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







One was watching the garden from the dining room table. It was green, luxuriant, multiple, with vast amounts of tecoma under the spreading ash, making a cocoon of green. The eye pondered a shape in the tecoma, with slight light penetrating in one or two spots. A shape 'arose', and it seemed to be a bird. There was the beak, there the body, there the splash of light adjusted according to the picture in one's mind.

A little further investigation however showed that it was merely adventitious, no more a bird than is a cloud. It simply looked like one, but certain criteria eventually disclosed to the enquiring mind that it was no bird at all. It was a medley of bush and light, shape and shadow.

It would be easy to feel disinclined to let go the 'bird', to hang on to the concept, to feel that the slow and seemingly sure appraisal was not to be abandoned any more than would be a young bird, found in an abandoned nest.

So it is with man: there is the persistence, the invention, the desire, the discovery; and then there may come the reluctance, the resistance and the imaginative thrust, or in some cases perhaps even lust, for what was thought to be. So it is with organic evolution. Many thought, Yes, I think I see it, there it is, here are the little variations, surely just micros of a macro, and there is the simple, there the more complex. Here it is in its self-genesis. At first the uncritical mind declared, Yes the living came from simpler living; and then, the living came from the non-living; and then, the non-living came because it was there, or from nothing, the modern most radical of all these thoughts.

Having been thought, these ideas may have a resistance to change. Pride and assurance, tradition and feeling, together with desire to be in what is a world to spree in,  one to gear up, which is your very own, with no limit: this surges like Old Faithful, except that it is not at all faithful, but rather Old Unfaithful, because in the end a certain obstinacy, to return to the bird illustration, WILL not move.

Of course it is a bird! the insurgent, the vagrant imagination might declare; of course it is, pride may echo, and if there is professional involvement (as in more advanced cases), fear may help, fear of ridicule, and self-worth, that beautiful idol,  may clamour for recognition, saying this, A bird it is! a bird it is! with menacing voice and if it had control of the education system, with "enforcement' as well for good measure: to use the not so delicate term employed here in South Australia for what is rather a world-wide hypnotic effect, at the local level. The bird it would be, and children would be taught that it was so!

As always, there are those who do not want to continue with the bird idea, want indeed to give it the bird, because it is clear that the criteria of bird are lacking.

This is the position where organic evolution currently is. Dismantled quite well by people like Denton, Gould and Nilsson,  Goldschmidt, in terms of the practical realities (although of course, all of these are reluctant to discard 'something or other'), the gradualistic ideas being mere objects of just scorn, now evolutionary passion mounts to the heavens. Denied any place on earth (logically, though it is doing fine politically and in academic enforcement centres), it looks to the heights, it descends to the depths, like a rolling boat.

Well it just happened, says Nilsson, orchids came and they were. (One can almost hear, 'So there!') Still, like Gould he is far more realistic in evidential assessment than most. It is, says Gould, this gradualistic idea, contrary to manifest facts. MOST came, and far more than is there now, in a very short time. It could not come by some sort of gradualism because this is precisely the negation of such a concept. The opposite, says he, is manifested by such sites as the Burgess deposits in Canada. Incomprehensible, says he, is the adherence to the concepts which facts transgress as if on purpose bent!



Well then for Gould ? It came then ? How ? By a removal of the full stop, presumably, of the punctuation. How then did the sentence come ? Ah, mere talk. Let us get on with it. Did it have to rise, go upwards, ascend, progress ? Of course not, says Gould: it just did.

Most interesting science. Shorn of the make-believe bird, or defeathered if you prefer, stripped if you will, the concept continues. It MUST be a bird, even though it has no feathers! Most fascinating psychologically, and spiritually, but logically exempt from force altogether. Will, in the case of man, does not make creation or its tale. The desire to hurdle the evidence neither removes it nor creates the world, nor does it idly, as if in a fit of some abstraction.

In fact, you need evidence, or you need to rename your pre-occupation, Irrationalistic Philosophy,  a genuine option. It is just a name. It is just a creation of thought. It doesn’t actually do anything. It is just a universe that is left out, that is all.

