W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
THE ORGAN OF SIGHT
AND THE ORIGIN OF EYES
The Spectacle and the
The Eyes Have it
It does not matter how many miracles are posited -
that responds in terms of action;
multiply miracles if you will. It does not make the constructions easier, but harder. You ineptly introduce a smattering of farces to explain, in addition to the totally design-definition conforming fact of sight through eyes. (See SMR pp. 210-211, 116-117, 112-113, 252E-G.)
The imagined pre-vision equipment, not too helpful, you see, but employing and deploying whatever it took, like any other design, yet not bothering to leave any evidence of itself amongst the millions of fossils, was, came to be - we are led to believe by these dilettante reconstructionists. These magical machinations of what was not there, they did the job just as we never see it done; and just as we never find any way for it so to invent the various worlds which, on this basis, simply were not there; and to do it, without inventive capacity.
Alas, in practice, this naturalistic maestro, this exuberant phenomenon never bothers to make itself happen now, for the very good reason that the visible world does not contain the means, just as it did not then. Indeed, even with the intelligent minds that would like to reproduce 'unintelligent nature' by using their own mentalities to make such an experiment work, the 'arising' of an eye, it does not happen! If anything ever did not work, this does not. (See SMR pp.311-313 - End-Note 16, down slightly.) It is an exercise in futility founded on anti-natural views of nature, attested by missing evidence, verified by endless absence, and proven by total contradiction of all known law. Negative? It proceeds by assumptions, in other words, at each and every point contrary to logic, law, and evidence, both past and present. THAT! It is a theory? Not al all. It is a dream.
been said, however, let us enjoy the situation on the one hand, and see the
wonder of the creation of God, on the other, by a more detailed consideration
of the realities in view.
INTERWOVEN AND INTERACTIVE TECHNIQUES
EVERY time you have VISION of ANY kind in a LIVING creature, you need a vast array of interwoven and interactive techniques and symbols. First of all of course is the enormous complexity of ANY cell - when evidence is in view (cf. SMR pp. 114ff., 120, 128ff.). That is the evidence. Cells appear only in ultimate, sophisticated form, not being KNOWN AT ALL in any other form, whether from things aged or modern.
Then, you will need
a) a total
information reservoir to provide an integrated circuit constraint
geometrical tissues in place (for the symbolic logic back of it all in code, in
terms of ALL biological evidence, has to have a base, and a base in life, not
in a vacuum)
direction for geometrical changes as the eye is reach any given stage or phase
of imagined operation over time
d) correct 3-D contouring for lens work and the entire fitting together of any well defined and utilisable organ
e) correct synthetic correlation for
i) time sequence of each phase of construction
ii) each phase of operation of what has been constructed when it arrives
iii) transmission procedures for operational data received from the eye
iv) each inter-related and co-operative component of the whole,
in every sub-unit, sub-stage.
code, equipped to provide commands, fitted with components able to interpret
and perform them, transmitting conceptual high-order specifications,
interpreted in logical format with one coherent language, the systems base,
protecting itself from alteration, just as it was protected so that it could
g) A schema
for systems and inter-systems work, to specify and require the arrangements in
code, so that they would be created in the particular way all life works.
In proceeding from
non-life to life, you need all of this, and you need it simultaneously, and you
need command and interpretation, schema and utilisation, specification and
servants, all at one and at once.
THE PERQUISITES OF MIND
In short, you need the exact perquisites of mind. The mind in view is normally referred to by the word - God.
However, on the imaginary, contra-evidential and anti-causal and hence anti-rational (see SMR Ch.3) basis of the gradual,
It is usual to refer to the origination of commands in a term - the word of God.
Whatever name is used, the
functionality is necessary. There is little misunderstanding when the name GOD
is used; so it seems good language work to use it.
THE CONCEPT OF ODDMENTS OF INNOVATION
THEREFORE NEEDS REVERSAL
It is not a matter, evidentially or logically, of many breaches of the inert to create life by multiplied miracles inventing new worlds from what is not there. It is rather - even if such magic were invoked from a 'nature' which does not show it in its nature:
i) design innovation is always to be found at the top level, never in process and in progress of becoming functional.
ii) the synthetic synergism of the actual agencies has always to be instituted for operation, without which there is a anti-survival deadweight.
iii) the practical as well as the theoretical collaborations have to be established hand in hand.
iv) the whole has to be in toto concatened with the neural structure and consciousness grading provided.
