, is in CREATING STRUCTURE and INFORMATION which is not there! Lamarckianism could have tried to use it, in suggesting that if something selfish tried to do some selfish act, then some structural change might accommodate this, and that might be 'translated' (note the imagery again) into genetic change.

As to the view of Mr Lamarck,  he has not fared well at the hands of science, which in its philosophic irregularities (that is, those of some who bathe in the stuff) has neither found popularity for his cause (the social side of science), nor evidence for it (the scientific side of science, properly so-called).

As Dr Jerry Bergman points out in the Technical Journal (of Creation) 16 (1), p. 121, Lamarckianism REMOVED from Darwin's work, is what is now called neo-Darwinianism. Small wonder it was present, since the trend of Darwin's work is so simplistic that the magic has to come from somewhere! Science falsely so-called with its ally, romantic philosophy, is forever trying to invent, insert with or without notice, some wily stage-craft to cover the lack of actors adequate for the play, in its scenes and especially, its scenario*4.

On this theory of Lamarck, then,  the reader may care to examine SMR pp. 222ff., 252C-E, 225-226; and to the references of Denton (op. cit. p. 41, and Wilder Smith's  Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, pp. 205ff.).

As Denton puts it of that imagination that a creature, like a cow, could DESIRE upper leaves, then stretch the neck, then pass on the prodigious muscular and anatomical result of trying, to its offspring, would enable the 'dream of the organism' to find 'concrete expression'. Thus the dream comes  true. Some dream, some truth. Here is the very acme of illicit imagination, built in ignorance, destroyed by the inimitable synthetic and coded instruction facts, and the realities of observation. Wishes just don't work that way. It takes what the case requires, not what the heart envisages. Work lies in between, and relevant work at the relevant structural, functional and cognitive levels.

Magical means of making a need which the animal may or may not be aware of, for example, and which lower orders might not even be ABLE to be aware of, lacking the conceptual apparatus for even their own use, turn into the new equipment to meet that need is too just-so stories-ish for words! If you prefer it, one could say that it has a neo-pseudo-just-so-stories comic character to it ...

Yet it is precisely this illicit smuggling of the power of God into 'Nature', the capitalisation of which can help create the metaphorical illusion, which verifies yet further the Biblical analysis noted above (as in *5). Whether it is done by what lacks the power to do it, rationally, systematically or observably, or by some vitalistic illusion such as that of Lamarck, there is always this pulse of pressure to INSERT what is not operative, into what is, and to call that science, since otherwise it looks as delusive as it in fact is. You merely in this way invest 'Nature' with what it never attests, upward, vertical design thrust, and imagining it MUST have happened, because you refuse to go where the evidence in fact lies, and observing that in all observation it NEVER happens, you dare to name 'science' what is a vacancy, a vacuity, an imagination by which it is being raped.

This however  is so profound a logical error, to use what your opponent HAS, without acknowledging it, in order to make your hypothesis SEEM to work, that it is quite spectacular.

No, 'Nature' does not exist as some thinker, striver and occupier of itself with concepts and the structural imaginative and engineering skill with which to meet them. If it were, it would be with a mind, with survey and observational capabilities, code-writing capacities, facility within the discipline of comparative anatomy and the like, with fascinating additional power to implement these things chemically and bio-chemically, as well as neurally, physiologically in all the facets of that discipline, with provisions of course for new generations, code-copying maintenance and all the rest of the exquisitely crafted and necessary criteria with which life from the simplest levels, tends to abound.

No, we must confess that neither metaphor nor personification will really go from the literature class to science and provide engineering construction with any real facility! In fact,  we must, if we are to have due discipline of thought, abandon moral imaginations and metaphorical ones, for the moment: it is not that they do not matter, but when dealing with the modes of matter, we need first to consider these, the proper area of study, themselves.

Morals are most important; but they do not per se create structures or acquire physiological brilliance. Nor does the will in itself. It needs what it takes to supplement it!