Concerning Hoyle and Denton, too clear-headed to believe in the ordinary routine which is factually in utter and complex defiance of Darwin, what do they have to say ? We have seen something of Gould in the last chapter*1, but let us look to an excerpt from Sparkling Life ... Ch. 8, for our current point.

At the more minute level, in the interview noted, Dr Denton observed that there are many components of individual proteins, and they are very complex. Each one of the components is part of a whole, "and the whole has an end and a meaning and a purpose." He indeed notes, in trend rather like Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge fame in this, that "a biological end or purpose is written throughout all the laws of physics ... that in fact the entire cosmos bears evidence that biological phenomena is the end of nature". (Cf. SMR 422H,L, 226, 224, and esp. Repent or Perish, Ch.5, pp. 99ff.).

The blatant and patent error in magical Darwinism, which impressed its author far less than its exponents, as has been shown before in this Site, leaves Dr Denton surmising that perhaps even a "silent majority" of biologists do not find the answer in any form of Darwinism. He notes further that a number of physicists are of the view that the laws of nature seem to be arranged for an end."


Looking at Fictions and Regarding Facts

It is here that the lapse in logic begins to appear, which formerly had looked more like a failure to apply it. Speaking of "creation", Dr Denton is looking for something other than the Creation of the Bible. Nevertheless, he considers it clear from the evidence that the "world is optimised for our existence". Overall, he appears to consider this: "I think there is a general teleology which is behind nature and which has generated it."

End of Excerpt.




Teleology ? Something constraining to an end, possibly the end itself, though it is not yet there, seeking from the beginning the conformity to itself which is not yet there. It is an interesting congeries of ideas; but it does not do anything. What is not there, after all, cannot do anything. What is there must be the repository for action! As to an INHERENT pressure upwards, from within, where are its indicia, where its engines, where its contrivances, where its potencies, where its architectural splendour ? It does not appear here, any more than it is to be found active in some future event, not yet here. It is words without application, evidence or logic.

How like Hoyle this is, almost to the sense of the passion and the feeling.

Let us remind ourselves of Hoyle's words at this level, from Hoyle's little excursion into supra-rational metaphor, by citing from  SMST Ch. 7, *1 (cf. SMR pp. 419ff.). In effect, Hoyle envisages a beckoning spectre, a ghostly entity, drawing things upward to a level apt for action.

As his exhaustive emphasis makes clear, this is a matter of INTELLIGENCE. He finds incomprehensible the desire to avoid this aspect of the cause when the effect is paramount in technical splendour in our world, unexampled in human thought and engineering, architecture and ability entirely.

In the W.R. Bird reference, you see some of the marvels of a man whose intelligence would not allow him to fail to see intelligence, in his own construction and that of the universe (Hoyle, cf. SMR pp. 209ff., 224ff.), but who apparently with the normal anti-scientific zeal to avoid the supernatural (as if prejudice supervened over criteria – a sort of divine apartheid in reverse), concocted an idea. What was this idea ?

Hoyle conceived a beckoning spectre, as it were, a 'force' or 'intelligence' bringing up the future development, from the world of the past.

What however is this spectral ... entity ? It must by the proposition, have intelligence. It must be able to 'draw' or exert a force creative, imaginative and facilitating. It must have the knowledge, and if not, find it in whatever has it, which means another spectre, being, entity in which there is no need for a basis, since it is its own. This then becomes simply God by phraseological importation, put in the future instead of the past, perhaps by drawing upward to account for the degeneration of the universe as in the second law of thermodynamics! It is mystic indeed when its deeds by all observation are in precise contradiction of the facts. Such is philosophy.

After all, this would be to provide the opposite of observable material reality ...  By this theory, we would account for what we find by omission, see by exclusion and observe by invisibility!

This spectre, if we are interested in science at all, it  draws them up by letting them flow down ? How impractical can you get ?