In this, EACH of the miracle designs in view, from first to last, in the imaginary progression has to be instituted in all these components, pseudo-components and quasi-components, proto-phases. The mere imagination that there is something to come, on the part of contemporary people with the benefit of minds: this does not grant to imagined earlier stages a place in later technical or design terminology, in whatever code or symbol chosen to work, or in concept, or in data bank structuring, or in overall conceptual control perspective for the functioning of life.
In each imagined "phase", all this style of things must be created, if we are talking of "life", and life is most abundantly exhibited in a unitary style of fabric of language, symbolism and chemistry, with many constructions synthetically available. This is seen in detail in SMR p. 332H.
Amongst all these worlds, the eye, in these various imaginary phases, has to be made suitable for the usage of each practical creature: it must be concatenated with each gestalt demand, with each requirement moreover made for different levels of being, operable to meet increasing demand of interpretation, not only of the agencies which internally obey the symbolic commands, but of the creature which uses this equipment in acting as a unit, on this vision control unit as one of its tools. Thus the neural structure needs continual adjustment and augmentation of integral design, while the nerve centre in sympathy must BE, and this must be available for use in the deployment of instinct or thought or some of each, or of spirit, depending on the creature and the level at which any given reaction or response may be made.
To think that a multiplicity of these imaginary "stages" is to be added to the multiplicity of non-imaginary actual designs, is merely to mass produce magic.
It increases the obviousness of the fallacy in the very act of seeking to evade it. It is as if primary school paper aeroplanes in some way as a 'stage' to Boeings is helpful. In fact, the THOUGHT may be helpful, but the MATERIAL AND MODE is merely an encumbrance when it comes to executing the one FROM the other! As to thought, this is the work of THINKER, and this is what is evidenced. This is the modality of thought, thinker, creation, creator. This is the phase of being with which we are familiar, the causality of which we operate constantly; and the elements of which we know, and here see with precision illustrated.
Alas! OUR conceptual powers to conceive models of a progressive kind do NOTHING to facilitate the actual constructions, each "brilliantly" re-conceived and made to arise from the complex preliminaries, so demanding to thought, to restructure into the new things, so that the mere initiation from start is so much easier, requiring less mastery to perform.
Easier ? At each level, on the magic hypothesis, however, not super-brilliance but blind chance (that is, material things excluded by nature from each of the worlds to come) - that is, from blind absence. Magic? It is perfectly fair to use the term when what it is to be present is required to arrive from what is not there. NOTHING, or matter minus mind and spirit, as a base, is what is NOT there.
THE PRICE OF ADVANCED ROBOTICS AND OTHER EXOTICS
Precision equipment requiring advanced robotics such as man has never yet begun to make, though he is trying at lower levels, is not in its essence made easier by what lacks it, when there is no mind to institute either. Indeed, one might hope it obvious to anyone who deals with actual direction-information, symbolism in highly structured phases, code, symbolism, command symbolics, that 'transformation' can demand far more in ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL PRACTICE, far more technical facility than does action ab initio, directly designed for the purpose in hand.
And that? That also is not easy, so that 'bugs' can be a vexation of monumental proportions, their removal being the condition of operation even of relativelysimple contrivances, a demanding and sometimes almost vexatious challenge and chore. It is true the field into which we enter in 'life' is far beyond this; but it is into this area that these things begin to enter - though without the specialised wonder that is life itself.
Even the dim imaginations, the early resemblances in some measure, that lack the core and essence of life, these are maximally demanding on mentality. That is the nature of command symbolism; it has to be coherent in style, conceived in purpose, consistent in language designation, not a part may be diffuse or ambiguous, used differently if it is to reach anything remotely resembling these standards, and reliably work - let alone for a few thousand years without outside repair...! In other words, the necessity of God is obvious even in this area of VERIFICATION, as it is taken to be, in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock. How brilliant is the evidence when verification composes the case all over again, even apart from the initial demonstration!
Indeed, the greater the complexity of what one has to alter, the more formidable and formal is the requirement to meet for some transformation of purpose, program or procedure.
Such WOULD BE the case for
any SERIES of stages for the invention of the eye, such as gradualists might
like to imagine. However, there is a further consideration. Now, there are two
elements to ponder further.
THE ANTITHESIS OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD
· 1) These chimerical, these phantasmal and unphotogenic stages nowhere appear: nothing in TRANSITION IS EVER SEEN. Only different working models, like our automobiles, in their brands.
· 2) The required TIME SEQUENCE is in fact CONTRADICTED, in this, that trilobites are found in profusion in one of the very EARLIEST (theoretical) times, the Cambrian, yet their eyes are of EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT AND COMPLEXITY. The contradiction is so extreme as to produce mirth at such belying of hypothesis. In other words, the fact that highly developed eyes are found near the first does nothing to make this a posteriori exercise in imagination less magical, or more fact-related.
