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

 NEWS 81


There might not be much of it left, before status and results must be handed in !

(for Part 2, see News 82, News 84, read with News 74)


When things go astray, consider the beginnings. Beginnings ? Much is being written on this, and this week's Time has delivered itself of a load. It has even given us TWO articles on its pet project (August 23, 1999).

Behind the scenes, where are the facts ?

Time Magazine's  blatant advocacy of blob to bob Evolution goes right back to the LIFE days of spectacular pictures, spellbound disciples of knowledge seeing it all in graphic form, sensationalistic impact statements and the like. It is acutely amusing to see it in the very midst of its latest swallow flight into the airy vapours of non-science, if one may at least distinguish it from nonsense altogether, to chirrup of one fossil 'find', that now at last the long missing link might be found.

The implicit lapse in the propaganda repetition is a failure or oversight perhaps, and certainly an exposure of the long-suffering nerve of frustration, for some time ago, with facts of small visible difference, Time was admitting with rare candour, that really nothing to the point had been found for man.

That after all is just what the famed specialised expert, Lord Zuckerman,  had said: nothing to prevent the concept of direct creation was around (cf. SMR p. 205). This was not that his religion did not include evolution; it was merely that in his field, science did not grant it life. Evidence of human evolution did not exist.

His work with the multivariate analysis was a cutting edge in the field, reducing the gross caricatures of objectivity which desire wrought, even to Zuckerman's own expressed astonishment, with the evidence. Associates decidedly unwilling to accept the undoubtable findings, because of philosophical/religious/cultural conditioning or desire made for him an impact both profound and unexpected.

Yet there it was. Science was not inhabited by neutralists, but by men of passion as elsewhere, and these under control - this was not the prerogatives of scientists like some austere race, no, not at all.

Similarly, his associate in fame in this field, Oxnard, made the wry remark, after much hullabaloo:

Oxnard’s view, as documented in (The Shadow of a Mighty Rock -SMR, loc. cit.) : "…perhaps as long as 5 million years ago or even longer there may have been creatures living ... classifiable as man in a way we now deny to Australopithecus..."

Yet still the errors come, the old questions of gait (Oxnard went to tremendous and diligent, detailed care, as did Zuckerman - see ref. above), to show the acute divergencies of that type of animal from man in walking gait, posture and construction. Varieties of gait still abound in the realm, without this variation being 'proof' of any form of development, any more than an octopus' eyes show that this was our beginning.

The simple fact is that the slow, gradual series of stages coming to man from ape does not exist.

We find :

We find similarly much discord on teeth. Zuckerman in the Journal of the Royal College of  Surgeons of Edinburgh, Jan. 1966,  provides considerable insight not only on teeth in this sphere, but on what happens when philosophy gets its teeth into them - much scraping and strident noise, naturally enough. Lord Zuckerman's article is entitled: "Myths and Methods in Anatomy". Thus on Australopithecine teeth he gives an account which first notes: That makes the obvious point that Zuckerman was unimpressed with the tendential feelings, allied with dogmatism, that did not base themselves experimentally. What was the result ? Did, in fact, the large canines, by interlocking, prevent rotatory movement, or severely restrict it, there making the  Australopithecines, whose teeth appeared to indicate such movements,
comparatively 'man-like' ?

No. This was not the case. "There is practically no difference either in the order of appearance or of coalescence of the facets of dental wear in apes and man, and particularly in the wear of molar and premolar teeth... If, therefore, the pattern of wear in man is due to his ability to grind his molar and premolar teeth, it followed that the ape must be able to do the same - contrary to what Le Gros Clark and Robinson had stated, but a simple fact which anyone can confirm by visiting a zoo. The possession of large canines certainly does not preclude an ape from moving his mandible in the lateral plane." (Emphasis added.)

This is merely an example of the gross claims, theoretical proclivities and quick alteration upon examination that can occur in this field! Gish points out (Evolution - The Fossils say No, p. 103) that a living high-altitude baboon in Ethiopia has relatively small incisors and canines compared with those of living African apes, and various other features which, in comparison with those creations, are comparatively 'man-like'.  A true baboon, this creature is undoubtedly simian, but has a particularity of dentition which does not qualify as human, just because it is a variant. Again, the Australopithecine mentioned in Time as 'new', is equipped with large teeth and small brain.

In fact, Australopithecus africanus - "though only about ... the size of a smallish chimpanzee had cheek teeth larger than chimps and orangs and as large as gorillas," and some of these reach 400 pounds in weight! Different creations have different features here as in so many other things, some in creations far removed in other respects, from those which they resemble in one specialised regard. Hence, says Gish (Gish, loc.cit.), "These facts would render highly uncertain, if not impossible, the classification of any fossil as a hominid solely on the basis of dental and associated characteristics."

Time tells us of unearthing creatures *1 classified as Australopithecine, when the claims of this category have already been dismissed in MANY spheres as irrelevant by Oxnard and Zuckerman - this type of creature is not transitional but distinctive, as is so much else, say these two evolutionists, concerning  the carefully sifted and graded evidence. What then is something with teeth conspicuously large and brain case notably small, as stated, supposed to show ? Large teeth and small brains are comparatively unprepossessing for such a task; and with the vast variety of combinations available in the living ape-monkey world, as well as the environmental impacts on kind so well attested by Lubenow (op.cit. pp. 149-156): the teaching of what is here provided in this August 23 edition, in the Australopithecine world, appears nil to the point.

In this shadowy world of seeking to extract an oil gusher from a peanut, we simply note that an extremely extensive assessment of the Australopithecus africanus type by Stern and Susman (Evolution - The Challenge of the Fossil Record - Gish, pp. 156ff.) led to this 'revision' of some earlier 'claims' which like so many were overly 'dramatic'. Of the gait, this:

Oxnard declares overall, after much research: that  all Australopithecines are further from African apes and man than these latter are from each other*2 (Homo, 30:243, 1981), considering them a "small brained curious genus" (Oxnard, loc. cit.). This is the essence of the point which is so crucial in this particular area. There is enormous variety in different degrees in various groups, some more this or that, some with a feature somewhat different amongst an assemblage of traits rather like those of another creature, and this can occur both in groups close in type and far removed.

Accordingly, Oxnard, speaking with precision,  makes this point: "If the fossils have ankle, hand and shoulder bones patterned somewhat after those of the orang-utan then we can only surmise that perhaps, as the orang-utan, the fossils had ankles, hands and shoulders  adapted for climbing ." (Nature, p. 394, Dec. 1975, Vol. 258).

There is simply no point, let alone ground, for trying to make creatures, in the case in which groups have some marked similarities, tread the uphill gradient so that one becomes the other. Groups internally have such variabilities, such intimate and bold specialisations, that the effort to compare them via some small variable, with other groups is doomed to presumption. Not variability amongst far off creatures, and variability among humans is the need to show; for we know of these things by observation. Man has the reason aboard, the spirit, the incomparable capacity of thought, conscious resolution with grounds abstractly conveyable, communicable and the fashion of purpose and ideal, with the opening of rational self-consciousness and spiritual God-consciousness...

