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




WE KNOW IN PART (I Corinthians 13:9)

(Proverbs 8, John 14:6, 8:31-32)


It is surely one of the marvels of the 20th century, that all is known, all is sure, all may be categorised in terms of certain knowledge, Newton is passé, Einstein is in - admittedly he wholly failed after MUCH effort to systematise into one coherent whole, electromagnetic and gravitational matters - but he is IN, and in turn, those who surpass him, not in originality, but in time, are now IN. They are now IN with their non-Einsteinian ideas of non-causative things, things that JUST HAPPEN for no reason, in the boom-bust situation, that applies not only to real-estate, but to academic frenzies.

ALL IS KNOWN (so that the suave brow of 'science' should not be creased, and after all, it WAS the 20th century, that vast repository of 'knowledge' and it IS the 21st, the beckoning unknown); so it MUST be. Yet we are likewise told, NOTHING IS KNOWN: for we are but humble students, the universe is vast, our poor minds limp after vast perplexities. The mood swing is not only dangerous (to both logic and common-sense), but hilarious. Such arrogant humility; such humble arrogance, such ostentatious self-deprecation!

Culturally: Nothing COULD be known in the ultimate, because this is the Kantian orthodoxy, as common as yesterday's pipe. Kantianism however is dead, strewn across the pavement of consistency; and we researched the funeral in Appendix on Kant, in Predestination and Freewill. CAUSATION CANNOT be terminated, since thought is terminated first, and all theories are products of thought (someone's). This was demonstrated in SMR Ch.3, That Magnificent Rock Ch. 5, 7 and elsewhere on this site. Hence the concept that causeless things can be asserted in terms of ANY theory of the mind, is simple self-contradiction.

You can never EXPLAIN or account for anything when the very METHOD of accounting is excommunicated. How could you tell how the notion of causation AROSE, unless you give reason; and if you give reason, they you ARE accounting for it, or in other words, saying WHAT CAUSED IT. Yet if it is only a notion of the mind, HOW COULD IT BE CAUSED, if causation was not yet in existence, in order to operate! Using what you are supposed to be accounting for, employing what is to be MADE in order to make it, is a little too crass even for this generation. If you contradict yourself, it merely removes the need for anyone else to do so, in order to destroy your theory. It is self-defeat.

Hence the concept of causeless events is necessarily false. Logic has its ways, and this is one of them.

All this has been shown.

It is only natural that philosophical physics, the actual realm in view, should be so mutative. It is there that the REAL mutations grow, and these are brought about by intelligence, thought and precise mathematics. These continual mutations are in the thought of man about what he does not at all understand. It is obvious that materialistic considerations, which would by airy reductionism ignore the mind that 'makes' the matter as a concept and construction for thought, is a prime fallacy.  Mind is the mentor of matter and cannot put it above itself, for if mind falls, matter the more.

Such intemperate superficiality is however common: as if the facts were as ready for violation as Hungary by the Russians, Austria by the Germans in their days. It would ignore the character of man in particular, his will and his thought, as CREATIONS of that same will that brought matter to existence and hence to mind; and thought to its research capacity: as if such things were an atrocity like Auschwitz. They belittle what they handle, and handle with belittled hands, what they aspire to: they understand nothing at all in the field, at its basic level. Hence they CANNOT a priori succeed in their desired and aspired-to unification of all things. Things are not unitary.

As to mankind, they are simply a trilogy: mind, matter and spirit as demonstrated in SMR Chs.1-4, That Magnificent Rock  and elsewhere.

When there is realism, however, and the effort is merely to understand matter, the case has some interest, for there is nothing intrinsically absurd or self-contradictory in understanding matter, unless, of course, your presuppositions, once again, are like back-breaking baggage for the task - as in the absurdity of postulating in the midst of a magnificent ignorance, that causation is invalid, and so invalidating ALL your own thought, including that on the theories which come from you while intoxicated with this concept.

The work of John Bell and Dr David Bohm (SMR pp. 414ff.), merely typify the fact that LITTLE is known and MANY hypothesis compete in a turgid mental continuum, which alas, though so in theory, is highly discontinuous in reality. Little beads of theory hang about in just the way some would have little particles of matter, tossed on the 'quantum foam' (Time, Dec. 31, 1999, p. 64). They do not fit neatly. They are all in an uproar. But in THIS mental case, it is the uproar of thoroughly inconsistent thinking which is the problem.

The concept of an interference in the operation of matter, at the most sub-microscopic level, with the interaction of particles relating to underlying conditions which are not conducive to minute level interaction in a direct and simple fashion, is itself close to our own suggestion concerning various barriers and resistances which might preclude simple mobility of acts, as in SMR pp. 413ff.,  419ff..

This world is designed. We have noted that the only way to avoid such a proposition is to re-define design - this admittedly in the biological arena, but no less in the other, for it is, if anything, yet more fixed in structure (SMR pp. 211ff., 112-145, 252Eff., Repent or Perish Ch.7).  It is not possible to avoid causation as noted, and it is not possible to avoid therefore the attribution of sufficiency of cause for the results, and to avoid the attribution of sufficiency of cause (minimal for the results which equal the universe including man), and to avoid God. It is not a logical option. His creation is simply a logical necessity. It is FROM these earlier demonstrated facts that we now proceed.

Why then is there the dilemma of Professor C.L. Poor (SMR pp. 414-415) concerning relativity theory ? We shall now regard this.

It is easy to divide and conquer, and to talk sophisticatedly about relevant partitions and the like; but this is mere technical jargon. The fact remains. If one point leaves another at great speed, the clocks on the leaving one are supposedly going to become retarded. If, however, in a relative conception, one asserts that REALLY, this is the same as conceiving the stationary one as moving away from the  other: it is merely a reciprocal thing...what then ?  In that case, the clocks on the one, first conceived as stationary, but now as moving, are the ones to be retarded. Take the first conceived MOVING away case as A, and the second, thought of as stationary, as B, and A's clocks slow relative to B's. Now re-think it as B doing the moving (as it would in relativity), then B's clocks are retarded relative to A's. The results do not agree: and the DIFFERENCE is purely and simply HOW you conceive of it in terms of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. That is the point made by Professor Poor.

In fact, relativity is a feature and a just focus when certain inter-relationships are considered in certain respects; but there is no question of TRUE relativity as the essence of all things, as if relationship were god and results were creations. There is the fixed, there are the facts; and there is the inter-relationship of what are mutually operative phenomena. To think as if ALL were a mere relativity, is to forget the structure for which the attribute of relativity is affirmed. To think as if ALL were unrelated, is to forget the inter-relationship which is built into the structure. IN defining one aspect with some precision, we do not imagine that everything else ceases to exist.

Abstractions help; but they do not rule. Conceiving things in one spectrum or climate or perspective of thought is NOT the same as construing them in some other internally consistent field of intellectual vision. Everything is not reversible, is not co-ordinate; though there are explicit, express matches and co-ordinates at special places in the design, as is common in any design.

While therefore abstractions help, they do not dictate to reality; rather must they match it, as far as may be. You are really seeking to read from performance, someone else's particular cast of thought. It is very limited; but it is not obscure. You cannot do everything, but you may do something if you KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

In the end, it is reality which rules; and it is God who rules reality. At no point is it wise to neglect the nature of the architect when you ponder or pore over house designs, uses and futures. Thus, you see it all and whole and with the right presuppositions (such as are mandatory, when one sees the demonstrability of the Bible rationally), or you do not see it.

You do not see it if 1) your eyes are tightly closed by culture, convention or contrariety of disposition (or any OTHER reason); and 2) if you mind interferes with what you see, automatically redrafted it to meet expectations. Christ covered the case incisively, as seen in Matthew 13:14ff..

  • "And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled which says:

Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive:
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.

"Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them."

After that, of course, you must approach the whole topic from another aspect, as is common in any multi-disciplinary approach, where the meeting of ways in the co-ordinating program is a zenith fo achievement or desire. In this case, the mind of God expressed in the Bible, INDEPENDENTLY DEMONSTRATED to be His word, and the facts of the construction of the universe illustrate the two, the twin concerns: it is WONDERFUL (complex, intricate, involving 'witty inventions' - Psalm 8, Proverbs 8, Isaiah 9:6); and it is FUNCTIONAL (Isaiah 45:18, Hebrews 1:1-3, 12:25-28, Isaiah 51:16).