Morals, selfish or otherwise, rather,  are directive for the person who has the basis for action in this present world provided. How ... the question remains, absolutely untouched from all these cases, really of ignoratio elenchi, of ignoring the issue:  how did this structure, this complex contrivance of subtle design, deft mathematics and remarkable coding conceptualisation, find a sufficient source ? Better: how did a sufficient source find it; and how do we find that source!

Creation is the only choice for scientific method, quite apart from the overriding constraints of logic as in TMR and SMR, for example.

Thus, in naturalism, you have the folly of asking 'Nature', duly personified in concept if not in consciousness, a fact often shown by the metaphorical language, such as a gun (a shot-gun marriage of fantasy and fact ?), a striving, a seeing of the opportunities and exploitation of them and so on, to give the ONLY illusory ground for hope.

For his part, Gould seemed to conceive just this! (cf. Gould, op. cit. pp. 228ff.). Indeed, he speaks of the "environmental oddity  that could have engendered the Cambrian explosion" as if a gap in things could enable things to fill it. It is as if a gap in your bank account could leave such an amount of room, that it must be filled, or a gap in some chemical series would require that it be filled, or in some conceptual consideration would induce a solution, or a gap in causative considerations could lead to an invasion somehow, somewhere, one knows not how, from a source which in something, in some way or other, grabbed what it takes from wherever you grab such things. Desire for wish fulfilment, however, may remove the day of reckoning, but this reckoning never ceases, that desire is not labour, and imagination without all the necessary powers, remains ONLY what it is!



It is both appalling and enthralling to see such comedy, as if a dynamic need to ENTER comedy had gripped scientism in such a case, to make clowns of its operatives! The Bible makes it very clear what is the source of clowning in such matters, ultimately in the breeding ground of idolatry, that ascription to natural things, their power to originate themselves, and enduement and imbuement of their slender outlines with the fat of prodigious causative intellection and capacious inducements to exist. In short, here you take God and thrust Him into nature, and then act as if you hadn't really done it at all. It is in this site, usually referred to as 'smuggling', bringing things into the arena of thought illicitly, surreptitiously, and for our present purpose, irrationally. It is Nature worship in academic dress, in its essence.

It is indeed illusory, since as Darwin rightly says, there is NO tendency for progress in the ordinary order of things, in nature: you ask for it, and it says no, not to be found, no, not in a single case of more advanced design, yet no, not at all.

Darwin's trouble is that he did not apply this, and imagined that what destroys creates, that the open force of destruction to the weak provides the open sources of construction for what had not been thought of... Actually, it does not: this, it is magic, otherwise named, with theological implications which may be subject to such suppression as not to be realised. This is the biblical depiction (cf. II Thessalonians 2:10, Romans 1:17ff.). Yes, the Bible has the answer for the CAUSE of the error, as well as the answer for the CAUSE of creation. That is the sort of evidential verification which truth looks for; and here finds.

Thus Gould with his mysterious OTHER nature of old, Darwin with his imperious OTHER present receiving presents from no adequate source, mistaking variation for creation, and Lamarck with his source in vitalistic vigours not relevant or operative before eye or mind that investigates the area and arena of thought and practicality alike: they all invent what is to invent, and all make up ideas without foundation, rather than attribute to what has what it takes, what makes it. They come and go. Darwin and Lamarck are so dead that it seems lecturers still muddled on the topic must have special olfactory equipment to prevent their being aware of the stench of decaying ideas (cf. *5 below). Occasionally one bone seems to flutter across another in the other corpse, as the need for some sort of alliance still whispers, but the alliance of non-creative modes with creative non-modes is forever dead, and nothing will ever resurrect it.