WHERE is the series TO BE FOUND, which by a fleet of working examples, has each one moving up and on to the ‘goal’ ? Where are the steps on the ladder by which ascent was made ? Why is the ladder not there ? Was it stolen ? Have the myriads of failed cases selectively hidden ? What has science to do with concern about the absent in such multitudes, when what is present in real multitudes has only one message. Is this science by inadvertence, or the use of the name instead of the method ? That, of course, would literally be science falsely so-called, the Biblical term used in admonition.

The substitution of variability in each group for such an upward series is nothing if not wearisome irrelevance. It is not uncommon in the spheres where the barriers are strong, the internal peculiarities marked, and the ‘arrival’ is sudden (cf. SMR 236, 160-162). In the domain of the mind and spirit, the change is just as categorical. The very conception - forget the evidence for it! - is almost amusing. Ill-wrought messes instead of logic, hollow and witless consciousnesses instead of analysis are mere mountains of horror, butts for power steering riotous and askew when manual might work. It is as always, a case of having the operative facility that really works, or nothing. Less than this simply does not work. Nor is it found. Let us however return to what IS found.


Hence it is refreshing to observe such careful corrections as those of Zuckerman and Oxnard, of irrelevant assumptions in favour of scientific assessments, in these areas. It assists the removal of fantasies which, while quite enjoyable and even edifying at times, are not the strict work of science, and should never be confused with it. What might be in another world is for the imagination; what is in this one, is for science. The liberty of mind is a creation; the necessities of science is another. Only folly, even if spiritually induced - and it can in that way occur in brilliant people -  confuses them.

This work of the two scientists just noted, is in similar corrective vein to that of Stern and Susman, when they made their own extensive analysis of findings, re-instating fact after the controversies based on

so that the peculiar individuality of the Africanus model was again emphasised, and its vast divergence from anything approaching a 'leap'. It was simply in a line of individual variation in dispositions, as is so much else, without being in the least a matter of bridging a gap.

This is the emphasis keenly, of Zuckerman, whose numerous bodily ratios and measurements lead to categorical  rejection of anything which could evidentially  make Australopithecus a format foundational to man.  They had ways of their own, as indeed in various respects do gibbons and baboons. In fact, this is his summary: "Our findings leave no doubt that, in this respect, Australopithecus resembles not Homo Sapiens but the living monkeys and apes ... ; in the Australopithecines the muscles did not abduct the high, which is a necessary function for the human type of walking..."  He then proceeds to relay and relate measurement of the ischium relative to the innominate as a whole, a measure much greater in quadrupeds than in man. In this, "Australopithecus is completely unlike man, and identical with monkeys and apes."

The next point, illustrative of the general concept of individual schemas of some variety for different types of creature, is thus worth quoting: "It turned out that the angle of twist between the main plane  of the ilium and the ischiopubic part of the innominate in the Australopithecine cast corresponded to that in the quadrupedal macaques, cercopitheques and baboons, and was well outside the range for apes and adult men..."

This is a rebuke to the superficial rushing to 'deduce' this and that, because some one feature is in this direction, on the whole, though in some other setting, or in that. It is not some isolate, which one must 'pick up', to provide anything approaching evidence of gradual change: it is a movement of pattern, changing the fundamental necessities which would relate to any movement from the one type to the other. It is this which is painfully lacking, remains lacking, is always deficient, and provides reprimand to the over-fervid imaginations of those in philosophical distress.

Amidst vague possibilities and inadequate science, Time continues that - if not simply misleading, then at least - oppressively imprecise line of journalism which often appears in its didactic mode, and does not really educate aptly, except on the modes of creating impressions from materials which do precisely what was being done before: attest the entire and radical insufficiency of anything which could be called fact to show a graded series of changes from the necessary critical features of non-human to human.

With the enormous mass of materials long "before" all this, already shown in the modern format, all this hypothesising seems to serve only  one clear purpose. It continues by suggestions and implications which are unwarranted and can even be wayward,  not merely to  create an impression, among unstated divergent data which are more than impressions, but to create the myth. (Its logical death is so complete that this might be said, rather than re-create it - cf. Repent or Perish Ch.7, SMR pp. 140ff., That Magnificent Rock, Ch.1, pp. 8ff., 14ff..) What is that ? This:  that what has no mode of happening known, is contrary to all laws known, and contrasts with the evidence like sea and air, has in fact happened.

The intention ? WE do not know. The result: we seek to exhibit.

These succulently presented suggestions in the field of 'natural development',  of constant HOPE, in new exquisite products making themselves in brilliant (but never found) manner in the fashion of ... man (but never in the manner of showing the evidence or the mode) , or such as extra-terrestrial intelligence in SPACE MEN, instead of seeing its cumulative, inevitable, correlated and consuming evidence in all the lines, laws, uplifts, concentrations, applications and cogitations in the symbolic schema of nature, its composite actualities and the specific items, in GOD, operating not beyond the cosmos but over time and space as subsidiary creations of imposed limitation: they continue undaunted, fired by the passion for results that as stubbornly WILL not come.

Thus in this field of artistic (we cannot say scientific) anthropology (that is, that phase of it which is the interface of philosophy, religion and enterprise, with the unresponsive facts), they come with panache; they leave with exposure. They arrive as dux, they leave as dunce. This they do routinely on further exposure, like mini-missiles, touted as atomic bombs, but then found to be but heavily packaged fire-crackers. If this scurrying, worrying and flurrying is deplorable, it is equally revealing of the yearning of many, for 'Nature' to invent itself; though with complete logical propriety, it steadfastly refuses to co-operate with such an unexampled project, as gauche as grandiose, desiring from what has it not, that it make what it lacks, for all the world like an intelligent team of scientists, but without their equipment.

Hence comes the irony of Oxnard (p. 168 supra), the appalled disillusion which Lord Zuckerman reveals in his Beyond the Ivory Tower, perceiving just such unscientific bias against the factual reality that he displayed in his own field; hence likewise the Lucy myth, she travelling from being of "the first family"
at the outset, to a position as one more variant of the Australopithecine collection (afarensis ?*1), and in that, taking the place of the most primitive of all of them (Gish, op.cit., pp. 157,153).

This exotic desire for a self-structuring 'Nature' of marvellous - and unattested, and indeed upon study, continually divested - powers of creation has but one buttress, and that without substance, imagination; and indeed, this seeming lust is like the compulsion of the gambler: but there are no jackpots (cf. A Spiritual Potpourri, Chs. 1-3, Stepping Out for Christ Ch. 2, esp. pp. 19ff., Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Ch. 2, Benevolent Brightness or Brothy Bane 82, pp. 198ff., That Magnificent Rock Ch.8, esp. 200-204, 279ff.). If it were a race, the horses do not run. Horses, like the rest, run as they were made; they do not run a self-construction factory. They are delightful creatures, but this faculty, facility and agility is not to be found within them. As far as 'Nature' is concerned, if silence is golden, it is pure gold in this respect. It is merely abased by having such creative prescription assigned to it; for it does not perform. In vain is it awaited; for all that develops here is knowledge of the prodigies which were performed, when performance was occurring. We know it  MUST have done so, for otherwise we would not be here.

As for 'Nature', its natures do what they do, and design is neither their forte nor their observable accomplishment. Information its repositories are what they are, and decreasing in this field.