Is it also 'there' to ignore the need of a ground for its institution, and that of all things, needed since a beckoning spectre needs something to beckon to, something to beckon with, the ingenuity, wisdom and understanding to know and invest all things with wisdom, and to secure its aims, purposes and ambitions! By then, however, we are becoming alarmingly factual, and so of no use to those who wish to sport the alienation syndrome, from scientific method, when otherwise it would require them to face God, and not another.

Obviously, to cut the excesses, you need the intelligent One who put the realities into operation in the first place, so that the intelligence would be there, have invested them with wisdom, await them in judgment, provide them with grace, whose word having established all things, allows them to work on the basis provided, as is perceptible: not some futuristic propulsion being shown, but the severities of past construction, and current spoliation.

It is not the beckoning future which makes the past, nor would such a system fail to need its own origination even if it were relevant, as would any other! It is not this, but the maker of time, matter, mind and spirit who is logically required; and His ways do not change. Figures of the imagination do not comprise the effectual working power needed for what is, the way it works, has worked and is working. This provides neither a universe nor a future; only a past of missed opportunities by the cavils of thought.

(End of Excerpt.)

As  we see in the Excursion found in  SMR at pp.  422Eff., there is an inveterate and much attested human thrust to disengage God, but retain His powers by placing them, like covert weapons in aircraft baggage, hear and there, without much acknowledgment, but great usefulness. It is a smuggling operation. Having become fashionable (as in 'seeing' the bird), it becomes pervasive, invasive and even achieves some measure of social acclaim, as did Hitler in his way and day, before he went ... too far! as did Lenin in the same sort of way. They have their methods, these bird fanciers. Desperation leads to innovation, innovation to caprice, caprice to fancy and fancy to 'god' without import duties, smuggled into the 'nature' which now has to have a directive intelligence, to have this ahead and not behind (for variation ?), and to beckon, not implant.

It is clear, they say rightly, that it is all designed; it is clear that intelligence did it; where that intelligence is must be somewhere WITHIN creation apparently  ? Why ? Because this will not explain creation ?

This, to be sure,  seems contrariety rather than logical conversation! You want it to be where it will not do what has to be done to explain the universe ? Well, as they say, this is different!

Yet it is dithery. SINCE all that is involved is mere verbiage to cover 'God', and  since the task is to uncover what did it: the orderly and mutually collated universe, in design, in thought-happening, in spirit-roving and resolving at the personal level (cf. Little Things Ch. 5, It Bubbles ...  Ch. 9, SMR pp. 348ff.), and in power to act at the mental, spiritual, physical, social and psychic level, therefore the omission of God as its basis is not effective. It is beside the point. It does not explain. You have to start with all that has to come, in potential, in the ghostly beckoner (if you want one as a way-station), in the designer discretely hidden, never evident, only seen in what is done already. The 'spectre' would for all need its designer at a composite over-rule level, in order to be; and then it would be useless since it is in the future, when the need is for the past.

Since the power to do what is needed is so invested, then the decision to put it where it could not be, if the universe is to exist (it cannot beckon to what is not there, since the figure pre-supposes an object), and so eliminate the power to create the universe, prospectively, retrospectively (whatever that would mean, since it has to happen!) is mere muddle. TO GET IT, is the point. To HAVE IT is begging the question. That is all there is to it.

Now if you want to start with the beckoner, and remove the limit of beckoning, and make this entity the reckoner, then you have what is to be made from the One who can make it. You avoid the point that if there is none to make what is to proceed, there is in all rational frankness nothing with which to proceed; or else there is just a given set-up, lawful, ordered, cohesive, rationally inspectable, with controls, laws and mutual adjustments sitting there.

As to that, it avoids the question. It is therefore irrelevant as an answer, but far from irrelevant if one is interested in the human obstructiveness which sometimes INSISTS on seeing the bird which is not even there.

The space cannot make the bird; the eye that sees cannot make the bird; the bush cannot make the bird. It does not, any of it, have what it takes, and that it why, in the case where the ‘bird’ is the creation of all nature, and look at the things of nature:  

¨     you never  see them do it, and

¨     you never see all their useless efforts before becoming practised and

¨     you never see their intelligence which would be  necessary if they were to improve in doing what they have no means to do, and never are seen to do anyway even if they had them.