Thus the earth in its starry, and God-magnifying setting (cf. That Magnificent Rock, Ch.7, pp. 181ff.) performs for purposes of human habitation, discipline and blessing, making apt scope available for the gospel to reach throughout the earth, and for the evil developments of power-wresting godlessness, and religion-wresting paranoia alike, to offer themselves to the earth (cf. Revelation 13:1, on the one hand, and 13:11-12, on the other). It is made to allow for an astral type impact in due course, in the midst of a schedule, not unlike that already executed on Pharaoh in Moses' day (Exodus 3ff., and Revelation 6 through 16). Thus the construction and the emplacement and the durability, and the temporal end to this universe format, all this is in accord with a specialised and pre-announced PROGRAM.

This is currently being fulfilled in enormous detail, and in general principle, both in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and in prophecy. As to prophecy, it is fulfilled MORALLY, MILITARILY, POLITICALLY, ECCLESIASTICALLY, PHYSICALLY, ENVIRONMENTALLY and in general trend (Isaiah 51:6). Of all the intellectual exercises EVER invented, this collation, this co-operation, this multi-disciplinary combination over several millenia outclasses all else in KIND; and as to KIND it does it likewise in INCOMPARABLE KIND!

But let us return to our immediate study of the intra-disciplinary phenomenon in matter, of current interest.


In fact, specialised study does NOT remove the folly of false presuppositions. It is not worthless for that reason; but when you try to make a philosophy out of such studies with such presuppositions, it is PREDICTABLE and EMINENTLY FULFILLED that you WILL and CAN get nowhere. You will engage in such futile follies as assessing it is all meaningless, thereby showing that the category of meaning is well known to you, and that you are very capable in handling it, being (somehow) enabled to declare what does, or perchance does not, have the quality of meaningfulness. Yet if the inherent quality of things WERE meaninglessness, it would be meaningless for you to utter this 'fact', for the capacity to know what was not there, would be beyond you, and if you could exercise the meaningful faculty, meaning could not simultaneously be absent: so that you could not apply it as a critic, assessor or judge! Permutations of nothing do not create anything.

These things were dealt with in detail in SMR Ch.3, and similar things in That Magnificent Rock 5, 7; but they are ever with us. Inventing in vacuo, the categories of thought which DERIVE from THE REALITY, BOTH physical and logical, of being CREATURES of the CREATOR, with coherence: it is rationally impossible. The omission of this background removes the necessities underlying the assumptions with which we in fact work. It is like being on a limb, and MOST conscientiously sawing it off, while trying to show the crowd below, just how unnecessary that limb really is. You can only fall. A balloon of helium made by philosophy does not hold you when a bird pecks it. It is too unsubstantial.

In short, relativity is not some cure-all, explain all, as even Einstein found (Time, op.cit, p.61). It can make a contribution for certain areas, as did Newton; and it is not that Newton is wrong, but that his results are limited practically to certain situations. Are we then to be surprised if Einstein's thoughts which contributed to the atomic age, are found not to cover all, just as Newton's did not, though they enhanced dramatically the mechanical age which preceded the atomic! Will man never learn to be humble! Not with the humility which despises the reason it uses, while using it; for that is philosophically absurd and self-contradictory: for with what will that which is invalid, establish validity!

The concept that there is an ultimate irrational is absurd likewise. There is nothing irrational about this: that POSSIBLY there is an INABILITY to FIND what happens at certain low levels of magnitude, because the MILIEU in which things interact is not available for inspection at that level (as Ford postulated SMR pp. 405-408, 418-420). Firstly, the upholding of all things by the divine power is necessary if it is to be preserved as logically apt, substantially mobile and energically adequate. It is POSSIBLE to conceive of something self-sufficient, but NOT when it is plainly running down (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and CANNOT be eternal (for the resources being used up, cannot constitute, though limited, a sufficiency for unlimited time, so that even Paul Davies talks of a beginning).

It is possible to think of a different universe indeed; but THIS ONE IS NOT LIKE THAT.

This one routinely obeys the laws of causation (and that includes miracles in this, that the cause then of the multiply attested operations, is found in the super nature and not in the nature which He instituted and constituted as our universe, with ourselves together, one total entity of VERY different kinds of entrants!).

With concepts of turbulence through waves of 'quantum foam', and the resultant difficulty of particulate precision of motion at the tiniest levels, like a boat in a turgid sea (though these be but thoughts among thoughts, as normal in this area of physics), there is now simply one more entrant for the role of logical explanation. It concerns however our LIMITS in BEING ABLE to determine what will happen in certain fields, remote from real life.

Dr David Bohm has  as noted in SMR (note above), considered wave-particulate reality for the wave-particle matrix, with  statistics (and hence the probability concept) as merely the result of OUR ignorance. The MACRO-results of all this, as  Professor John McIntyre pointed out, are clear enough (SMR pp. 409,412-413). There CAN therefore be no question of deliberating particles! since their deliberations would always be constant and consistent to a programmed end. Nor CAN there be ANY question of the chaotic, for causatively 'correct' consequences cannot come from disorder as a base.

Exasperation and frustration might indeed like to SAY SO! But this is not the fact. What is chaotic is ONLY ONE THING: the presuppositions with which the matter is often approached. From some preferred viewpoint (as with the less than smooth cross-members in the car analogy), there might be something less than would be thought; but from the OPERATIVE DESIGN viewpoint, there is, perhaps, nothing more than is needed. Indeed, in these fields, often what is thought to be nicer, could turn out to be less efficient for the purpose actually in hand. Transfers of elements, components, energy can also have a certain diffuse appearance, whether in water-falls or pulsing of electricity; but this is not poor design, but visible effects of underlying causes efficiently producing their routine effects in the transmissive medium.

It is time the rancid reactions to procedural felicity were replaced by a more objective realisation: namely, that this is something that does marvels and is programmed down to minutiae to the point we do not, because we cannot, find their underlying aspects, remote from view, but not from need. Matter proceeds with purposeful indifference to the philosophers of cant, the proponents of dissatisfaction, like a Rolls Royce of whose tyres, some child says this: LOOK! It has little dents all through the surface of its tyres. It is tiresome, this endless cacaphony of imprecise complaints set in ignorance, contrary to the performance criteria, a sort of carping critical lack of consideration, combined with signally slanted ‘interpretations’ which lack ANY ground but incapacity, and ignore every ground of operational felicity.

As to UPHOLDING, since nothing CAN be WHOLLY self-sufficient, which a) is created and b) is running down (and the physical aspect is doing this), there MUST be such an operation; and of course it is Biblically attested (Hebrews 1:1-3). It explains any problem with the cohesion of matter, and the failure of things to transmute in the arena of their interplay, into something radically different. Such things are coherent. They account for each other. They are logically harmonious, scientifically competent, not writhing with contradictions, or asserting the opposite of the evidence. In this, they are of course in the domain of science properly so-called, such as Lord Kelvin was keen to promote (cf. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming...Ch.4, pp. 63, 73ff.), such as Max Planck insisted on, in all its rationality (SMR pp. 398-400) and such as Einstein was keen to pursue (Time op.cit, pp. 61ff.). Einstein's problem has been considered in SMR (pp. 299ff.).


Here was a man of true genius, who could see the necessities of thought, in order to be able with validity to embark on it; could not see how they could be gained, but admitted he worked on such a basis. The answer to this problem, as to all the other flecks of thought on the foam of inadequacy (though Einstein's concepts were far nearer theism than those of many) is easy to find, as so often, when adequate understanding PRECEDES the thought. It is to Einstein's great credit that he SAW the need for such an understanding, a basis for validity of thought, but did not at that time see how to get it.

Nevertheless: Better to know you are a beggar, and beg, than think yourself opulent, and boast! Infinitely better, one might almost hazard! He insisted on finding with that same rationality which had enabled so VERY MUCH, already in his theories, even practical things that in some respects have been eminently helpful, and discovering in this way, what remained.

His problem was not (operationally, but it seems it still was spiritually) the wrong presuppositions in this respect: relative to God. It was rather with respect to the universe. WHY should a universe created by God (but here with his philosophy, there was a fudge factor which spoiled the otherwise promising hopefulness of his approach) BE integrable in terms of SOME ONE FEATURE, FACTOR or INGREDIENT! Does it HAVE to be!

The ancient Greek thinkers are so naive that they could almost without help inhabit many an academic philosophy department of today! EVERYTHING HAD TO BE originated by, or coming from, or the product of...

a) water or perhaps
b) air, or perhaps
c) change or perhaps
d) stability, static to the end, and unyielding
e) atoms (although the spaces between them would still be a problem, their origin and their capacities: but never mind, consistency of thought is the LAST THING in these musings!).