It remains, in terms of activities, to note that the Calaveras skull (the expertly established credentials of which are described in detail in M Bowden's "Ape-Man, Fact or Fallacy", set at around 7-12 million years in terms of the current mode of geological dating many prefer, was associated with in its Pliocene deposit, in which "expert geologists had found many artefacts of human work, and such as stone pestles and mortars, hammer stones, spear heads". It was inspected cemented into a solid mass with material from the mine in such a way as to be convincing as genuine, and incapable of fabrication; whereas the area was in fact rich in ancient materials. The Castenodolo skull,   found in situ, expertly examined to extinguish all thought of intrusion, was of similar date, and was given corroborative attestation by another expert. The strata above were completely intact, and the object was embedded in a matrix of the same material as that stratum. The bones were furthermore scattered over a wide area.

Interestingly, we read this from Sir Arthur Keith, famed scientist in the field:

In fact, numerous such indications now have arisen, in footprints - in Africa, in the US broadly, in high concentration in Texas at far greater date estimations than those of these Australopithecines;  in circular hut foundation, in footprint crossing with dinosaur, with trilobite embedding, in a perhaps 5 million year old humerus, a two million year talus and so on, that the whole matter seems - even on the adventurous dating gambles currently in vogue (of which see *3  below), indicative of only one thing: man did not evolve. He has always varied about a norm, as have many creatures. More than this is pure imagination which, in a year 11 essay for English, could be praiseworthy, in science more suggestive of flair than fact. Even granting the routine excitement of hope, the theories are scientifically inadmissible. Their continuance breaches basic canons (cf. SMR pp. 140ff., That Magnificent Rock, Ch.1).

What construction might be given ? One can imagine (since this is the vogue here) Shakespeare adapting from his own words, and with the touch of French in the 'without' rendered 'sans', putting the condition of such theories  thus:

'They are sans evidence, sans law, sans corroboration from other fields, sans logic, captious castaways, the fretful games of idle old age of science, weary of longsuffering denial of omniscience, and lacking any means of gaining it. What they lack, they merely assume; where they assume, they greatly presume.'
What however of the facts ?

The only conclusion from these facts is that there is no evidence that human evolution has occurred, no series of developing features in a structurally transitional manner is to be found; that there is most considerable,  multi-faceted evidence of human existence - at the level of dinosaur, on the popular geological dating scale, around 7 or more million years ago; and more around 100 million; that considerable variations between often quite diverse creatures is to be found, sometimes one feature being like that of another specimen, whilst the cases are otherwise  not related; and that this limited but interesting variation occurs in creatures of the widest divergence, whilst creatures rather similar, like types of  monkeys and apes, can have fascinatingly similar and yet diverse features, allowing specialisation, rather like that of some parrots, one adept at this, one more at that.

There is only ONE feature of any real interest to the point for organic evolutionary imagination. It is this. The failure of any method of evolution, of what Popper calls LAW of evolution to 'arise' (SMR p. 145), of any mode of information increase, or any evidence of a line of creatures in which this occurred, the abrupt character of apparent arrival of all known kindreds and types, the highly specialised character of all that is found in cells, the working order nature of the features that actually are to be found as distinct from the imaginary beginning trials that do not work: all this means that the article has but one lesson.

It is that the combination of journalistic splash, evolutionary religion and unscientific philosophy appears, consciously or not, desperate to distance the entire scientific defeat of evolution. Since the human case is the one with relatively little obvious structural change to  accommodate, and - as with an electronic additive to a glider - a comparatively small addition is needed, though one of immense significance: it lends itself best to the ignoring of the facts, and the stretching of the 'suggestive', without due care. THAT in turn is what evolutionary religion  has done from the first (That Kingdom of Heaven, Appendix 2).

We hear  talk of probabilities
(on the assumption, contrary to fact, that such things COULD BE);
and, making much of non-upward moving, lateral variabilities
(which we find now increasingly are provided for, in the inter-relationships of various biological forces and physical impacts, such as those of bacteria information transfer, and mutation through impact of cosmic energy):

in effect, it looks for the magic that does not work.

This magic, whether in organic evolution or in any other creation ex-sufficient cause,  has never been seen, attested, verified, made to happen, given clear attestation of happening, shown methods of happening, related to science as a whole in the concept of happening.

Science rather has an interweaving, interwoven system of coherent theories which mutually support; and of these, none is more insistent than this, that for every effect you need a sufficient cause.

All efforts to dismiss logic, which is founded on it, start by cancelling their own logical validity, and hence have no power or place in reasoned discussion (cf. SMR Ch.3;That Magnificent Rock. Chs.5, 7; SMR pp. 421ff.).

The 'children' play in the foyer while the parents imagine a lift! Why not ? But not please, as a theory of science, to cover what does not happen. First let it happen, then account for it. If you account for it, when it does not happen, you are not in science; and when you call this science, you are provocatively - if unintentionally - misleading. Where is the magic, the magic that does not work, but provides the results of work, effects without sufficient cause, and causes with no cause, themselves ? Alas, not in the adult world of coherent thought.

It is as simple as that. It ALL requires building, logical products require logical causes. Only gifts can circumvent this, and even they do not really do so, for it is merely that someone else has to do it, before presenting it freely to you.

This magic hunger, often like the diet plan of the obese, not really admitting the problem, is dangerous to man, to civilisation and to science. It brings all into disrepute. It is expensive and wasteful of resources, fails to emphasise the actual nature of needed research, and turns an area of really intriguing complexity, the lateral variability, into one of balmy indifference to fact, sometimes justly seized with panic.

As to this, it is an endemic effect that tends in various ways, to manifest itself in the vigilantly non-Christian; it is not a mere individual foible. *4


This desperation is comprehensible. It must be, to infect even science in the frankest violation of scientific method (cf. in detail, That Magnificent Rock, Ch.1). It is found not in merely one article, but in multitudes of books, hopeful books, spending books to find what does not deign to be there, spending research always on target for what is not there, and usually constructed to be apt to find what is not there, with philosophic leaps to win any Olympic Games, if they could be translated into physical terms. If hope springs eternal in the human breast, in such a case, fact interminable plays hookey. It refuses to be bought, however much it is sought, portrayed, affirmed and tormented, a popular practice of this century.

The concept that evolution is scientific can thus be stretched before the popular mind, even though in terms of observable laws, processes to describe in terms of which they would operate, examples, past through palaeontology or present through the dynamics of these increasingly admitted abrupt changes, it is as bankrupt as ever. As for the dictum of Gould, that it is quite unreasonable to dwell on the fact that it is never to be seen, one need merely stress the word 'never'.

A process the evidence for which  both past and present, systematic and logical, causal and  directional is zero, is assuredly not scientific. It is philosophy, and as we have shown in That  Magnificent Rock, exceedingly bad philosophy. Far from impossible in any actual process is the discovery of its modus operandi, the manner of its proceeding; or its logical base; or its palaebiological past, or its mode of information creation, or code contrivance from zero to multiply mutually working brilliance past the best man can make. With the move  towards admission of suddenness as the only feasible way of interpreting evidence or functionality for the vast  changes involved (cf. SMR pp. 315Aff., 234ff., 108ff., 226ff., 244ff., 252Hff., 13-16), the expectation of seeing something some time somewhere is far from unreasonable; as is the desire for an indication of that new logic, new principle, new law, new sort of universe in which logic has no place, and logical consequences are everywhere to be found.