Gould's ideas are like those of Lamarck in this, that it is not the creature, the cow in our illustration, which looks to have its dreams come true, but the theorist! He has NO IDEA of the genesis of generation, at the level of the creative prodigies of the Cambrian. He just talks about what stops and starts, and mystery; and in that, he is one with the rest, a sort of turkey gobbler, who makes much imperious or anon serious noise, but has nothing conceptual to offer, only dreams, void of practicality, not seen in practice, causatively occluded and totally confused.

This, it must be emphasised, is not a comment in the SLIGHTEST DEGREE on his intellect; it is the product of confusion in which the desire to avoid the living God is an agent of intoxication so profound that when the case reaches this level, it is like the morning after the night before. This is the ALIENATION of which Ephesians 4:17-19 speaks, and the foolishness of which Romans 1 makes declaration, giving cause and consequence with clinical care, just as we see results with clinical observation. It happens!

Nature does not, in fact make itself or its components, but they are USED as they are made to be used, whether with fancy variabilities of sub-type, glorious situational provision such as crystallisation, or not. It is set up and it works according to kind, and if it is capable of being 'hurt' as life is, then it is hurt, not re-designed. That is why we NEVER find increments of design, only variations within each kind. That is why information theory, like biota evidence, is that what is relevant to life, DECLINES. It does so in theory, as in practice; and here the attestations of theory are built not least, on practice as they ought to be in scientific method arenas.

Thus the ONLY place where the ACTUAL power is placed is the non-natural, since 'Nature' does not do the thing in view, namely the institution, constitution and coherence creation of biological language, type, kind, material and vital sub-components, thought, spirit, will and so forth. We can USE a kind to GET its kind; but we do not have them making themselves, for the very simple reason that in this universe that takes work, and in any causal situation you need for that, what its constitutive constraints require, to institute them, both initially at all, and then in the various kinds in view. The alternative is irrationalism which cannot even argue for itself, since it would invalidate reason, a foolish effort, since reason brings us to revelation and this to affirmation, verification and validation (cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 9, SMR, TMR, Reason, Revelation and the Redeemer ).

Not therefore where the data say NO:  but


where the logical constraints say YES,


where the type of thing observed in our world, has an adequate resource,


where the spiritual aspects of our lives
(cf. SMR pp. 348ff., Little Things Ch. 5, It Bubbles ... Ch. 9, *1A),
have not only their own ground of creation,
which is not by the absence but by the presence of the qualities shown,
not only to be, but to create because it IS,


where truth can without self-contradiction be KNOWN at all, and


where cessation has its meaning:

this is where what is finds what it does, where reality is investigated and found active,
not in myth or magic, but in measured discourse and certain reason.

THIS is the testimony of experience,
the demand of logic and the ground of verification;  and it is the resource and the only one for validity,
and the constraint of actuality. There is nothing else.

It is not for  Gould to complain in heaven's name when heaven is the answer, or if you will, the God who made it by will in the creation explosion.

It is not for him to lament: for creation being logically required, and in cessation after 'explosion' confirmed as to nature, being the assignation of the components, not from themselves but from what made them also, we move in this realm, of the rush into existence of multitudes of designs, by Gould's account, followed by decimination of the same. It is not with tragic grief written over our faces, before dabbling in more magic, but with the knowledge that there is ONLY ONE PLACE where the validation and verification alike exists; and scientific method being forced to go where the evidence not only in one phase, but in each phase both separately and synthetically, is to be found, it MUST present this.


And that, it is merely what in fact logic independently requires in its other reaches as shown in SMR, TMR and elsewhere so many times.

That all harmonises to perfection makes of mesmerised man's intolerance of truth the more ample a ground for judgment; but this too, it resides in the One whose powers delimit such a function (cf. Romans 1). On that, see Celestial Harmony for the Terrestrial Host.

That God in His mercy, as the Bible indicates, is ready to forgive, has power to pardon as well as to create, has a willingness to do so and delights in mercy (cf. Micah 7:19-21, Romans 3:23ff., Colossians 1:19ff.), while not directly pertinent to the present concern, is of much relevance to those who conceive it. It is considered at length in The Meaning of Liberty and the Message of Remedy.