So the turgid mess called early Greek Philosophy went on its Athenian way (with apologies to those not of Athens, yet as it were, being Athenian before their time!).

It was, as comedy, entrancing; as unsophisticated verve, delightful; but of course, in practice, absurd.

David Hume's Humorous Humian Nature was another such effort (cf. SMR Ch.3, esp. pp. 257ff.), a naturalism for man by which he could good-naturedly tell the truth to truthless nature! It was quite an epic, the destruction of which is exhibited in the reference given. But the point here is this: there is this thrust of lust, like some burning throat in the desert, to imbibe a unified water, encompassing all things, and the throat as well in its format. The mentor must be it; the will; the lifeless seed of atoms; the particles; the particulate, the invisible, the profound, the cause and the consequence, the limpidity of thought and the crass shrieking of matter, the profound wallowings of befuddled will with the incisive logician's skill! It is what then ? It is the unity of the garbage can, the shredder! But not all is shredded, though it WILL most assuredly be reduced to size !(cf. Ezekiel 28:9), when its implicit pretensions of spirit, exemptions of logic and rescensions of unrealism are as silent as they are now irrational.

Why ON EARTH should everything bother to come from air or fire or atoms or any other element or aspect of the whole diversified and multi-partitioned totality! Why should the errors of thought reside (in man, who is so very good at this particular thing) where the directed atoms know no error; and why should will be found, where things went obviously according to a will which they did not possess, irrelevant to their operations, themselves oblivious of their servitude, not being blessed with so much as the capacity to think! and if they had it, where is the evidence! and since there is none, where is the science that postulates such things to explain what is not explicable, or for explication, since it does not enter into the data of what happens (cf. SMR pp. 80ff., 115ff., 131ff., 284ff., 307ff., 413ff., A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-3) ? Just precisely where! Is this to be the end of the world, for science-philosophy (currently by many vitamised with science almost as if it were a fun fair, for serious-minded scientists, weary of the strait-jacket of disciplined thought and taking time off with a few beers!) ?

There IS A UNITY of course. It is not (and as noted, CANNOT BE) a self-sufficient unity. it is NOT the unity of the wholly disparate; for there is no unity in systematic diversity. It MAY of course be UNIFIED into an operational totality (in fact, this has been done and it deserves research - it is called MANKIND). Here the trilogy of will and mind and spirit is wedded, but not welded. It does not systematically interfere, though there can be some interaction. It is like any other invention really: there are provisions for interaction in certain respects, and there is a construction which erects certain sophisticated realms (like the old-fashioned wireless-tubes), which operate according to their own field, but provide as ingredients, what is needed in some allied field.

The human body is full of such discrete and brilliant provision for mass-production, mathematical unity, and energic adequacies at all levels, from cells to organs. The unity is NOT TO BE FOUND*1 however by seeing how an electron is REALLY a brain; or a nerve cell really a muscle; or a mind really a slave system, or a will, merely a delusion. How would you know, since you have one; and how can anyone EVER penetrate to the fact of delusion, if it is endemic! If you could TELL, it COULD not be endemic. If it is NOT endemic, then it is merely a possible condition, and then the nature of it, its causes and cure becomes logically possible. Logic burrows beautifully, and when its end is found, its value is confirmed. It points to God, as we saw in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, with unerring certitude; and when He is found (and the point here is that there is more to it than a discovery per se, since He is a person with His own ways), and in God it finds its source, then in fact His statements are found, and from Him, His word has all things in an order so perfect, that it fills with a just awe, and a due delight.

Thus, THIS UNITY IS NOT from some ingredient. It is in the DESIGN. That is the way with all of our cases, and it is way here. It is in the mind of the designer, the creator, the conceptualisation of the constructor, the mental habitat of the maker, the spirit of the producer, the flair of the fashioner, the thought of the conceiver.

To try to ‘unify’ the penchants, principles, preferences, purposes and productions of what matches the definitive expression of design, with some particle is merely one more expression of the naturalistic fallacy. How does this calumny of logic proceed, and what does it say ? This:

  • 'Because it is big, it does not need to be logical; since it is vast, it is rationally vacuous. Large scale enterprises are not subject to logic. Build the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and you do not need to be rational or consider causality.'

  • This vacuity of thought is constructed ex vacuo, despite and indeed by MEANS of its mentality ridden interstices, its formed, finished, coherent expression of just one brand of thought, one language of life, one mode of vitality propulsion. It deploys causality in order to ignore it; it is like using an automobile to deny that they exist. Yet, goes the nursery rhyme, it must nevertheless be construed as NOTHING ELSE COULD EVER BE CONSTRUED.

  • If it were, thought would suicide and its products die with it. This liberty is mere self-contradiction of the grounds of discourse, as often shown on this site (cf. SMR Ch.3, and causation). As soon as thought starts and uses the rationality of language, the results accrue and lead to God as shown in SMR Ch.1 et al.. IF it does NOT start, then there is no language, and a de-created being, not a logician, stares dumbly into space, auto-disenabled from saying one word.

The habiliments, the paraphernalia of its genius are ignored, and the concept that it makes itself is imported, though the means are as absent as the minds that despise the virtue and brilliance of the creation; and the ‘principles’ of such a happening, as ludicrous as any other myth (strictly so-called, since the cause is inelegantly inadequate for the observable result);  while the inexcusability is as vast as in any other case, where profuse examples of what IS the basis, creativity, exist in the VERY MINDS and SPIRITS of those who refuse to believe what logic demands. Here the exact expressions of this sort of thing are in ourselves, constant, if not daily, or with some, virtually hourly events. (Cf. SMR pp. 131, 159, Ch.3; That Magnificent Rock Chs.1, 7,  8; Questions and Answers 3; Ch.1 supra).

There is NOTHING TO IT, when you look at it as an exoteric set of unrelated paraphernalia. Its unity is not then explained, but mocked. This is not scientific theory, but brain-weary dilettantism. The reality which Freud, Darwin and  Marx all missed, like the early Greek thinkers, is in its functional sufficiency for multi-phase operation. It lies in the inter-relation between design and performance - as with a car.

A car has THIS unity: that it goes, performs a transport function, allows passengers to sit, wheels to turn, rigidity sufficient to prevent great discomfort to passengers and too easy injury on unintended impacts with objects foreign to the purpose of the driver. ALL its systems are to this ONE END. THERE is its unity. Its performance is index to its meaning, and its meaning is an attribute of its design, and its creation is the process of thought and intelligently directed energy, by which this purpose is integrated into a design of multiply different TYPES of object, a mere junk heap except for one thing. And that ? ITS PURPOSE. Its design and its purpose mark it out as rational, its purpose marks out the elements of the ensemble as critically able to be appraised.

It goes ? Could we do better, when it comes to life! Have we done better ? Why, we have done nothing at all, studying and considering and coding, and clipping here, shearing there, and acting altogether like Year 8 students in their first year in the lab..

In the case of man, then, we cannot do at all; though some of the blemishes after a few thousands of years on the 'road' of the vehicle called man, can be repaired.

Let us then create spirit ! Let man be very wonderful and congratulate himself fatuously on his imaginary prowess, though he be but made.

Let us articulate the modes of making God-consciousness, personality understanding, ideational originality, planes of thought, originality so intense and profound that errors are not nonsense at times, but the buffetings of the wings in the airs of grandeur, in the thoughts of many things, planes and dimensions, depths and majesties. Will man so speak ? will the denial of logic be assisted now by the addition of megalomania ? Forgetting his created status, will he now try to imitate God by constructing himself! He cannot even construct its material substructure (cf. SMR pp. 316Dff.). He is like a technician, imaging he is a great tenor when he first begins to understand the deposition of sound code onto magnetic tape, forgetting that originality and its material modes of conveyance from one point to another, are as far apart as heaven and earth;  as are man in the image of God, with divine access, and man in the dumped desecration of presumption.

How one is reminded of the word of God, here, where Isaiah prophesied from the Lord, concerning those other idolatries men worshipped, those other works of their hands (for really, it lies in the mind and in the spirit, the things people are illogical enough to worship are mere implements, while we ourselves do better, being implement assessors)

"Indeed they are worthless:
Their works are nothing;
Their moulded images are wind and confusion."