When one comes to think of it, how rational is the desire for the TOTAL SYSTEMATICS of micro-biology to be invented in a wholly magical, irrational environment. It is time Time ceased the business of extending of the life in publicity, of what is a proposition defunct in terms of scientific method, living ONLY in the imagination, in defiance of both reason and observation. If however we love freedom, then its activities become merely a species of observable behaviour like so much else, demanding of the enquiring mind, some… reason.

For this category of activity, intensely common on this earth and in this world system, it is one of the unspeakably apt provisions of the Bible to provide both description and analysis. Scientifically, this is most impressive, as is always the case when a perspective and approach is able to cover new fields of observable activity, and the more so, indeed, when it does it with incisive and controlling capacity, overviewing the scene with a condition, conspectus and acuity which quickly reduces it to order and comprehensibility.

When these fields are vastly diverse in kind, then the coverage is yet more impressive. So it is with the Bible in this domain, as in all others. It not merely presents categorically the laws which are ACTUALLY SEEN, in their most basic form, regarding the nature of the universe’s operation, but it gives reason for the tedious efforts to avoid their impact. See SMR pp. 330ff. (at p.249 bathos ref.), 332Eff.( at 314 proclivity ref.), 315Aff., 659-674, 226ff. esp. p. 233, 202 (at *18), 88ff. (at *22), 253-270, A Spiritual Potpourri Ch.1, 16, 13; Barbs, Arrows and Balms14; Repent or Perish Chs.5, 7.

NOT ONLY is the underlying ground of these impassioned, inveterate and almost comic contortions of the mind of man, exposed (cf. Romans 1:17ff.), but the RESULT is outlined, and as if this is not enough, the REMEDY is provided along with the WAY TO AVOID the endemic confusions of the human mind which come without this light (SMR Ch.5). To add even to that (like a 10 course meal), there is a tracing of the development of these things as the Age of this particular trial comes to its close, and these are the current directions. Short term, long term, basic, all these components of the situation are revealed in the Bible; the line of development over time and the acute crisis as the time comes to its end: all are exposed.

Further, they are exposed in an historical setting of various events, which occur, as it were amorphously, as historical contingencies at the same time. On top of that, these (such as the Jewish return to Jerusalem and statehood) are given a significance in a grand design, of which they form a developmental part.

The answer is, from a purely scientific point of view, comprehensive, outrageously uncompetitive: NOT because it cannot measure up, but because, as in the case of Kieren Perkins initial 1500 metres triumph, nothing else seems close. In this case, however, nothing else logically can as much as enter the lists!
(cf. SMR Chs.3,10).



  *1  The small-brained Australopithecine creation touted by Time on p. 51 as new, novel and marvellous is really one more of the long line of dentition cases, where variable results obtain in the current creatures to the point that any 'intermediate' concept is rather outrageous. With its lowly cranial capacity and massive dental structures (Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, pp. 145ff., esp. p. 146), it has nothing cited to offer but variety, which is precisely what we have now. Many have considered its specialised singularity, like nothing so much as itself in gait, whilst Oxnard and Lord Zuckerman have stressed the extent of the divergence from the human in its entire skeletal apparatus, which relates intimately to is ambulatory function.

The work of these two specialist researchers has been further confirmed by other considerations: thus the Australopithecuines have various other divergences of marked character:

a) Gish (op.cit. p. 151) focusses the ear ossicle, incus, citing a study of an example by Rak and Clarke, detailed in the reference just noted, The result ? these two workers found that the incus was "not only substantially different from the incus of modern Man, but the dissimilarity was actually greater than the difference between the incus of African apes and of modern man." The incus, they go on to indicate, has unique advantages for taxonomic and phylogenetic studies.

b) A.W. Mehlert in CEN Technical Journal Vol. 13, No. 2 (late 1999, p. 98) cites Bromage (Faces from the past, New Scientist 133, 1992): "Although the two faces [afarensis and human] share some similarities, they [were] built in very different ways during development." This is merely ONE of the numerous cleavages, highlighted with such care and judiciousness by Oxnard and Zuckerman, but confirmed by alternative means.

Thus skeletal differentials, ossicle divergence, growth pattern indications alike allow merely an individuality to this type of creation. It has nothing to offer in assured antiquity before man, in type to simulate as man, and continues as do many apes today, in its own way. In fact, the total evidence indicates human activities which, in the conventional dating schema, attest antiquity to the modern man that no creation of any similarity at all, can surpass, and indeed, match. The fact is that the data are consonant with the whole series of such families having  been in a creation from earliest times.

As to the cited case in Time, Skull 1470 very possibly pre-dates it (cf.Lubenow, op.cit. pp. 247-266, The Dating Game), but has appeared to some,  simply of current type, well within the limits set. As Oxnard points out (SMR p. 205), the Kanapoi humerus is modern and indicates that up to 5 million ago, man as known now, was around; while a 'modern' talus bone of around 2 million years, adds to it.

Nor is this by any means all.

Beneath the bone findings at the Olduvai Gorge, even if these be dated at 1.5 million years, a further significant find occurred. Leakey found the remains of a circular hut, which may be expected therefore to pre-date these other finds. Its type ? that still made in Africa today. This was in Bed I, below the Bed II findings.  As to 'tools', Lubenow (p. 141)  notes that stone tools were once considered indicative of evolutionary development; but adds this: "Things are different now. Almost every basic style of tool has been found with almost every category of human fossil material." Stringer and Grun write: 'The simplistic equation of hominids and technologies in Europe has thus been abandoned.' " Lubenow further notes Mary Leakey's observation in  the Kanapoi Valley, northern Kenya, of "primitive" Oldovan tools associated with potsherds and hut circles,  of apparently recent type. Again the Laetoli footprints (Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, p. 175) prima facie range as modern and about 3.7 million years old, the Kanapoi arm noted, at nearly 5 million years.

This frenzied seeming review of unspectacular things is really so uproarious a procedure, when it is all so preceded for so long by so much so modern! It is worse, when neither the teeth nor the implements are particularly suggestive, easily misleading when the kaleidoscopic seeming array of combinations and variations in living things and past findings is considered.

Moreover, Time’s apparent oblivion, is also  is simply to ..ignore the far 'older' Castenodolo and cases (7-12 million yrs on the rather fanciful but current fashion of dating), and the Calaveras (also rated as Pliocene, of which testimonials see SMR pp. 205-206), and the mass of footprints of modern kind with 'geological' dates, repeatedly confirmed by leading experts in the Paluxy River deposits, some of which have a date expectation of over 100 million years (loc.cit., and see Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, pp. 135ff., cf. SMR p. 252C, *44), while the number of corroborative prints found in many parts of the USA is considerable.

The formation cited for many findings of human footprints "in sites ranging from Virginia and Pennsylvania through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and westward to the Rocky Mountains"  by Dr A.E. Wilder Smith (op.cit. pp. 139ff.) is Carboniferous. Now this level on modish theory (for the sake of refutation not acceptance) , is 310 million years old - marvellous preservation in this as in much else on that dating concept! but see SMR pp. S15ff. on Cosmologies, with That Magnificent Rock, Ch.7 on dating, and SMR pp. 211ff., 235ff.)