So to have a nice universe sitting there, with a nice ghostly spectre alongside, or “laws of nature” arranged for an end, is really to avoid the point, or ignoratio elenchi as it used to be called. In this phase of invalidity, you may either assume what you have to prove, or ignore it, and do something else. In this case, it involves BOTH of the same.

If the ghostly spectre is not eternal, what is his construction agent ? If he is, why is he not God ? If he is part of a system, who made the system ? Magic ? It becomes extraordinarily like the old mythical idea of having a lot of gods, so that together, with none working too hard, they could dig up something to make some sort of contribution to a universe. Sometimes they even did some work, when not flirting or killing various potential rivals or the like. Imagination loves birds.

The question however is always one: it is this. WHO made the system of gods, the structures of communication, acting as Telecom, or as Water Engineering Systems, or whatever else imaginary or other, is necessary for the collaborative working of this tribe.

Where is the basis for the things that do not make themselves in visible ways, with visible equipment, or by invisible laws, or by things either visibly perceptible, or inferentially found operative: where is it, indeed, when what is to be found is the exact contrary of those things that are! Down, not up; deterioiation, not invention; lack of strewn paths of former efforts; lack of means; all means for what in fact happens. So they draw on other universes; but who made those, the interface, and the net effect here ? pervasively ? and how could there be universes without causation, since then thought is invalid, and the surmise is deleted at the outset.

If however they did have causation (Causes, cf. SMR Ch. 5, Ch. 3) then they need all that this one DID need to be; and if they act differently NOW, then they need a GROUND for that, a cause sufficient for such a result. Is it then to be asserted that other universes are being created ? If so, in pure abstraction, so what ? They need all this one does to be created, and this becomes merely an imaginary spectacular without the slightest bearing on this universe, an effort to pass the buck on a universal scale indeed. Passing the buck however, does not remove the need for expenditure of time, effort, action, labour, qualities fit for a world.

It is then merely a question of how many universes the Maker made; and this has nothing at all to do with the way this one goes, being created, which is downwards. Biologically, it is going there FAST (cf. SMR  pp.  252H). As a matter of fact, being misused, it is as would be predictable from the rebellion against its Maker, going downwards in a whole sky of effects, fast! If knowledge increases, its misuse increases more. That it would increase is the divine dictum from the first (Daniel 12:1ff.). In the extreme, the devil has plenty of it, but is not really helpful at all; as is the case with  his disciples, likewise.




Source of matter, meaning and man

What is left for creation is of course God. That is the only way to avoid ignoratio elenchi, to meet the case, all of it, altogether. There from the first, unlike matter, self-sufficient, He makes us His creation, which offends the dignity of the arrogant, who will not have it; but it is impossible to remove. Without this, no world. It and we are there. Denial is not so useful as self-denial, which starts at the beginning and is willing to find the place where flight is to be found, not from but IN the Lord (cf. Ephesians 2:6, Isaiah 40:26ff., 58:14).

That is why most people seem to believe in God (though often with the most irrational oddities added, idols at other times obtruding in irreparable confusion which ONLY GOD can fix). He is there.

You have to give up the bird in the end. The ONLY explanation of the material, is what is not so delimited as it is, what is not FORCED (by whom) and CONTROLLED (by what intelligence), that invisible dominion and Lord, spiritual and source of the material. As to the spiritual, at the created level, it is this which is the current working in this author as in the reader, that thought which is neither measurable nor validatable except by thought, and all that confirms it when it finds it rational rest in what occasioned it, and made it valid with grounds sufficient (cf. TMR Ch. 5It Bubbles Ch. 9, *1), and made its meanings meaningful (cf. Barbs, Arrows and Balms 19,   -7, Christ the Wisdom of God ...  Ch. 6, SMR Ch. 3).

Yet granted this alone is the answer, why not have a teleological god calling the universe first to BE, and then to  GET ON WITH IT! The calls could be callous, raucous or tender, in this imaginative splendour which substitutes for thought, but needs investigation anyway.