A more precise contradiction of the whole fabric of an idea, a more anti-verificatory demonstration it would be hard even to imagine! The idea that it is scientific is precisely the OPPOSITE of the fact; for it is in fact on all sides which it aborts, rejects, distorts and ignores. If scientific method were being followed in this, we would have here an opportunity for a Lecturer to cite the most magnificent case of theorising, an example where you see the need to embark on a wholly different plane.
The fact that this is not normally done is merely an illustration of the brilliance of the hypnosis, the ballast in the bias, the naturalistic fixation.
The eye theorists? At every point these exercises remain what they always were: an exercise, an effort to explain what does not happen, contrary to what is deemed to be the order of what DID happen, with use of (our) conceptual apparatus to invent the idea of such things, to make what lacked it have an easy passage as if it were present at all times.
confusion - it was not present, but what was adequate for this level of
performance was, and this is vastly superior to ourselves - remains a
theological obstructionism, a naturalistic adventurism and an irrational
THE PRESENCE OF WHAT PRESENTS
What was present of
necessity was the creative, conceptual capacity which does not require
constant, continual, systematic creative magic to appear from nowhere; but
operated quite causatively and competently, because it was there,
code its expression in this format, command its mode, creation its consequence.
For each and all of the worlds of being, and their institution and due maintenance, God is as necessary - yes, for every grade of existence, function, specification and correlation, in His causative enterprise, this time including the specifications for existence from sub-material particles to atoms and molecules to spirit and will, as is creative work for any other construction. That He made its basis and is its engineer is as difficult to understand as is any other product which comes unseen from whatever its production site may have been. Thus it is simplicity itself, multiplied in all our living, commonplace and continual.
It is the product which speaks. Who spoke it first is a matter of finding the source; and here it is not 'nature', a spoken item which speaks not at all, except for the vocalisations of its living things, which do not however speak life, but rather speak AS life! That, it was a gift spoken for, like any other sound equipment; it is just that this one is both a peak unspeakable in marvels and ... is ourselves.
To try to proliferate His actions in an anti-scientific scenario, which baulks every time it is sought out, and refuses every time it is "asked", is mere mutiny against reason, logic, facts and evidence, observation and scientific method. It is witchcraft or weird wizardry, futile and frustrated, founded on an undisciplined imagination; and the "stages" for the production merely make, as we have noted, the whole necessity the more obvious, every "change" requirement a management miracle in itself, for finished production units.
is better than this? A model by model exhibition of such imaginative
constructions in a more concrete format... a laboratory demonstration of the
thing happening, without human intelligence would be as impressive as it is
absent; would show the inherent properties of matter as it does not show them.
You see, quite literally, this is anti-science, or what the Bible characterises
in I Timothy 6:20, as science falsely so-called, in a precise statement. It is
not new; it is just the form it has now taken in its deceptions is new. It is
an old maid re-applying for service, after a face-lift. The countenance below
is the same, the heart and purposes unchanged.
A laboratory presentation would be impressive, then, showing these self-made steps, this unheard of, this logically phantasmal causeless exhibition, this arrival without control, this onset of magnificent controls without any control; and with it the exhibition of the basis of it all; but it is not done. It would be impressive IF it did not include, this experiment, implicitly, the conceptual skills of the experimenter, working within the program!
For that, it is precisely the point: the conceptual skills for concepts are certainly required, and nature shows their presence, but not their genesis; it operates on them, but it does not produce them. It works as a product, but not as a producer of the control mechanisms, the word processes, the creativity, the originative flair. It shows it, shows the plasticities which are programmed to respond; but it does not show one thing: the power to create the programs, words, expressions, concepts, robotics - merely that to implement those already given.
'Nature', vexed enough in carrying out its programs in this sinful world, without having to create them! To ALL attempts to force it to be what it is not, it is stubbornly resistant, like a mule kicked in desperation and frustration by an owner not willing to get a horse! Indeed, implicit or not, any intelligence of the experimenter, we STILL do not see it, this development, at that! It has not at that, been done once; far less many times, as the gradualistic idea requires; far less in that great oeuvre, the massive conceptual, synthetic-executive thing at the end, the eye! That is something one can and should be able to see with the eyes closed!
Nor has the beginning been kind to such dreamers, as we saw, with the trilobite! What sort of a hoax is this, which speaks of eyes coming by stages contrary to all law, reason and experiment, which also shuts its own eyes to the fact that trilobites with extremely complex, sophisticated and able eyes were present, according to current geological assumptions commonly received, nearly at the very beginning of all life? Are facts so irrelevant, that as with certain religions, the faithful are expected to believe them in some unscientific mumbo-jumbo supposedly faith?