It is rather too much to find that everything always which is so old is 'intrusive', even when intrusion does not manifest itself and qualified geologists on site attest the absence of evidence for it, or even that of evidential indications within the conceptually conceivable. Primary evidence of one kind deserves the same care in being unmodelled by prior conceptions, as that in another. This then becomes as much a philosophical game as the much attested practice  (one detailed at great length by Lubenow - in his fascinating and revealing review, The Dating Game) as another worthy of the misty practices in this field. That ? it is one  of simply disregarding certain of the numbers indicated in date testing of rocks or specimens. Which ? Those that do not accord with preconceived ideas, continuing ideas or ideals. These are 'bad' results or numbers, not to be 'received' because 'obviously' astray...

Whatever else this is, it has four observable fault lines:

1)  it is not statistics, but philosophy of numbers and

2)  its results are so often so ludicrous and variable, sometimes dating recent events in vast numbers of years, and its postulates for the assessment in the first place involve in the older dates particularly, so many postulates, and these so relate to a gradualistic conception which is counter-indicated by much evidence, that it is to a significant and sometimes most substantial extent, an exercise in philosophy, using numbers as counters.

3)  Precisely this sort of ‘fudging’ is what some students might do in the laboratory. The lab text says that this is what should result, so that careless work could be done until somehow it might look as if THIS reading might ‘do the trick’. That is NOT in the slightest degree to impute carelessness to those doing this work; it is that what for a junior student might be carelessness, LEADING TO SELECTIVE TAKING OF RESULTS, for ANOTHER REASON can lead to precisely the same selectivity in results, which is - again - precisely the opposite of science.

4)  The frequent unreliability and variability of the results indicate the inadequacy of the postulates, which in the first place, are the expositions of philosophy, itself the exposition of a world-view which is untenable, as shown in SMR Chs. 1-3, incl. pp. 132ff., 108-121, 128ff., 208-211, 252E-N, That Magnificent Rock Ch. 1, A Spiritual Potpourri 1-9.

This fact of selectivity concerning numerical results of dating tests, unreliability and many like it, are also much exposed in detail by Professor E.H. Andrews in his discussion and detailing of the extreme variabilities of dating techniques, among each other, on the same rock, and the practical fact that geologists tend to look for ‘confirmatory’ signs in the imagined nature of the fossils. The radio-dating is rather inclined to have its own idiosyncrasies and erratic elements.

Thus ideas make expectations, expectations make determinants, determinants make dates, dates make fossil climes, fossil climes make dates in one vast circular orbit. When we add the cosmic assumptions (see SMR pp. 252Eff.) and the evidence of actual facts to be met (see dating references below), not only concerning early date indications, but in the theoretical domain in interpreting the underlying data on which the dating techniques are deployed, we cannot wonder  at either the practical tendency to feeling vulnerable on the field, if only such dating techniques are used, or the extreme variability cited by Andrews, as Professor of Materials in the University of London,  in his God Science & Evolution,
pp. 108-129.

See SMR pp. 315Aff., on Abrupt Creation, 226ff. on Punctuated Equilibrium, and with special emphasis on dating and allied dilemmas, pp. 204ff., 214-225, 235ff., 244ff., 251ff., 252Hff., S15ff., with That Magnificent Rock, Ch.7, E, The Antics of Dating, and esp. pp. 175-176J. A Spiritual Potpourri gives a convenient collation in Ch.4, of some of this material.

Such considerations are well illustrated in the case of the 1470 skull, confidently given a 2.9 million year dating by several experts at the outset, as they proceeded to test, when its credentials appeared strong. The exercise according to Lubenow's analysis, has many of the indicia of motivation rather than measurement, in a fashion of the greatest interest.

Thus the extreme variability of MANY efforts to date the 1470 skull background material, the confidence of coincidence of indications of several methods at first, the extreme UPSET which the date caused, and the subsequent changes speak for themselves. What had for long been obvious, was far less so when its results were not obvious to preconceived ideas.

What then is the evidential reality ? It is not so easily subdued.

Thus dinosaur tracks have been found in the same stone as that in which tracks "giving every appearance of being human" (James F. Coppedge, Ph.D. - Evolution: Possible or Impossible ? p. 189) were found in  the Paluxy River bed in Texas, "both evidently made before the rock hardened". Again we read, "Fossils of trilobites, assertedly extinct for 230 million years, are documented in sandal-shod human footprints in Cambrian rock at Antelope Springs, Utah." (He adds that this period is thought to be one spanning the 500 - 600 million years of age area.)



This raises the vital point: what is found in the past has a great deal of variety around different types, and what is found in the present is precisely similar. The current effort to amalgamate a couple of these types, monkey and man, is just as ludicrous in the past as in the present. If all the present creatures were instantly destroyed, and some left as fossils later, then there would be just the same kind of story. In some ways, some creatures are more like man than are others; while in other features again, the same ones may be less like. It would be quite possible to construct a fact defying conspectus of progression from one to the other, in terms of imagination.

The actual failure to find the important transitions, step by step gradual gradations in reaching organisation or organ 2, from organ 1, such as is seen in the ossicle of the ear which is so diverse in the cases of man and Australopithecine material (Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record,
p. 151), or in the other specialised equipment: this is monumental. Variety is found now as then; processive progress is NOT.

This is the distinguished and distinguishing fact. What is found now is what would be the case in the future, looking back on now: just as it is the case in the past, looking back from now, so our present variables would lie available in both their variety and cleavage, for exhumation. Now however we have the advantage of SEEING that these varied elements relate to man, or fail to do so, with our own eyes. Neither in the past nor present however, do we find the transitional steps leading from some specialised equipment to something diverse, of higher order. We find a prodigious imaginative variety within highly defined limits. This is what rightly amazed Gould, when he inveighed against the concept of gradualism as "literally incomprehensible", and noted the structural brilliances, diversities and specifics (for the allegedly virtually earliest Cambrian epoch or Age, of all things!). This is found  in his Wonderful Life - detailed further in SMR p. 234. The facts have not altered. The anti-verification sails on affected by verbiage.


It should also be easy to find many failed ‘experiments’ such as those of which in principleTime Magazine tediously and emptily thunders in its propaganda; which is such, simply because it is NOT possible to find them. They do not arrive. What then of this evolutionary theory: The millions and millions of failed contrivances that were (supposedly) anti-operational because the principles of design had not been ‘learned’ by the learner who anyway, on the secular theory of organic evolution was not there (a difficult case, but that is the nature of the evolutionary myth, which quite formally, it is - SMR p. 252I) - they are nowhere to be found.

What then is the way it was done ? what was the way ? Was it perhaps that some other personification  has evacuated all the evidence, both now and previously, and at the same time, like its magical sister, 'Nature', lost its logic for making itself happen, whilst leaving staggering masses of exhibits which show everything but the case in view: graded upward change! If ever obstinacy were to find its place, surely is it; but then, you see, as we have noted again and again, this is more than a personality trait in this case.
It is a spiritual design, which when abused by alienation from its Maker, develops such characteristics as these (see Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming... Ch.2, End-note 1).