Leaving this, for the moment however, let us proceed with the results of the scientific aspect of the case.

This is the situation for naturalism, that on its own bases it MUST if it is to be scientific or rational at all, convert to creationism. This of course would not make Christians, since they COME to God on the basis provided; it is merely to move in terms of scientific method, where it requires in this as in all fields, that we move or march to the verificatory result, not where preference demarcates what can and can not be. It is that latter vein and mood, model and defilement which is always the obstructive work of prejudice, in things religious or irreligious over the Ages: no, it is not to the site of pre-selection that you move, in the robustness of faith or the sincerity of method or both: it is to where the verificatory and synthetically apt,   to be FOUND.

It is the work of science, and its chief ground for respect, that it does not differentiate in advance, but advances through differentiation. It does not have areas of exclusion, what we have called The Cult of the Forbidden (SMR pp. 330-331), since true science does not dabble in prejudicial cults: it has the open-ness of FINDING. This then must be validated by means beyond the scientific method, as the entire scope of valid knowledge is exhibited and confirmed.  



To be sure the Christian always finds what he expects, but that is a bonus, not a delimitation; and indeed the expectation of order on the part of those who were amongst the greatest scientists of all time, such as Newton and Faraday, for example, is precisely what motivates and is satisfied, as the underlying requirements of rationality find their target, and the inherent necessities of logic are justified, not in themselves, but in their operation; while their operation is justified, not in itself, but in its origin; and that origin in justified both in itself, and in its work and testimonies in every phase and facet of what man calls philosophy, and what is science, not pseudo-scientism, of pouting prejudice and analogical fantasy.

It is of the utmost hilarity, to match Gould's grief, that mesmerised man, the captive of calamitous pseudo-scientism,  insists in finding, to take an analogy, the source of a box for matches, in the matches, instead of in the source of both, and the expertise for both in either or the tree, rather than in the manufacturer, or the source for the manufacturer, in the wood, instead of in what cuts it! (Cf. Earth Spasm ... Ch. 7, Secular Myths ... Ch. 7, Spiritual Refreshings ... Ch. 13, Ch. 16, TMR Ch.1.)

Put principially, it is too amusing - sadly so - that man seeks for the constitutive power in what is instituted, and the primary cause in the consequences, the source of the chain of causation in the chain, ignoring that the chain requires its own cause, and the temporal sequential galaxy of series which in so many ways inhabits science, is not a dog chasing its tail, but a structural exhibit of a causal-series- Creator, whose requirements minimally are all that the cognition, conception and construction of such a chain requires. The ontological wonders WITHIN the chain, of what it joins, is another marvel in creation.

Both require the source, like all the rest; for to use causation in lapses and jags is not a logical possibility; your own reason is articulating such a diversification and dichotomy is invalidated in the process. You cannot use what you invalidate, or deploy it where it is gratuitously said not to be. The only coherent, rational and scientific answer, each giving the same from the basics of that discipline, is God the Creator of all, beyond time, institutor of series, Himself not serial, whose products include every vestige of our synthetic whole, having placed them together, by design.

It is time to listen to what He has to say, not to blaspheme His name; and to look where it is verified to be, not in the psychic conundrums of 'existence', speaking like a dead mummy to the imagination, or of persistence, as if 'Nature' had a mouth, and man no head ... or heart.




Cf.   Let God be God ...  4,  

Calibrating Myths ...  5

Sparkling Life ... Ch. 4,  

SMR  1,  8  -   9;

Swiftwitness    6, SMR Appendix D,

The Pitter-Patter ... Ch. 4 ,

It Bubbles ... Ch. 9,

Christ, the Wisdom and the Power of God ...Ch. 8,

Lord of Life ... Ch. 9,

Beyond the Crypt Ch.  8  ).