After all, you have to test everything, and that is one reason why time in history has been long.

Fairly long.

Let us then see some goddy or other, godlet, spectre, what you will, calling things INTO existence. Where were they, that they could hear ? Too literal, you feel ? Very well. How do you address, then, what is not there ? This is flat contradiction. Yet if it IS there, then you avoid the question, beg it and are invalid.

If it is not there, there is nothing to which to call.

Let us proceed again to the next step,  even though this one had no basis, and was in mid-air, except that there actually was no air.

SO there it is, somehow, coming by magic. Now the spectre can call.

Ho there, universe, start coming where I am,  see ? Here I am. Get on with it, now, and move in my direction. See how nice I am, wouldn't you really rather be more like me ? You will be glad in the end. Come on there, lift your feet!

But how does matter hear it! It has no ears. Not metaphorical enough for this imagination spectacular ? Very well. The 'call' is really a creative involvement, it is actually a mathematical intrusion, it moves, it moulds, it upgrades in all directions: it does it here, there, like the wind, it moves, it makes, it proceeds, it makes progress, and UP WE COME THERE!

Very good. Why however if 'it' has all this power (and it is SO hard to change houses by rebuilding, and so much easier to do it the way our own cells make new ones, by  a sort of complex coded, assembly line technique), does it not make it up in the first place ? How did it do this, if it was not at first THERE ? or if was there, from what did it make it up ? and if it were part of the system, then who made the system ? And if it were not, then there it is, God without limit, from the first, with just some oddity of nomenclature!

But they stop, they do not want it, very often; and so they go into nature gods, which though they are not there, have to do all that God does, ex-power, and to invent themselves, if you want to be thorough, in order to get THERE. Yet HOW could they invent themselves if they were NOT THERE to do it!

It is, you see, because of the bird. They have grown accustomed to its ... face ? They want it around, as furniture, if not support. Very well.

Yet to be logical, there must be the always there for anything ever to be there; and there must likewise be the always sufficient for anything ever to be sufficient, for insufficiency by definition does not do! Always sufficient from the first, He is there for all.

Yet what if there is NOT ENOUGH power to make it in one developed tissue, then there is a limit, and then you need a universe with a not-good- enough god inside it, trying hard to get a bit of an improvement about the place. WHO then made the godlet, who made the system ? It is again ignoratio elenchi. It avoid the point at issue.

So it has enough power. Why then does it not use it ? For that matter, why do we see in the Cambrian what on the currently usual model is a vast expenditure of energy and design intelligence, spinning out FAR MORE than is COMING AT OUR END! Why so far surpass the EVENTUAL situation ? If there is any question of limit, this is the OPPOSITE. It is important, at least occasionally, to look at the facts, even if, as in organic evolutionism, they are so distasteful and so utterly contrary to the theory, that it is now a combination of archeological and psychological research even to consider it.

We come back as always to one God who made it all, and that is


     why it is there


     why you never see it making itself, only relating by its inbuilt information


     why you never find the transitional phyla


     why you never see the vast array of efforts, or errors

and it is


     why you find such a perfectly marvellous array of technical know-how,
staggering in both its immensity and its intensity,
performing far more than mere existence or survival specifications,



     Beggaring the abilities of man, in him, and allowing him to be!


lt actually makes beauty, and form, and staggering concourses of person, intelligence, imaginative ability, logical finesse, physical format for ambulation and mutual regarding, spirit for roving and meeting with God, and the like, so that its works attest it.

Phrases instead of God is,  as a policy,  actually not a good idea.  The concept that you ‘cannot’ go outside ‘Nature’ to account for natural things is logically unfounded (cf. SMR pp. 330ff., 150ff.), and logically confounded (cf.  SMR pp. 140ff., TMR Ch. 1). It is that prejudice that has brought evolutionary theory to its knees, and they are justifiably sore. It  skirts the ludicrous, ignores or deplores the evidence, it asserts the magical, finds the practical, builds bridges between them, but the facts do not want to travel on them, and can you blame them, the things being rickety structures all.