Is there then some other magic which removes evidence and leaves this mythical theory bereft and ludicrous, sadly watching the steamer of fact sail from its magical shores. Is THAT why it cannot be found... Alas it is not found and the theory goes on as if it knew no rules, except the rule, to rule, to subdue by statistics, which ? The statistics of culture, of desire, when logic itself is dead.

It is quite the contrary of science. With an appearance of impudence equally by the depths of irrationality which similarly seem to arrive, we are made to hear journalistic words of a contrived thunder. What, in effect, says our Time article of this defective hypothesis, orphaned of necessary fact ? Before we consider this, let us however further explore the experiment concept as there noted.

Indeed, even if logic and empirical evidence, all known scientific laws and scientific method were paralysed, impossible and self-contradictory as this would be for any thought, but even if this should be granted, what then ?

Why then,

as the brilliant elevations of design to arenas and heights that have no need to survive, since initially these planes of wonder are not even there and have no competition in absentia, and

as a synthetic assembly of mutually contrived parts with an integral purpose,

do they come - by some other magic ? To survive does worm become man ? does man become superman ? rather he becomes debased. Does cell become baby, to help its survival ? does knowledge descend from the abyss, or principle from chance, does nothing make up concoctions of incredible seeming imagination in order to be better ? What imagination can do is testimony to the power of the Creator of it; but not in such abuse as this!

Do the components of planning, present empirically, ARRIVE from some unspecified source (since God is not in favour with such) so that one by one, without their correlative paraphernalia, they proceed like robots to screw on bolts in some car assemblage plant, without the plant … and minus the electricity supply, the supervisor and the roof ? and do they then survive in the absence of the rest ? and if not, what would be the point of the reductionist exercise, with its bitter theme ‘survival’*5, even if logic and scientific method WERE forfeit, which however, in any case they are not!

It is as if man in this evolutionism has taken wings of thought far removed from any experience of his own in any industry, and has speculated himself into some sort of oblivious intoxication! It IS of course that God, the Creator, is unpopular, according to the exceedingly general Bible exposition of such a syndrome. It is one from which rescue is necessary for all, and its effects vary, but tend to flare when the issues press - as here. It is not the only reason why men make ludicrous mistakes in logic and method; but it does explain why they can make DIFFERENTIAL school-boy howlers when the field INVOLVES GOD. We are all familiar with the way divorced couples and murder charged detainees, can ‘reason’, when their OBJECTIVE is threatened.

What is its message ? This: OF COURSE it is science, they say. OF COURSE the alternative is not. OF COURSE, it is appalling and a sign of decrepitude of spirit or heart or mind, or some combination, that people in any US State should ever dream of insisting on creation being given teaching time, or any such invasion or intrusion of the divine right of evolution to be heard … even when its facts, like rebellious subjects, merge listlessly into the unseen horizons of hope. OF COURSE, it seems to imply, the alternative is 'literal' interpretation of the Bible in some unspecified but horrid way, which in itself may send the literary shiver down the cool spine.

In fact, this appears to be preaching of the worst sort: not that of the Bible, where logic and empirical fact, history and declaration, performance near at hand and far off are all interwoven impeccably, to the vast irritation of the assailants over history; rather here in this piece, we find assault without ground, and use of terminology of a pejorative kind, without clarity.

In fact, one of the two articles uses the abusive term, 'literalist', which has more bounce to the ounce, than 'literal', giving the feeling of some angry hick, or illiterate side-kick to knowledge. It is even better than that, for when the battle is lost the words at least can continue to churn: it becomes a matter of 'narrowly partisan religious motivations'. Better yet. Not only does knowledge of literature lapse, but motives are impure. Such heights of profundity, such depths of knowledge, such psychiatric performances, and that at a distance, are as impressive as the absence of sound grounds for the theory itself. The tissue is one. It tears readily. In the meantime, it serves as an indictment, verbally thorough, factually baseless and emotive.

It is very interesting this. The scientific matter as between creationism and evolutionism is demonstrably a rout for the latter ((as shown in That Magnificent Rock Chs. 1, 8 and SMR pp. 140ff., and amplified in A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-9, esp. 9, pp. 151ff.). Perhaps through mere confusion of mind, and perhaps as a red herring - one cannot read behind the lines, the motives, only the muddle, which is upon them - Time mixes the logical aspect of the two -isms, with a question of Biblical interpretation - 'literalist'. It certainly makes for diversion. This may make for good oratory, playing on the principles thus in turmoil aroused; and whatever its own motive - for we are not super-psychiatrists here -  it does make for poor reasoning.

If, having dealt separately, not with the philosophic imaginations of evolutionism -
duly rebutted so often by evidence (and see A Spiritual Potpourri Ch.1 among others here),

but with the theory's simple and repeated failure to meet scientific method testing, in marked contrast to creationism which as shown in such sites as those here cited, not merely meets them but in a spectacular way, goes beyond in establishing authority on many sides, as it were, ex gratia:

we then go elsewhere, this would be clearer.

This we shall plan do. Logic shows, then, creationism is entirely satisfactory, evolutionism awash with the stormy waters amidst repeated failure to meet simple tests. It is time to look further afield in the presentation from this magazine.

Let us now turn to the religious aspect per se, since Time inferentially does so with its talk of literalism. Let us in fact look to the Bible (mentioned very  prominently in one of the articles, and in this site demonstrated by formal logic to be the word of God Almighty) , in considering the Kansas case, attacked by Time. After all, if you are to be 'literalist', you would seem to need some literature, to earn your lambasting.


When USA bombed Kosovo (now condemned in a high place in Britain, as more like the genocide than what it was supposed to be), was this literal ? Did bodies literally die ? Did landscape literally change ? Or were the commands to be interpreted as a sort of democratic protest, while the bombs rained only in the imagination. Is a general to be interpreted literally when he commands his troops, or is he to be assumed to mean something very hard to muddle, befuddled, out ...

When God indicates in the Bible - if we are dealing with INTERPRETATION, and not other questions in some convoluted maze, again: when God indicates creation, is He to be understood really to have some figure of speech in mind ? If He talks of created specified and well-known types of creatures, the existence and complexity of which is far beyond our limited powers to make, and states that as to these, He is the responsible agent, and that there was a certain fixity of KIND about the things He made (the terms of reference being on a wider spectrum, but still decisively clear, so that we are in a certain domain, shown by the character of its specifications), are we to wonder if He is really making a piece of poetry ? If He states that He created light, do we understand that really He means it was around anyway ?

Actually, figurative language is used by intelligent authors in such a way that their meaning is quite clear, when their words are not intended to be so much a source of fact, as a matter of musing beyond or even without the facts evoked. Otherwise, language becomes a sort of nonsense game. As it is, we have intelligence and use it in reading and writing. Whether figures of speech are in view depends on the indications, context and purpose stated; and on whether practical action is in view, explanation and history is invoked in close correlation. All of these things are present in Genesis, and the arena is filled with cause and effect relationship between God and the universe, man and God, sin and man, God and sin and families and places.

At the relevant level of creation, then, there is simply nothing to be said. Creation happened, God did it, He did it in a certain specified way and with certain specified results in the things He made. Now it may be that some interpret this or that in any piece of literature in some way which fails to discern some figure of speech, or which wrongly imagines one to occur when it is absent and so on; but as to the stated purport - as mentioned in Genesis 2:1-4, of these things, and their historical outcomes, God does not indicate any feeling of inadequacy to tell us what He did, how it happened and what is the result and from this, what are our terms of reference.