And that is the just status when a swollen spirit and an intemperate mind despises its formulator, forgets its fabricator, attributes wonder to nothing, and nothing to wonder, and uses the rationality it despises, while dismissing it as meaningless, by means of its meaningfulness as a rational assessor. COULD it be possible that more absurdity COULD STRIKE this earth ? It will however; for the fever is merely drawing near to its terminal fantasies (cf. II Thessalonians 2).

But let us return to the concept of imperfections, no small component of which come from the stentorian abuse of liberty which pocks this globe, and the not inconsiderable but highly restrained 'visitations' of the Almighty (such as you see illustrated in detail in Amos 4, and on the vast scale in the case of Moses and Egypt - cf. The Other News, Appendix 2, and Biblical Blessings 7, Beyond the Curse).

When we begin to descend to the minute level of the iron, with some (for the purpose) not very important imperfections (found under the microscope) in the steel in supportive cross-members, we may say, 'Ah! that is not very perfect, that does not have the systematic consistency and fluency which we would like!' , and the manufacturers reply, 'Ah Monsieur! it is not to be a matter of concern at all. THAT! it is nothing. It does not affect the performance of the design for the purpose intended. If you were to want a higher degree of coverage of such things, it would cost more, and go no better!' or something of this type.

There have been so many attempts to intimate dissatisfaction with the grand and eloquent modes of design-oriented, code implemented, purpose built gear, which operates in unity of function and coherence of language, that it has its amusing side. We shall for ease of thought, however, lest someone should lose the way, put these illustrations in the End-note Excursion *1.

SO OUR WORLD is a DESIGN, and its underlying interstices are 1) purpose built and 2) subject to an upholding power which will never be FOUND among the visible objects, since the power concerned, as demonstrated (SMR Ch.1) is invisible; and its results? they are not at all invisible. We are one of them!

If we want to trace out the effects of light and so on, then in our order, it is possible. If we want to find the UNDERLYING SUB-STRUCTURE of things, just as an exercise of thought, we will find them suited to the STATED BIBLICAL PURPOSE of the program, enabling just that regularity and order which we both need and find, but not at all necessarily enabling its investigation at levels of mere academic interest, in this way. There is nothing chaotic in limits to investigability; or inability to ascertain the ultimate sub-atomic particles or sub-atomic matrix unit. It is not necessarily the case that such exist. Pieces may be SMASHED (as may vases), but there is no great significance in that. Anyone can smash.

  • You may have limited success in finding how to put them together again, or in finding at least some of the units normatively used in the manufacture of the universe; but then again, since it did not construct itself, and the book of life was not written by the book ...

  •  (that is the way with books, in cause-effect reality, for they do not themselves manipulate symbols into the world of intellect without first being constituted valid intellectual causes: they are outré at that level , mere products - in this case, of our own - see Repent or Perish Ch. 7) ...

  • your efforts will have very little success.


You may find the trash can, or make new objects by destroying part of the construction, and then analysing them, taking them out of your own new trash can; or you may be able to find some of the limiting fixtures in the universe which prevent it running away from its grooves, but all this is relatively unimportant. Unless of course you wish to specialise, like naughty children in the drawing room of a wealthy Aunt, in finding ways to break up her home. THEN of course, all this is of the utmost importance.

However, the study of the materials will not bring much fruit in understanding the mind of the architect. The relationship of materials in their USABLE FORM to purpose, and of practical living to shape, configuration and highly variable sub-designs, together with the vision of the integration of all these, in terms of ultimate usage and aesthetics etc. - all this would be of the utmost value, if your aunt steadfastly refused to reveal that the place was built, and built by an architect.

Soon you might be able to show her that really, YOU KNEW, for you could discern the material-function relationship of materials adapted and carefully applied  to intended use, and of shapes made, to utility intended and so on... Then she might congratulate you as a clever child, and then share with you her concern for your mind, since normal children might have been expected to understand all these things without so much effort!

In fact, to revert to the actual realm of interest, in physics: it is NOT the case that quite simply, matter becomes energy. That is merely one variable, one possible kinetic component, one substance interchange WITHIN A TOTAL SYSTEM WITH FAR MORE IN IT. Abstraction is often useful; but it should NEVER be confused with reality. It enables one to isolate the issues in hand, and to investigate just how the one thing relates to the other(s); but when one FORGETS that there is really a far greater richness to reality than the things voluntarily isolated for THOUGHT RESEARCH, then the whole project is in danger of becoming merely chimerical, a display of forgetfulness which makes the exercise doomed to ultimate futility, or worse, confusion.

ENERGY in PACKETS may indeed move out of those packets, or into other packages. There is FURNITURE in the universe, as well as energy. There is an arrangement of furniture; there is a provision and procedure for variation among the components. It is not OPEN. It is closed. The rules may be expanded to cover cases, which in turn may be irrationally extrapolated and so lead to ludicrous results (like an infinitely massive object at the speed of light) - when, just like variability WITHIN KIND, they become something quite different.

There are variabilities which certain rules permit; but how long is it to be before science of the 20th century, in the 21st grows up. THAT, it must be re-phrased: Before much of what is deemed science, becomes alert to its place, limitations and purpose! You cannot just assume you know everything and take every Tom, Dick and Harry Theory (even if it is Sir Dick in some cases) and expect them happily to conform to your supposed omniscience, and to be putty in your hands, as you displace all that went before, and explain all that is. NO ONE ELSE does it in science!

In fact, people sometimes are interested in natural things, and become scientists, and work out some of the ways in which they interact, and make laws and institute rules, and then vary them when they realise how much they left out, and how little they know, and how many more rules there are, and how limited are the applications of the little rules they found; and of course, there are SOME few higher rules which relate equally to logic and to observation (an excellent testimony to the uni-logic creation of the internal thought facility called mind, and the external operation facility, called matter) .

  • It is not all matter, for erroneous thoughts about matter do not consist as matter; for if they did, they could neither err nor be relevant to error.

  • It is not all mind, for if it were, could you instruct matter to do what you wanted!

It resists. It does not have a mind of its own, but it is the product of someone who has, and He has ... laid down the law.

  • It is not all spirit, for if it were, could you not will that things become different; but for that, obviously, a far greater reality than mere will is concerned. We do not even make our own dirt (becoming dirty is merely transferring some of it).

To the extent that these things show you HOW some things interact, it can be useful. As soon as it becomes a new religion, however, in which the fact that some things react to each other in certain assignable ways becomes a thing to worship, or man who has found out these properties in some things, becomes a thing to worship, or science does, or the governments that enable it do: then of course it is merely childish and it is only restraint which prevents one from saying infantile. It ever changes, never fully accounts, and in latter years, is rife with internal self-contradiction for the reasons shown, to be shown, and predicted.


Time! gentlemen, time. What is that ? How profound! says one; explain that, and all is revealed. HOW! Because in fact time is a process, and the process COULD NOT BE except it were intelligently created, and the measure of the operations of the results of the creation by intelligence is certainly interesting. It is however not the case that time is some universal, DISPOSABLE component of matter. Matter may exhibit it, or relate to it, this way or that. It is like a clock. THAT, it is not time. It is a process-related, time measurer.

In the space-time continuum (a part of reality, like a stage for a concert, but don't insult the choir please, it is not staged as BEING A STAGE, but as A DISTINCTIVE GROUP PUTTING SOMETHING ON, WHILE on stage!), various inter-relationships, of which some are known,  may be conceived and expressed in analytical terms.  You get such quixotic and ludicrous concepts at times, such as this, that time goes backwards. WHAT IS time! they ask profoundly. (See on what it is: SMR pp. 422Kff., S 33, 422M-P, Repent or Perish, Excursion 2, State of Mind).

It is, as the Bible indicates, a process measure for events. The construction, purpose-built, for man, houses components and situations  that are not necessarily useful that chronological purpose, outside the milieu invented. That, it is the nature of invention.

A clock is useful for time, in certain circumstances; but will not operate in all circumstances.

Purpose and correlation of instrument to it, this is uniformly omitted by persons pursuing purposes, while investigating what have all the appurtenances of inventions, whose provider they prefer, in multiplied cases, to acknowledge. They are like students ignoring the professor... and their mothers.