It is not sound. It does not work. You must go where the criteria lead, not bound by presumption, hoodwinked by prejudice, or just fond of your bird.

It is best to face the facts, give the bird the bird, and fly with your own wings, not in the clouds of pretentious pretence, but in the space and place provided by God, where the sins of rebellion are no longer vast clouds of hot gases, found in books aplenty, crystallised into specious words. It is here where reason wakes, where truth lies, that peace is to be found. That is one of the results of return to reality, and not ignoring the point, but finding the God who is sufficient not only for the observable result, but the attested way of it, and says in His Book precisely what we find: created universe (First Law of Thermodynamics), running down (cf. Isaiah 51 – Second Law of Thermodynamics). Why are scientific laws so abominable to so many scientists ? You cannot escape the realities of this universe, the causal realities by postulating any number of universes. They all need, if reason is not dismissed, what any one takes! You merely postpone your humiliation, in escape technology inadequate for your Jonah-like will!

That, in the end,  is the case with the lovers of the bird.

How then did the God who is eternal, make the universe That ? it was assuredly not in little nudging steps, but in a proliferation of extraordinary dimensions. The psychological Second Law of Psycho-Dynamics is downward, to be sure as we  see in SMR pp. 422E, with the social control dynamic of 422Qff., about it. The other rule is the work of the Creator, as in all creation, upward in the kind which is the desire in view: where power is sufficient. Creation puts it  up; time brings it down, according to the case. Time does not put it up; it is merely the passage of conditions which are not the creation. Time does not write me new books either; but it does tend to yellow the pages of the old. That is the way of creation, especially when it is in a state, like ours, where sin brings judgment.

As to sin, evasion is one of its brood.

Man is not alive to the logic, dead in heart, spiritually defunct - or almost so. There is still a little time, however; but not much. It is time to repent and find the Father, and become a child of His, in spirit and in truth (Luke 13:1-3).

That, after all, is why He sent Christ.

That is where the evidence lies, as we have seen so often, for example in the preceding chapter! The very chapters of history know no other sufficient Book or Being to give attestation irrefutable of God, but Christ and the biblical word of God which He attested; know nothing else to do the works of God before the eyes of man, over millennia of vetted prophecy. They know no Other to fulfil the long attested word of God in works to order, at His own coming, from a millennia before His arrival, and to make so many of our CURRENT headlines in words spoken around two millennia before they happen, as they are happening now! (cf. Answers to Questions Ch. 5, SMR Ch. 8).

As logic proves (SMR 1, 3, 5, 10),  do evidence and verification insist (SMR Chs. 2, 4, 6, 8-9). The living God has created, has foretold, has come, has enveloped history in a glove, and moulded it from the very lips of the Lord Jesus Christ, and He has spoken to all time for many a time, from the lips of many, surpassing the stricken cultures, condemning them, investing hearts with peace and lives with a power which belongs to the children of God. Yet rejected by the many, He brings truth to light continually, even to the rebellious, who love the bird which is not there, and ignore the King who is, shining the more in glory as He is sought, hidden from the godless eyes of lust, seeking to take creation in their sweep, as their own.

That too is why the human race is consistently and constantly so supinely receptive of inane dictators, high-power priests, godless gurus with religious tinges on their wings, and so on (cf. SMR  Ch. 5, Sections 6, and 8). Mankind is made for God, yet they try to make do with each other. In this they fall in ways and in times innumerable to their Hitlers, their scimitar equipped prophets of force, their corrupted organisation men who siphon funds, their pseudo-hymn lauded sportsmen in arenas of awe, abusing their spirits in worships irrelevant, immersed in themselves. Without their Creator, they create confusion, immersed in a profusion of erratic jabs at a grandeur misplaced, a wonder they wilfully ignore.

It does not work in spirit any more than it works in physics, biology or psychology. The assumptions are as contrary to fact as are the outcomes contrary to peace.  Yet their Creator, though mocked on earth where no man spoke or did as He did, is not mocked for ever. Man’s history is his own signature on falsity.