Each demands evidence to be examined, faithfulness to what it shows (cf. Isaiah 41,43,48), and offers reason. They are more than compatible in reality as has been shown in earlier publications like The Shadow of a Mighty Rock andThat Magnificent Rock. They are like twins. The word of life and the life in the world are beautifully adapted, adjusted and have a common result. Philosophy plays the fool with the minds of some scientists, though not with large numbers who are faithful both to the Bible and to scientific method, and the priesthood changes to white coats. It is a disease which afflicts many in this field, but by no means all. That? it is another matter of fact. Hundreds of Ph.D's are creationists, and some of the most eminent scholars.
alert to codes (language and its derivatives) which he may originate in his mind, which facilitate the transcription of thought and understanding, while himself established physically with codes:
using and exhibiting symbolic logic in his processes, physical and mental, means and ends alike provided,
this diverse but unitary being is so constructed in one amazing series of levels,
until the person himself/herself, may be seen
actively cresting this fascinating marvel of creation - itself commanded dutifully the while to copy its own sub-structures:
then directing many uses
the whole domain from another level above it all.
Learning and originating his own codes at will, now well or badly,
wilfully or wonderfully,
he may be found, just as he is founded,
probing profundities as he alike is product of them,
in body written, in mind he writes:
His spirit surveying, assaying and
All this is constantly organised, functional and fulfilled as a going concern operationally and personally.
These domains of creative orders within a constrained ambit, moreover, and the execution of them are distinct and contradistinct. Design remains what it always was and will be (see SMR reference next page, on definitional design).
Writer of codes,
Maker and deployer of the interstices of matter, mind and spirit, their synthesis
and that brand new thing,
1) the man who can make his own codes, but not his own world or his own self,
2) the product man who has personality, equipped to violate at will, what enables him to will,
3) man, that masterpiece of creation, that costly masterpiece which can subvert himself to the gut of things material, or aspire to the source of thingsspiritual,
and find his place in that world, at the mercy and grace of God, by invitation.
The ORDERS for organisation, and the organisation to execute the orders are all part of an enterprise in speech which uses matter as its slave and servant.
· 'nature' endorses it,
· laboratory bows to it;
· theory asserts it;
· observation excludes its negation;
· creation (in us) exemplifies it;
· causality commands it;
· code conceptualisation positively, and entropy negatively, salute it!
If this be
not design, words have no meaning, logic has no force. If however this were so,
the field is vacated. Rationally design stands alone, 'nature' its product.
Without it, rationality, coherent thought is excluded, and with it all
conception of validity. Design alone is valid. The designer has a name not
unknown in His many works, including those of His Spirit in the hearts of man,
where new creations occur, redeeming individuals to lost specifications in the
area of will and spirit: it is the Lord.
Eying it Again
Let's put it in a
different manner for the inward aspect.
There is for each (by definition) design:
Symphony and harmony,
synthesis and unity,
conspectus and co-ordination,
layer on layer of concept and control,
order and origination,
code and command.
In the design of life found arrived, like a baby on a doorstep,
here is invasion of 'nature' and construction in 'nature';
immigration into 'nature' that sees the result soar,
above the status quo,
a base for a blaze of brilliance beyond itself,
a matrix for marvels beyond its own,
and this for each design,
with a chronological minimum
and an organisational maximum.
if one code component fails,
or if language has no meaning,
the design is stifled,
below par or crippled,
indeed like chatter of a child, but worse.
Indeed it is the case that
if one thought were transfixed
in tired mind,
through obscure analysis,
during the construction,
though meaning there was,
so that a command were out of control
so that "perfection" is not achieved, though many see it there technically
in the facility of the arrangements and the
wit of the procedures and provisions,
in the minuteness of the controls,
the economy of their institution and operation:
if this were to be so, all but instantaneously,
then the operation fails,
the advantage imagined - is lost.
dead mess then replaces
the potential mechanism
now a dead weight.
So timing is NOW
and organisation is COMPLETE
a prodigy is born.
Try as much as you will,
in this, you will be found
ludicrously incapable, though intelligence is yours, and
To institute it, sight unseen ?
Why now not even with the thing DONE BEFORE YOU,
is the feat achieved
de novo ...
A prodigy it is:
in matter, mind and spirit.
Yet it is not one, except in degree,
which we do not
in our very own lives
(by gifts not achieved, but rather received)
call names -
when we create:
calling to be
what is not...
at our own relatively little
so that we
turn imagination into reality
in our own small mode and modules.