Just as Marxism omits entrepreneurship, so the materialist omits purpose and person. He does this whether as Freudian, Marxist or Darwinian, to take the essentials of the system of each. It is a ludicrous omission, since it is only if a person is (intrinsically as to capacity) valid in thought, that the thought of a person not being valid in thought can arise, as itself potentially valid. If however the person is valid in thought, then the thought that a person cannot be valid in thought is contradicted. If on the other side,  such is not the case, then the thought itself is contradicted. Yet they carry on as if there were no problem. How can, however, thought be valid if it is the impersonal consequence of thoughtless actions! Do actions create validity ? Is activity logic ? Is motion thought ? It is useless to equivocate, saying this, Thought may in our case, involve motion! for that is not the same thing. A car may involve motion, without being it. Is the plane of symbolic signification of ideas an aspect of the non-symbolic procedures of non-ideas?

Is error part of non-error? Is irrelevance, as is the case with error, in terms of the machinations of what is merely there in terms of its construction, to be equated with the highest possible degree of relevance, as occurs when, in the realm of thought, the will is allowed to proceed along the multitude of possible thoughts, to one which does not fit the case, or aborts the undictated but necessary rules of thought! So it creates error.

To put these as one: what is it ? That is not science, but magic; it is not reason but irrationalism. If you are going to make things happen for no reason, and contrary to all reason, and things not even related become the creative construction of what lacks entirely the capacity itself, then you deny validity in logic; and hence your construction is not even possibly true. Why then ? Because if your presupposition deletes your operating validity, then you CANNOT on that basis be right and we MUST NOT listen to you, unless we are addicted to wasting time in what is self-contradictory.

Marxism's omission was foolish; so too is the physics case, when SOME of these scientists who in effect belong to a certain religio-philosophic club within their professional ranks, omit persons.

Time is relevant to PERSONS in a DESIGN ENVIRONMENT in which they lie, and it is a measure with processes available, to allow relationship of events to each other and to the past and future. Process built by explicit divine word (Genesis 1), it proceeds in such a style. Other processes following this lead, can interpret other sorts of internal components, for the time-sequence situation. But there is no guarantee that all process interprets chronology for all purposes. The thing being purpose built, is not susceptible to endless invention of variants. Were man omniscient, even that might not suffice: for power too is required to invent susceptible worlds, programmed, prodded and stylised to allow - as in all equipment - what it is desired and designed to happen.

  • In fact, there is

  • space and time
  • plus materials
  • plus energy
  • plus persons
  • plus purpose-built container units
  • plus specificities to the purpose and maintenance for the purpose, and
  • power and character concepts and components,
  • which are real and particular, made for sub-purposes,
  • which go hand in hand with facility for intervention on the part of the Creator of the totality
  • (which is not made of ONE THING, but BY ONE PERSON).

  • It is made to enable the divinely intended scenario to unfold in measurable time for statable purpose.

  • That scenario has many phases: including the TESTING of man, the FALL of mankind, the WARNINGS to mankind, the COMING of the Maker in the form of a man, the witness of the world TO GOD concerning what it thought of Him, in the crucifixion, the witness OF GOD to the world concerning what He thought of the crucifixion, in the resurrection of the body of Christ, the TESTIMONY of available pardon through the gospel to be broadcast to all the world, till the time is past, and the degrees of organised, pre-planned and pre-announced afflictions of the material sub-structure of the earth, in the removal of various protections, various design-oriented switch-offs and switch-ons (which any good engineer might provide for in his purpose built products).


  • Of this Revelation 6-16 speaks eloquently, clearly and incisively, giving a pre-programmed read-out of the increasing intensity of the message received in this way, but on the whole (Revelation 9:20), not well-received by the inhabitants of the earth. HOW could it be well received ? By repentance (Revelation 9:21, Luke 13:1-3). We happen to be, objectively and scientifically (where matters are tested and results accredited by performance), in this pre-programmed affliction stage. When the lights are turned off on the children who should sleep at night, it is not that the wiring is poor; but that the time has come. It does come. It all comes. It is mercy that it did not come sooner. THIS is the message of the Bible (II Peter 3:9), testable to the hilt, and test-built. (Some refrigerators have that facility: auto-test.)

  • There is MUCH unity; and as in many things, when you are on the right track, and understand, follow the correct circuit or concept, then it is relatively simple,  learning is delight because it all fits continually, and the more you know, the more you see how perfectly it fits. It is NOT however found in illimitable transmutation, however much there may be of multi-purpose use of implements, materials and adaptation of design components, most brilliantly in the case of life, with JUST that restraint and JUST that degree of flexibility which is stated in the book which comes with the house, that is, the Bible (Genesis 1).

  • Trying to FORCE a unity on the universe of some other kind, unwitting the mind that made minds and displays mentality, however, is mere mockery of the evidence, of logic and testimony to desire; and as such, as is typical in such cases, the facts mock back, and the reality is like a curse, a judgment (cf. SMR Ch.3, pp. 292ff., 284ff.). It is not really funny, and this is true of much mockery; but it has a humorous side, for pride of flesh making its inroads, with hostile tongue, on divine creation, and trying to judge it in ways contrary to the procedure of its own mind IS hilarious in just this: that it winks at wisdom and insists on what it does not know, as a mode of understanding, contrary to its own validity. Invalid as mode, its results are no better.

Failing to find, it verifies its folly. Mars mocks! Matter smiles. Wrong assumptions make wrong conclusions, and wrong conclusions have trouble in concluding at all, for it goes on, like a runaway car … until the end.

What IS found is what was predicted, just to complete the derisive warning of the word of God (II Peter 3:3ff.); and the religious capitulation of many adds to that predicted program so clearly depicted for assessment and pronounced for a purpose, so long ago (II Timothy 3:1,4-5). As so often noted, the TIMING of the phenomenon at its height, is set in a pattern of events, including the unique (cf. SMR Chs.8-9), and this also is a warning, a witness and a work of art in scientifically assessable predictions, in that it has been extant for a couple of millenia, and happens in its chronological site, as stated.

The frustration of the pedants is just as described in I Corinthians 1 and Psalm 94:11 ("the Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile" - in just this context of ignoring the obvious), precisely conforming with their endemic confusions, their naturalism bankrupt, and their oddities and enigmas in keen baying array, as they seek to explain all in some limited terms, and to dismiss the creation, jamming into the field - extrapolations of a system that does not extrapolate, but has been GIVEN the character that it has, like a house!

This error: It is profound! and its results are predictable; and that is one more prediction which is fulfilled, and WILL BE fulfilled. You cannot do what is impossible, or adequately explain what is created in terms which ignore that fact. Reason must give way first; and philosophy is largely the itemised account of how that happens! Never was it a better exemplar than now! but that, it too is predicted in essence (II Timothy 4:1-4, II Timothy 3:1ff., II Peter 3:1-12), for the present  period - shall be say scientifically ? - assigned for review (our own, - cf. SMR Ch.8, pp. 660-680,  and on the 'fables' prediction dealt with in 660ff., see 252H-I, 378ff., 208ff., 422Eff.).

In other words, in the precise texture of prophetic events which make a pattern, including unique elements, there is facility in exposing the very qualities which relate to OUR PRESENT INVESTIGATION, that of fable, for example, growing like a fungus infection. Of course it is not CALLED 'fable', for how could you know it, if you were its subject!

This is a specific syndrome for our age, and these matters above considered are a specific field for the exaggerated exhibition of this syndrome. It is like the fevers and rigors which afflicted the soldiers returning to the US from Iraq. Given the chemicals used against them, such things might be expected. Given the field of the world, and the confusing devilries which abort so many, and the state of the case (Rev. 12:12), then not only is the predicted case fulfilled, according to the word of God, the Bible; but the predicted reason for the eventuations - including the mounting woes of this century just past -  is most apparent likewise.

This! it is science indeed, genuine, authentic, testable, confirmed, verified reality: a matter which is accurate, unchanging because so correct, providing causes and effects, and their inter-relationships in detail. The declarations of this endlessly confirmed and logically required divine donation, the written word of the Bible, show the puny tyrannies of man, in thought, in politics, in aspirations, in slavery to racist arrogance (the ultimate one, HUMAN racist arrogance!), in a context of great depth and holiness on the part of the Lord God. It is thus, there seen and there understood, something

  • which is both pathetic to contemplate because of wilful error, endemic to the resistant heart,
  • while yet a folly met by beautifully controlled oversight in its responses to the writhing spiritual torment of vain rebellion,
  • and with that, in principle sound to the mind
  • and heartening, because the way clear is always open, till He comes.
  • It is HE who says 'Come!', it is man who says, No, or Not yet!