To mean something else would be a disastrous communication failure, a ruthless misdirection exercise and a ludicrous omission in the presentation of the grounds of our being, relative to Him, and His actions. After all, as we see in the flood (as specified by Christ in Matthew 24:37ff. in a dire an deadly, practical setting), it was literally a matter of life and death; and from II Peter 3, we are now facing a further cataclysm for reasons not far removed from the causes of the first one, the flood.

The details of these things, in precise contextual exposition, are given in various places on this site, such as SMR pp. 179ff., 482-498ff., S5-S13 and A Spiritual Potpourri Ch. 9 and The Biblical Workman Ch.7.

Meanwhile, with this profusion of confused issues, none taken adequately or aptly in this matter, feelings and emotions are aroused in the article of Time Magazine, which become a substitute for the careful relationship to the logical realities of the issues, one at a time, and each with precision given its due and needful result.

It has its almost humorous side, like clashing symbols at a funeral; except, you see, that because of the death (increasingly evident, for the race, and in any case, due to each for sin, as environment fades, crazes crush and ruin stalks, the children themselves the latest specialty victims of the human outage), there is a gravity which cannot be ignored. What then do we face in our Time pep-talk ?

We are lambasted with the products of this fecund imagination as though we were to say no more, indifferent school-children, when the more we are so verbally beaten, the less the grounds for it appear. Just as evolution meets the definitional requirements of myth, so does this of propaganda. Possibly it makes the teaching staff of this world, as it were, feel better to mouth such contra-factual assaults; and it is symptomatically interesting and verificatory, as we show in this article, in terms of  Romans 1; but it does nothing to improve on the facts, the missing facts, by arresting those who insist on them, and who produce such outrageous thoughts as perhaps these may be deemed to be:

Actually, as shown logically in SMR Chs.1-3, there is a necessity for an intelligence which is above the necessities of dumb or even processive learning from mistakes. The absence of such is merely confirmation: and that ? it is in sharp accord with scientific method. Creation, as shown in detail in That Magnificent Rock, Ch.1, is intensely in accord with scientific method in all its competitive relationships with evolution, which for its part, jars multifariously with it. Accordingly, as far as science in THIS sense is concerned, there is no contest. It is creation alone which meets the case, in terms of scientific method (cf. SMR pp. 140ff., where it is given in schematic detail).

What then DOES the record show ?

It all shows nothing except what we have, which is NO progress but MUCH variation in kind.

In the case of man, the extraordinary, categorical, almost incredible step up is really a staircase (cf. SMR Ch.1, pp. 316Dff.  and 332Gff., The Kingdom of Heaven... Ch.8, Repent or Perish Ch.7). Like a glider, a battle detection device, sent out to soar over the enemy, but without other equipment, compared with on  able to take only occasional automated snap-shots, and then again, one with a radio-control plus program combination with electronic provision for numerous manoeuvres and responses to intelligence, there is a matter of LEAP. The leap is profound in significance, but requires little SIZE in equipment: just brilliance. When there is contact possible with the guiding officer, then the mobility and agility, the intelligence focus is far higher, at a new level again.

So with man. Creation shows many features focussed in ways often humorous and highly edifying; and sometimes these show strength or bulk as in an elephant, at times delicacy as in a butterfly, instinct wisdom as in a spider or bee, or migrating bird with navigational equipment (cf. SMR p. 143)
of the highest order, beyond our miniaturising methodology or even understanding so far, though we are beginning to grasp more. In the case of man, it is not physical bulk which is the focus and feature of high impact to the observer. Instead, it is a combination of :

Wholly diverse from that of other material creation, this singular logical, symbolic, imaginative, constructive, cogitative, system-penetration and roving creation capacity is as clear from his writings as in his productions. Like a glider becoming a radio-controlled explorer in the battle field, by addition of electronic capacities, to survey AND REPORT, being subject to GUIDANCE, and equipped with physically small cameras, so man is made into a survey unit, but one equipped with his own intelligence and will.  Light in weight and small in substance but crucial in decisive operation, the design difference between glider and drone is more sophisticated than one of bulk, though it has the features apt to the altered aim of the maker. So with man, there are many decisive differences between him and the un-equipped; there is much of some similarity, though even here, there is a vast hinterland of specificity, as Zuckerman and Oxnard have indicated in detail, in their differential studies, for man as such.

As in other manufacture, crafted machines can be made with specifications apt for the case, where it matters - as in distinctive tooth enamel growth rates for rapacious apes and so on, so in man, there are his own modes of growth and renewal, his own angles and dispositions of parts, speech centres in the brain that are his alone, and so forth, compared with creatures of a different calling. These are apt to the case, but it is the capacity to use with comprehension which is crucial. How startling is the construction of his intelligence, the diversity and divergence of its liberated modes, its rational devices and its imaginative deployment of the same!

Man ? There is no design in a thousand features, to match this one: in its total integration and correlation of features, their number, almost limitless complexity, co-ordination, symbolisation and their ... result!
To the highest human intelligence, man the product of cause sufficient, in mind, spirit and bodily system, together with all minor sub-systems and their integration, remains a prodigy distant in height above, in construction and in function. Our greatest geniuses in their own productions, extraordinary as these are, in turn pale before what man IS; their best efforts like those of children, by comparison. Though circumscribed in power, and far transcended in power as an accomplishment, over what he himself accomplishes, yet is man liberated in mode: no mere butt of instinct, he is indeed ineludibly drawn to origination, as if fascinated beyond measure by creation. He does what he is; but this - it is no mere system, though it requires and uses systematic equipment, far beyond his skills to duplicate.

Man is thus functionally equipped with spirit, invisible indeed except in its effects whether in the world visible, or within; and its specifics are decisive, making his creative power not merely distinctive, but astounding, even when it is amiss, and disastrous, when its abuse is persisted in. The difference in kind between man and all other visible creation is so profound that any talk which sub-categorises without reference to the total reality is mere abuse of language. Transitional powers are as absent as transitional forms. They are always, unfortunately, not available. What is available is gloriously successful inventions in myriads, diverse, rollicking with vigour, specialised in type, like planets revolving around their centre, moving around KINDS. There is no kind like man. There ARE many kinds. The necessary Maker (SMR Chs.1-3,9) of the mind-matter-spirit trilogy called man is INTENSELY creative. Man follows.

(For further on this topic, see the presentation and listing of references available in NEWS 74, endnote *3, referring also to *2; and SMR pp. 348ff, 422Eff, 316Dff..

In general, on the lower creation and its ways, gifts, capacities and place, see: BEN 52, 68, 74, esp. endnote 3,  81, pp. 183ff., 82, pp. 198ff., 201ff., 207ff.*, 84, TMR 7, Part E *2 pp. 176J, K, TON Appendix 2, ROP 7, incl. *1, pp.141ff.; ROP 7 *2#, News 81*2#, SMR pp. 114-123,  140ff., 226ff., 234ff., 251ff., 202ff..)


Let us pursue an allied feature of man's distinctives.