This however IS what creation is,
WHAT DESIGN IS.
Scientifically, it is better simply to call it -
What it is.
using understood symbols,
simply because we mean -
and with it purpose,
and operate these systems
to secure our results,
our thought transplants
from original idea, purpose, plan and concept,
into performing creation,
our child of thought.
We are sub-contractors,
originating within an original origination
that we could not achieve,
for in it we are made.
In all this, we are much helped
by systems with their programs,
inherent, inbuilt, resourcefully composed,
lodged within us as part of our creation,
by our superior
we are the children of thought
and the creatures of His imagination.
Prodigies for a performance level,
which man can only use -
creations we are!
So creative is the Creator that
He created creative creations,
whose purposes like the rainbow
are displayed in breadth - though with man
they are not all beautiful;
for he is not bound to light
as is the colour to rainbow,
but can and often does
in which to hide his dark deeds
(as is the case)
it kills him.
Eyes? They see. Eyes of the body, the mind and of the spirit operate differently; but they all see.
Thus we read:
"The secret of the Lord is with those who fear Him,
And He will show them His covenant" - Psalm 25:14.
David, in Psalm 25:15, declares –
"My eyes are ever toward the Lord, for He shall pluck my feet out of the net."
Psalm 33:18 has this:
"Behold the eye of the Lord is upon those who fear Him, on those who hope in His mercy."
Eyes... what do they see in idols? Those emblems of immaturity resemble what? It is like worshiping paper but not reading what is written, esteeming words but not performing them. It means honouring that disaster of all personality, that angry probe, the devil, or doing it to matter or mind or energy ... 'Can do!' ... but what? sentence yourself to sin or superficial savvy; and always, in all these malformations of spirit, distortions of mind, eyes are as blind, as is chained car ex-engine immobile. Idols? Or is it a servile slavery to an honouring of self, or of this created race, mankind - holding "people alone to be sacred" as one firm is reported to have it - or is it a serf-like assenting to its culture, or to imagined psychic dominances that never laugh at the grave? Any and ALL may be recklessly hallowed, but NOT God who made it... all!
The grave is not comic; but laughless folly is the ignoring
· of the God who made life, in His protestations (Ezekiel 33:11);
· of His divine zeal for our deliverance,
· of His exhibition of nobility that gives it true name, sacrifice and death borne even in the format of the flesh,
of the love of God-the-sent, Saviour (Isaiah 48:16, 43:10,
Zechariah 9:9, 3:9, I John 4:9, Micah 5:1-2, Galatians 4:4, Hebrews 1:1-3,
Philippians 2:1-11, Luke 2:11, Acts 4:12) clothed with shame for us that we
should be clothed in His righteousness, at peace with the Wonder who is God,
through His Son, sent into the world, that life should torrentially pour in
truth in our midst.
"A son," He says, "honours his father, and a servant his master.
If then I am the Father,
Where is My honour?
And if I am a Master,
Where is my reverence?" - Malachi 1:6, charging even misled priests with "despising My name." They do not, in spiritually immobilised masses, honour God who says of idols,
"Eyes they have, but they do not see" (Psalm 135:16), and this, "those who make them are like them; so is everyone who trusts them."
· "He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? He who chastises the heathen, shall not He correct? He who teaches man knowledge, shall not He know? The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. Blessed is the man whom You instruct, O Lord, and teach out of Your law" - Psalm 94:6-9.
· Eyes? "The eyes of the Lord to and from throughout the whole earth to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him" - II Chronicles . "This is the will of the Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life. And I will raise Him up at the last day" - John .
There is a beginning to the eyes of the body, the mind and the spirit, all three. There is an end (Luke 13:1-3, Matthew 24:51, John 3:15-19). Those who would junk God become junk - a retroactive result... except they repent; but those who receive His remedy, Jesus Christ the Lord, shall see God, face to face in the end.
Eyes? What better use of them than that.
The only mouth that has with unchallengeable sovereignty spoken in all history, and verified itself superabundantly, challenging us to check this out and see scientifically, is that of God Almighty whose Son was sent to fulfil elaborately constructed prophecies of rich detail, enabling eyes to see, honesty to check, doubt to know and hope to be anchored. It is that of One who sees, whose sight is far exceeding that of those whose organs He equips, whose eyes behold, whose eyelids try the children of men (Psalm 11:4).
As Jesus Christ put it: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind" - John 9:39. Showing us simply His meaning, He met the enquiry, "Are we blind also?" with this: "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore, your sin remains."