It is also why there is such manifest and superb beauty, signed by the signature of majesty, such glorious residues of wonder remain in some people who love: but let us examine this effusion of the morally, the personally, the supernally glorious that is a dower to a creation which despite the glowerings of fallen man, sweeps in its godliness throughout the globe, unintimidated and enduring as whole masses of other things fall.

Let us then look more closely…

It is why there is in lake and cloud, waterfall and ocean, the vast arena of the kaleidoscopic yet artful magnificences of  the skies, the artistic glories of atmospheric sunsets showering light with glories surpassing Titian, evocative of Turners, now tender, now triumphant. It  is why there arrives unbidden, beyond the subordinate needs of mere living, now such manifest and superb beauty in flower and plumage,  in tree and in forest, in roaring torrent and torrential fall, cascading in heedless profusion, now signed by the signature of majesty, then proclaimed with the ebullience which is ever the source of youth and the depth for gladness of heart.

It is why you find the joy to be seen  in parental tenderness in birds, loyalties undying even in dogs, with that sympathetic intuitive love and sharing, why there endure such glorious residues of wonder, self-sacrifice and duty to the living God in some people whose love knows no breach of loyalty, who loving the Lord, love Him to the death, not of others but of their own lives in His service with sweetness of disposition, courage of heart, fearlessness of death, who live without the sight of the fearful blight of death, awaiting the resurrection in confidence,  with patience, not pride, with joy and not dither, whose delight, for each,  is in  "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

As to such, their ways are like perfume (II Corinthians 2:14) amid the stench of reductionist ‘realism’, which is simply obnoxious selfishness, ignorant of man, forgetful of God, sweeping past them, interested but uninvasive; for they are kept by the power of God (I Peter 1). Their very lack of perfection (II Peter 1) merely the more emphasises the Lord of their lives, whose beauty of holiness imbues them, whose precious pardon enables them, whose delicious power, not blatant but adequate, sustains them, who guides them with His eye (Psalm 32).

It is the Lord who made, and who remakes man. It is time to be re-made or unmade, except that the shame of everlasting contempt is the payment of pride (Daniel 12:1ff., Matthew 13:41ff.). The global environment is going, the stellar environment threatens continually, the water resources are abused, even radioactivity in the blind follies of Communism spoiling Arctic sea and vast fresh water resource alike, laws seek to silence truth, whether in Islamic or even now in some democratic lands, as the world slithers, man withers and asserting himself to the end, imagines he cannot end, who ignores his beginning and now faces something rather more than the beginning of the end.

But what is it like ? It is like some great flight, that has gone on long. The options have reached fire-works night. Inappropriate in the air, it is a flaming passion not to land. They love the phrases, which are becoming a verbal substitute for logic, with the passengers behaving dangerously for the welfare of the plane.

Only God can rescue from this bird.

The overflight of truth, however, it is in Christ, not in some bird. It is in the Maker, not in some creation, it is in the Redeemer, not in some illusion of a world which, deluded, is its own, coming from nowhere, going where it is told, except that of course, nothing ever does come from nowhere, since it is not there; and things not your own, have a way, especially when they belong to Another, to go their own way, and not where you tell them. The Middle East shouts it, the doomed lands of Aids and want, fear and war, roar it. The whine of misplaced intelligentsia is like shells in World War I, signifying death in their arrogant blindness to life, destructive, careless of the truth on a scale that grows.

It is there, in the damaged globe of misplaced desire, delighting in ignoring its Lord,  that you may be left behind (I Thessalonians 4, Matthew 24-25); and in view of the Redeemer, that is not only unnecessary, but ungrateful to the point that it makes mere rebellion seem almost clean by comparison. He comes, and it is near; man goes and it is poignant, disastrous, needless (Revelation 1:7ff., Acts 17:31, 1:7ff., Revelation 20, Daniel 7:13ff, 23ff.)

As to the U 2, the overview is already in His word, but it is good to fly over with it in mind, and to compare, to see the surface of the world He created, and the surface of the written word He inspired. They are so very SAME! All the same, do not rest in that, but in Him!




See Ch. 7 above, and also SMR pp. 315Aff., endnote 17.