These things are QUALITATIVE rather than QUANTITATIVE, though the physical hands and feet and posture and gait all contribute to the practical implementation of what is categorically different, by brilliant and deft design changes, all correlated and categorised into a code which ensures their reproductive continuation.

It is the nature of these things, as it is with other created foci, features and provisions, that they are complex in structural correlates, relatively simple in overall result (like a piano - complicated in structure, but when used in the way designed, comparatively straight-forward - that is BECAUSE it is a design, and designed for correlation with man, in this case, by man).

Man has this massive provision in his functional structural engineering, and its addition -

Half way houses in some sort of gradualistic development simply do not work. There is the genius of the design, and the operating necessity of these elevated and demanding activities.

If you do not rationally act, then the business is dead. If you do not have the capacity to deal accurately with the conceptual world, then you are a fool. Fools do not do much obvious good to anyone. They are operationally, a disaster area. You can have brilliant ones, deficient in wisdom; mental ones, deficient in intellect; political ones, deficient in self-control and understanding. These things are there or they are not. The package is present or absent. That is why we do not in fact find half-finished biotic packages, or even cells. They are here or they are not. It is the same with our own works, except when we are foolish, or too proud to see that we are inadequate for some work, or simply learning.

God does not evidence these defective sides of things. Things wear out, but to not processively show failed experiments on the way to creation. Wearing out is not producing.

We ourselves being His creatures, have much to learn in the free modality He has given us. As to His work, the packages are present or absent, and the whole concept of their coming gradually has been as conceptually vapid as has the evidence for it been absolutely non-existent. The theories which insist of thinking otherwise, when the GROUND in reason, the EVIDENCE of the eyes, the NATURE of the case, alike forbid it, are an eloquent testimony of our own day, to the precision and accuracy of another package.

This ? It is called the Bible, and it says this (from Romans 1:18ff.):

It then goes on to list the moral lines of today, tracing out the ultimates of the disastrous spiritual disease of blindness, in word, as our own generation in deed, with an accuracy of a reporter, just as II Timothy 3 traces the very heights of these things for the culminating phases of the Age, as noted, given their own indicia as if in a scientific text...

The rejection syndrome, relative to God,  which afflicts man is not much better evidenced anywhere than in the field of creation. As if all the above were not enough, God even indicates that this sickness of mind, this affliction of spirit, this blindness of vision would form a CONCENTRATE in this particular period of time, our terminal epoch before Christ returns (cf. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming... Chs.1, 2), including  -

It will not however swallow up sin; nor can it swallow up the love of God. Looking to the Creator, who without the impediments either of foolishness or lust (cf. SMR pp. 179, ff., 580ff., 615), has made mankind, it is better to know Him than the dust, and what lies below, the evacuation not merely from this earth, but from life itself, eternal life in its prospect, into the dim parallel of confusion, in profusion of contempt, lowered beneath truth, like a coffin below the ground.

God has acted in supreme and superb design, as in His creation, has finished this as He has likewise finished His creation, and presents, proclaims, publishes peace, not like an Army General, but to the heart, for the life, to eternity, past this world and into the dimensions of eternity, from which He has created this little earth.


"How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news,
Who proclaims peace,
Who brings good tidings of good things,
Who proclaims salvation,
Who says to Zion,
‘Your God reigns!’…

"The Lord has made bare His holy arm
In the eyes of all the nations,
And all the ends of the earth shall see
The salvation of our God…

"Behold My Servant shall deal prudently:
He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high.
Just as many were astonished at you,
So His visage was marred more than any man,
And His form more than the sons of men.
So shall He sprinkle many nations.
Kings shall shut their mouths at Him,
For what had not been told them, they shall see,
And what they had not heard, they shall consider" -
(from Isaiah 52).

(Here you may care to read, That Magnificent Rock, Ch.6 -
Life, What is it for ?)

It proceeds (from Isaiah 53):

"He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised and we did not esteem Him.

Surely He has borne our griefs,
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.

"But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities,
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray …"

It proceeds to say this (of those who by His stripes are healed, in v.5):

"On Him the Lord has laid the iniquity of us all."

Is YOURS there ?

It is the fitting receptacle for sin.
In heaven, no place is found for it (Revelation 21:25-27).
Heaven is clean. HE made it so. His method was excruciating, personal and vicarious, benevolent and with personal involvement to the uttermost. But it is done! Nothing unclean can come there. But there are other places.

"IF," He said, "you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" - (John 8:24), and again,
"If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded and came forth from Him" - John 8:42). He has brought life and immortality to light (II Timothy 1:10). How ? "Through the Gospel." Death is the final devastation of sin, and it has spiritual as well as physical dimensions. Thus, in breaking it, and rising bodily from the dead (Luke 24:39-43, I Cor. 15:1-4, Acts 2:29-32), He abolished not only  its judgment, bearing that of those who come to Him, but its morbid vitality, arising newly clad, transformed, unpossessed by it.

In Him, then, the real life exists (cf. I John 1:1-4), the personal and eternal variety, of which this world has only a foretaste; but as with the perfume of daphne, WHAT a fragrance THAT is. It is the scent of the Saviour, sent with significance and salvation, showing God and calling men, to a heritage "incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away" (I Peter 1:4). To the Christian, who HAS come to Him (John 6:37, 10:9,27-28), He adds: "reserved in heaven for you."

SMR pp. S15ff. on Cosmologies, with That Magnificent Rock, Ch.7 on dating, and SMR pp. 211ff., 235ff.. See also index SMR.


Not logic alone, but at another level, the word of God equally makes it clear: GOD IS THE CREATOR of all things. NOTHING ELSE OF THOUGHT OR EXISTENCE HAS THIS POWER, and HE ? He is eternal. God's eternal power and godhead are indeed obvious to sight and reason, and as Paul states, their testimony is suppressed (Romans 1:18ff.). And what is one the chief protested qualifications of GOD ONLY, as insistently proclaimed in the Bible: CREATION as defined in the same word, the word of God (cf. Isaiah 44:6, 45:9, 18, Psalm 90:2 - and cf. SMR pp. 179ff., 502ff., A Spiritual Potpourri Ch.9 - and see Ch.4, The Biblical Workman Ch.7).

This art of suppression is a generic spiritual condition, asserting itself now here, now there; and in particular in organic evolutionary secular theory. Far is this from saying it must be so by conscious decision. Far is He from saying it does not happen. On the contrary, He states that this is the general character of the race, into which the grace of God can penetrate (cf. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming... Ch.2, End-note 1) .

The written word and the worked word are in entire harmony, principial, substantive, detailed. Nothing EVER ONCE happens contrary to the word of God, in that form of knowledge known as 'science' (which is gained, though subject to vast corrections over short periods of time!, from the mind God invented, applied to the works God invented, in that combination which God also invented).

On the topic of SURVIVAL, including the hideously mismanaged doctrine of 'survival of the fittest', god of a thousand skirmishes, scores of slaughters, mass defilements of the race, see:
1) Biblical Blessings Ch.7
2) SMR pp. 179ff.,  482-498ff., S5-S13
3) News 51, Joyful Jottings 14
TMR 1, p. 22, 6, 8
4) and perhaps chiefly, A Spiritual Potpourri 6, to which add Ch.  9.