There is nothing else like that. The word of God is not merely resistant to adjustment, but requiring none, as is the way with truth, and remains unmoved. That too is verification: for what would you expect, when your Creator speaks ? Competition ? rational competition ? No, and that is just what you get. Nothing else. And that is what He said you would get (Isaiah 48); and that ? It is yet more verification.


But let us revert to the nature of nature, and the assumptions of omniscience so often reviewed, that one wonders HOW anyone could POSSIBLY act as if 'this is it' in science, when ten years but bring a smile in this VERY AREA, when one looks back on the assurance THEN operative.

No, it is not wise to extrapolate from a trend in a situation, to an overall certainty in an imaginary self-sufficient scheme. Nature is not built on these wide-ranging inter-relationships. There are some broad ones; but they are not integumental so much as operational. Indeed, as seen in Chs.1 and 8, of That Magnificent Rock, the three main overall scientific laws are SPECIFICALLY A REFLECTION WITH PRECISION OF BIBLICAL TEACHING (cf. Ch.8, pp. 226ff. ).

Verified and logical principles, nature does show in conformity to its creation, as we see in the above reference; but mere extrapolations are not the way it CAME. When it  was constructed, as in all such cases, the intent of the architect relates to the materials chosen and their mutual inter-actions. It is and can not be otherwise: you do not get the materials choosing the architect, and making themselves in some burnt-out factory into just what he wants, so that he can built, and then they! The materials have THEIR OWN GENESIS, and though some of course are derived from others, there is no question of the materials building their own schema, their own factory or their own architect. All action based on such nonsense, verifies itself by ending in just the absurdities which are so often today confused with abstruse thought.

YOU CAN IMAGINE what would happen to your house if a star struck it, but this is not within the terms of its construction design, and no doubt would be confessed to surpass your knowledge of the materials, if it happened, if you were humble enough to admit it. You may also imagine the construction of your house, not by the mindless interaction of stars, but by what you know is necessary for such a result.

So with the universe itself : it has all the ingredients of construction from law and form, to inter-relationship and symbolical configurations in code for its work. Omit these trivial considerations and you are merely at sea, without flippers.

Man  does NOT have a comprehensive knowledge of his house, not least because his approach is anti-theistic secularism in its zeitgeist conformism, guaranteed to produce muddle-headed muddiness of thought. In general,  man is too high-minded, and this is the case with secular man; yet he CANNOT, as god, know all things. Man may however know something of their inter-relationships within the material parameters given him. When honestly and carefully he faces his limits, then slowly he increases the scope of coherent knowledge.

  • Meanwhile, as a philosophic flavour of the century, he even becomes an irrationalist, carefully giving reasons for it, as if what is denied in validity of thought, could BY validity of thought, be truly accounted for.

The Bible has given the design and purpose limits and scenario, and man intemperately now as at Babel (Genesis 11), tries to extrapolate his ignorance and rise up to - or even as, God; but neither intellectually, personally nor environmentally is he capable. We have been at pains to show the rational relationship between true concept (as in SMR Ch.5, which is ultimately simple when it is rightly directed), and observable fields presented to our vision, view and thought; for the Lord is God, the God of truth and wonder.  But for extrapolations of current process to ultimate meaning, by themselves, there is and indeed,  can be no rationality, because they are based on the ultimate irrationality.

Their writhing and squirming are like those of naughty boys in an otherwise orderly classroom.

  • The Biblical coherence in reason and harmony of concepts,

    and each with evidence confirmatory and consistent,
    both with revelation transcendent,
    challenging for testing,
    as shown in this site continually:
    this is abruptly different from all these other things,
    remote from reality and superficial in construction:

for its part, it is
perfect in proportion,
exact in inter-relationship,
precise in prediction-fulfilment productions and propositions,
changeless since written, incorrigible over millenia.

  • It is not really a case of -

science versus the Bible at all;

but OF quasi-philosophy in fulsome fantasies,
produced by some scientific sectors,
phalanxes of cultural conformity,
versus the Bible;

with the latter infallible under every assault,
and the cultural conformists endlessly disapproved by the collision of their concepts
when they broach the ultimate levels on their secular humanistic base: and this,

a) with each other
b) with the fact.

There is simply no contest.
It is refreshing.

What is found and abundantly attested ?

It is this.

Age-old wisdom surveying (with appropriate predictions for spice),
the stricken vainglory of the current dissident contemplations:
for as to this enduring and divine facility,
it represents the delightful facts,
battle-wise, unbeaten;
for after all, the Lord of Hosts is God,
the Lord is God as Elijah showed,
and there simply isn't any other.

The position really does not change, has not changed, and will not do so, because it cannot.

I Corinthians 1 is delightfully refreshing after the physical and ideological mayhems of the moment,
as a mirror to the vainglory of the last century,
showing the source of peace for eternity,
with truth that does not lie.

That truth is revealed truth, for God the Lord has spoken.
It gives the way to conceive of all truth, and as truth, it is abundantly ready to be so viewed (Repent or Perish Ch.7, SMR Ch.5, and passim).

That! it is an extra. This divine, revealed truth, it is not only ineradicable, but it is also awesomely faced with the personal touch of entire understanding.


You see it in simple overview in I Corinthians 1:18-25:

  • "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. For it is written:

  • " 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,

And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'

  • "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?


  • "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

"For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;

but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,

But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men,
and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

MAN, whether in philosophy, physics, psychology, psychiatry or any other variant of his research, when he seeks to know it all, doesn't. He has hope only when the knowledge he seeks is found where alone knowledge can be, other than the temporary inserts of reaction-response phenomena. That ?

It is in God personally. Much of the race has long sought the heart of his life  to function, through bypass operation not of the flesh, but of the spirit: that by which, heartless, he disowns his maker. It is always very painful, and its results suggest way-out surgeons. None succeed. The correct answer comes from an internal change, by which the heart is better placed, and the foundations of life are perceived. Then the little things like the inter-relationships of the different modalities of creation, forms and functions, features and characters, without profusion of illicit, illogical confusion, become clear in their created profiles.

Even mothers do not turn INTO babies; they have them. And mothers ? they came from other mothers, and they, they came from the mothered mother, created that way. You do not really create these things; and the reason it is not now done is simple: man even with the foundations before him, cannot even copy it. How would he? Clever as God has made Him, he lacks something ...
Accordingly we read this synopsis from Romans 1:21-23:

  • "When they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image..."

  • Nowadays that is called the space-time continuum image. That at least is this one. These things tend to go in groups, for mutual support, though since each falls, they fall merely on each other's necks.




  • where facts and evidence and testimony and history, science and life all attest just one thing: the truth.


In fact, even in the biological realm Denton in his EVOLUTION:  A THEORY IN CRISIS, a work which is a technical masterpiece, though its chief contribution is not philosophic or metaphysical, and its religious position is uncertain, is at pains, in all conscience, to show in realm after realm that DISCONTINUITY is the name of the game. Continuity is the name of the desire in historical thrust. Man wants the latter; nature provides the former.

Thus he declares (p. 353):

  • "The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature."

  • He adds:

  • "In a very real sense, therefore, advocacy of the doctrine of continuity has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism, and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists,, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."


  • Indeed we have this: "Even in classical times Aristotle's opposition to the evolutionism of the pre-Socratics was based on his acute observation of nature and his appreciation of the facts of  biology." Things tended to be fixed, this was their genius, that it what he saw.


    • The DISCONTINUITY simply means that things are not equipped for ingenious upgradings. Information theory deplores such a thought; the second law of thermodynamics PRECISELY opposes such a thought (cf. Index) ; nature does not co-operate with such a thought in the entire gamut of variations about a type; cells, Denton tells us, abhor such a thought: that is to say, there is NO primitive cell, NO intermediate cell, ALL cells are intriguingly and fascinatingly sophisticated.


  •  Professor Thompson's note on the relevant observational facts of palaeontology (in his New Challenging Introduction to the Origin of Species (1956, Everyman)), to the point that: "If we found in the geological strata a series of fossils showing a gradual transition from simple to complex forms, and could be sure that they correspond in a true time-sequence... well: but This is certainly what Darwin would have liked to report but of course he was unable to do so. What the available data indicated was a remarkable absence of the many intermediate forms required by the theory... The position is not notably different today." (Cf. S.J. Gould, SMR pp. 234-235.)


  • Dr Michael Denton (see pp. 114 ff. SMR) affirms that not only is there no "primitive" to sophisticated cell sequence in time, none being primitive, but also that just as sequenced fossil intermediates are lacking morphologically, similarly developmental sequences lack in the micro-biological relationships between creatures. Thus, he states, these do not appear, but what is present is a "highly ordered hierarchical system" (op.cit., p. 278) at the micro-level, from which any such sequence is "emphatically absent". Moreover micro-divisions between them are "mathematically perfect". Indeed, to take a case, different kinds of frogs, though relatively similar, have a "molecular divergence" as great as that between extraordinarily diverse kinds of mammals (op.cit., p. 290) ... These findings, with Genesis are more parallel than railroad tracks; and Genesis ... came first. They, within the ramifying network of attestation of the word of God, provide verification of it, unmatched, extensive and refined.
  • Similarly, vestigial organs, a concept more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and indeed conspicuous by its absence, in terms of empirical verification, have been now almost entirely verified as misnomer, while the actual FUNCTIONAL NEEDS of what are merely by unlicensed imagination attributed to posterior products of past usage only, lie fallow in the soil of fact (SMR p. 198).

  • Again, the genetic material in the genome, not precisely in the genes, has been the subject of speculation as garbage. In fact, it is now being found to be linked to function, possibly in the control phase.

  • Further, all gradualism faces extinction as readily as its projected prototypes. Without oxygen, how did the cells function; with it, how could the DNA not die. As Denton points out (cf. pp. 268-269 op.cit), you need not only the amazing complex, ingeniously intricate "protein synthetic apparatus" - rather like saying, all the General Motors factories, except they are comparatively simple - but you need more. In addition, requisitioned must be the cell membrane (to enable that interesting thing, life... the topic, in fact) to continue.

  • Moreover, he indicates, "the integrity of the cell membrane... depends on the existence of a protein synthetic apparaus capable of synthesizing the protein components of the membrane and the enzymes required for the synthesis of its fat components." More trouble ? alas: the protein synthetic apparatus itself needs different components; which "can only function if these be held together by a membrane: two seemingly unbreakable inter-dependent systems."


  • Then energy ? It IS important, as any factory owner will note.

It depends on the cooperative work of specialised proteins able to synthesise the special proteins, rich in phosphorus, ones themselves also the product of the "protein synthetic apparatus". The information for all this ? that is stored in the DNA, but the EXTRACTION of that information (any factory owner will tell you that it is not only the data, but access to it - modern cybernetics is agog with information and access) is again, dependent on the proteins ... you have guessed it, of the protein synthetic apparatus.

  • Inter-dependence is PRECISELY of the order of the design. It is PRECISELY inept for gradualism. Interdependence of components for all the productions of the parts with which to function, and the fathering of the parts, together, is a nightmare of collusion against the establishment of evolutionary gradualism. Nature is happy to provide it.


  • Again from Denton (pp. 286ff.), we find that molecular studies of proteins show NO SUPPORT for "the traditional view of the vertebrates as a series of increasingly advanced  classes leading from the cyclostomes to the mammals." What do you show in this connection, then ? This: When the vertebrates are compared with non-vertebrate organisms, all types are equidistant apart."

 Not only, however, do these findings conflict with the yen, the desire, the anti-theological lust, one could almost say in terms of what many books orate on behalf of naturalistic gradualism, of continuity in nature, by nature, yet in abstraction from nature, as if in a mood of distemper and flinging discretion to the winds, it decided - though it could not decide, to DO the jolly thing anyway (there IS a nightmarish glow to the whole inordinately distasteful area of facts, that is virtually a glower, when you look from the perspective of gradualism).

  • There is worse to come, more to follow. "It is not only the major divisions which can be subdivided into non-overlapping classes; the same phenomenon holds to quite minor subdivisions of the animal kingdom, even where the actual biochemical differences between species is relatively trivial. With the area, monkeys, apes, man, the result is an "entirely non-overlapping system of classes".

Nor is even this all.

  • In DNA and RNA sequences in different species, a comparison may be made, in terms of different bacteria: "the RNAs tells the same story as the proteins (p.288). The three primary kingdoms stand equidistant apart." Indeed, "whenever new types of organisms are occasionally discovered they never turn out to be ancestral to known groups".

Denton goes on to note (p. 291) that if the "ancient lungfish and ancient amphibia were as separate from each other as their present day descendants are, then the whole concept of evolution collapses."

To ASSUME, contrary to evidence, the contrary, is hard to differentiate from mere doctrinal contrariness; since the absence of transitional forms is as notable (see Thompson above), as is the absence of transitional means. This is so empirically; and as we have been at pains to pint out, it is eminently so logically (SMR Ch.2-3).

Indeed does the DNA exhibit any presence of potential for the provision not only of the LIFE of the thing itself, but for the PROCEDURE to other DEVELOPMENTS by some contrivance for the future, annexed like a small building for futures, some principle of power for production, to make the thing logically acceptable ? It is never found. Things appear to be fully occupied with intricate mechanisms for being exactly what they are, and for intensive treatments to prevent variation, even if it were inclined to happen in an upward, information grapping way, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (q.v.) - a law without known exception or exemption! and of the necessities of sufficient ground for symbolic logic to work itself out, when it is theoretically, not there at all, in the production of codes and the like.

In short, the concept of things potential becoming things actual, as distinct from things actual becoming altered through injury, or invasion from outside like an aeroplane in the capable hands of hijackers, with various results, is as distant from reality as is the provision of pure water from the befouled residues which remain on this planet, (along it is true, with the primal positioning of some which is yet to be fouled). As Denton said, the philosophy of continuity in nature (in the sense of things making up the next lot from where they are, or as it is put here, the book of nature being written by the book) is not one empirically observable at all.

  • What IS observable, strictly empirically, with multiplied instances, enormous exhibition and plurality which becomes virtual harassment, is the LUST for continuity, which ignores logic, is unembarrassed by evidence, bypasses the entire cohesion and collusion of ALL lines of evidence, the nature of the universe as shown in ALL examples, and invents the myth, the concept of results from inadequacy of logical predecessors, that logic is invented by chaos, order is the product of disorder, that what was disordered was the product of nothing, and that the degree of order in the disorder, in order that it could be conceived up at all, this too was the product of nothing; and that the whole coded marvel comes from nothing, or nothing worth mentioning, or better, nothing that CAN be mentioned, for if you mention it, the scientific and logical requirement is very simple. It had BETTER BE ADEQUATE.


    • Where else in all the world is that called science which ignores even a timid, feeble and humorous attempt at reason. Here the sequence, the real continuity is this: What is the least likely concept to cover the case ?



    • What is the least likely sort of interpretation of NON EVIDENCE ?


    • The most irrational.


    • What is the most irrational interpretation of law ?


    • That it comes from what is neither law nor equipped to produce it.


What is the most logically illegible manner of describing what we find: that each bit made the next, or that they played games together and made them by concert, amidst their disorder which was so overcome in its chaos, with admiration, in the mind which was not there, for the mental byproducts which were, that it decided to join in and accept the new thing, and have itself given a birthday...

It is not, however, that mentality has taken a holiday altogether. It is a constant hope: LIFE MUST be on Mars, X-rays MUST make Drosophila, the fruit-fly, advance - so try to MAKE it happen in vain, for 50 years; intermediate forms from the past MUST be found, so gyrate with excitement at each uniformly failed exhibit when it comes, for it will not last long - it never does when research is not impeded by deceit (as in was in the Piltdown case); major phyla MUST have graduals on the way (even though Professor S.J Gould declares with admirable candour ... but what he declares must now wait till point 3) below, for it seems best to provide now a little conspectus to complete the garden border to this natural show.

After all, it is amusing, instructive and a warning to the sensitive mind, to see the thrust of history, that of thought, in this connection: in this secularistic zeitgeist of this hour, everything MUST be imperfect, raw and so on, until it is demonstrated with that sort of fidelity to fact which must make many a rouged intellectual cheek blush beneath its urbane anointings, that in actuality,  there is comprehensive functionality, unity, code conservation, structure with precision, utility with miniaturisation, technique with thrust. Ignorance blasts: NO! NO! it is raw this world. Knowledge replies: Put your theories where your facts are. It is not the construction which is raw, but the repetitious propagandas of dissatisfaction, a mode instead of repentance, which is arrested times without number, by the observations of reality.


Now may be an opportune moment to adduce some of the elements of this discontinuity from areas already present on this site, simply for convenience of compilation.

  • 1) Looking at the Burgess deposits of Cambrian rock in British Columbia, Canada, Gould has called out in anguish. Gradualistic evolution is contra-observational theoretical clap-trap. That is his message.

    Noting that 15-17 PHYLA not currently in operation were present in those Cambrian

    rocks (so very near the theoretical commencement basement of biological life forms) with perhaps
    32 now in operation altogether!; that instead of a cone starting from the small and rising to the
    expanded, life is seen, by the current theories on the rocks, as starting with superabundant
    exuberance of forms and structures, designs and procedures, which NARROW in time (p.47,
    Wonderful Life): he expostulates vigorously at gradualistic theories in their enormity. Well he

Nor does this irrationalistic or gradualistic case fare better, as was shown at the School, if we turn to
fossils. Professor George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard University has declared:


One might now add to this, from Denton (op.cit. p. 136) concerning NOT MERELY the absence of these transitions, but the RESULTS if they had in fact happened, and merely not been found (though even on that Thompson has pointed out the enormous scope of observations now). Noting the hierarchic pattern of classification which in fact exists, in terms of the inter-relationships of the various living beings  (something which is natural to thought, but abhorrent to its absence), Denton says this: "There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral or transitional forms can be permitted to survive."

IF ANY of the "hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived, and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the division would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes." No "purely random process of extinction would have eliminated so effectively all ancestral and transitional forms, all evidence of the trunk and branches of the supposed tree, and left all remaining groups: mammals, cats, flowering plants, birds, tortoises... so isolated and related only in a strictly sisterly sense."

Indeed (p. 294), he notes that "lungfish, monotremes and all the other favorite links of evolutionary biology give no hint of their supposed transitional status at a molecular level" parallels the fact that "many morphological features" of their equipment were never easy to reconcile with their "supposedly transitional status". They have rather appeared unique and isolated. " Indeed, lungfish exist to this day, and their ancillary equipment is of its normal kind, just as its gill equipment is normal. NO TRANSITIONAL organs or CREATIONS are to be found. The theory therefore that this is what happened, is merely an incitement to rebellion against the empirical facts, principles and logic.

 Order and orderliness are the criteria in the field, and in particular, the unitary, intellectually compelled character of the code relationship to the performance requirements. There is no Babel there! The criteria match only mind and authority. Chance does not author hierarchy, intellectually precise divisions, no exceptions, no transitions, unique and prodigiously crafty modes, instilled without variation. If one were to ask some primary school students, in a gifted class, how chance related to this criteria, as a word, they would reply, without doubt: antonym.

We even get from this field, yet one more indication for dating purposes. Thus Denton notes that  "Many insect species are practically identical to the fossils found in Scandinavian amber some fifty million years ago. If the differential generation times observed in modern species had been maintained for as much as fifty million years, the fruit fly would have undergone fifty thousand million more generative cycles than the Cicada. Yet the proteins of different insect orders are equally divergent from those of vertebrates!" {Fruit-fly cycle, 2 weeks; that of cicada, 17 years!}

It is scarcely an exaggeration to say: FACTS are the ONE THING which organic evolution meets as enemies, and dismisses as varlets. One might add that the concept of millions of years is not in accord with these findings, either.

2) Likewise Shute mentions the "independent origin of eyes in so many phyla, or of breasts in the three subclasses of mammals, for example the Monotremes, Marsupials and Placentals." To this he adds: "And yet the mammae of the Monotremes differ from the rest fundamentally".

Again Shute (op.cit. p. 81) notes the similarities of eyes in man, octopus and cow; and indeed they are "cast" in for their roles with a delicious freedom attached to unwitherable technical skill.
Just as product and intelligence criteria are met, definition fulfilled (*46 supra), so here we have an a fortiori development. What then would be correlative to product presentation, and the exercise of intelligence ? Why this: Freedom of thought and creativity in the process!

In other words, while there is nothing here in favour of any concept of ORGANIC transmutation, what IS discernible is something of a different order or nature altogether. It is DELIBERATIVE DESIGN. Whole networks of order and design (that could in this be compared to exhaust systems or carburettors in motor cars - though those would be enormously simpler - finely milled to a low level of tolerance) may be transferred to other uses AND adjusted or specifically developed, so covering, now in this creature, now in that, certain features for the individual.

That is the fact. Moreover, neither the mechanism for the organic theory nor the transition series to
illustrate, appear. If one reviews definitive statements by specialist after specialist, one reads that ABSENCE of such transitions is deplorable or frustrating or mysterious or challenging or a major problem, or the major problem, or systematic...

3) The genetic and logical realities are so well reflected, but from the standpoint of observational data
(which match to perfection, in total synthetic verification), we have this also quite clear from Stephen Jay Gould in Paleobiology, vol. 6 (1), January 1980, p. 127:

    The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in
    organic design, indeed our inability, even in imagination, to construct functional
    intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic
    accounts of evolution.

4) Indeed Cambridge physicist, Professor Fred Hoyle (q.v. and cf. *46 in Ch.2, SMR), observing an "intelligent universe'', inveighs against theories not reckoning with the inability of "natural processes'' to "generate'' the vast "information content of even the simplest living systems'' ... which the data
show; and sometimes uses a form of academic mockery to match the fantasy he deplores in
gradualism, and impersonalism. (The Intelligent Universe is in fact a title of his.)

5) Hoyle (New Scientist, 1981, London, p. 527) says rather aptly:

    Anyone with even a working experience of the Rubic cube will concede the near impossibility of
    a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 10 to
    the power 50 blind persons (standing shoulder to shoulder, they would fill an entire planetary
    system), each with a scrambled Rubic cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all
    simultaneously arriving by random shuffling (random variation) at just one of the many
    biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating
    program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is
    evidently nonsense of a high order...

Hoyle, on his basis, however, 'has it made', compared with the actualities. First of all, not only do you
have what he presents; you also have to invent the systematic groundwork which the cubes symbolise
(both in form and law, and order and space and in their correlation). He has hardly begun, and he has had more than enough! Trying to get something out of nothing is always nonsense of a high order, whether taking it slowly and gradually or not. The case is only made worse when you want to get the capacity to err out of the capacity to obey laws, the capacity to conceive out of the capacity to be positioned, and the capacity to will out of the capacity to be willed.

Fantasising about what is not seen to happen, on a magical basis of inadequate cause for progressing
from nothing... is not science; and having a system which has what it takes in the beginning is merely
begging the question - the only point being the particular way in which it is begged. Mathematics is no readier to such a project than logic or observation, law, means or principle.


LET US ADD TO ALL THIS: What IS ready is rebellion against scientific method, logic and empirical reality. What is also ready, is the Biblical ground for this fact, which has nothing to do with knowledge, indeed, as evident, is tilted against it with a visionary vehemence. It is the disinclination of man to believe in God. Now you may at once say, Nonsense! or of an older upbringing, Stuff and nonsense! Nearly everyone, according to polls, believes in God!

Your fact, if dear reader it is even you who would reply thus (but one would hope present company excepted, still...), one can agree at once on the data to which you refer. Polls often show some such thing - 90% in such a country believe in God and so on. However, apart from the question of applying these findings to the whole earth, there is this other facet of the case. EVEN THE DEVIL believes in God, by Biblical testimony (James 1).

On the other hand, this has some impact on our INTERPRETATION of the data, to the extent it is accurate, that most people believe in God. WHICH GOD! or WITH WHAT FAITH! If the devil believes in God, he believes in Him as an enemy, indeed his name MEANS just that - adversary. Now the devil is cleverer than many, to say no more, and perhaps he finds it more difficult to smile in the face of the evidence so blithely; and besides in HIS OWN CASE, he is called "the father of lies", so that his belief must be a rather intricate construction, or so it would seem, of lies and fathering lies and beliefs and seeking to countermand belief; and really, one would prefer to leave the case to any psychiatrist who is not having satisfaction with the secular bases of his attempts to help the soul of man (which is not so much helped when the treatment posits the non-existence of what it is treating - cf. SMR Ch.4).

The Biblical picture, however, not one's own thought, is the object of this exercise. It is to the effect that man is alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in him, and that the whole history of the affair involves a projection of personal will against overwhelming evidence in the interests of non-truth fulfilment of personal desire (Romans 1, Ephesians 4). WHY ? Ask some psychiatrist! The human heart is desperately wicked, says the Lord, deceitful above all things. Who can know it ? I the Lord know the heart ...

Mere mortals could not hope to plumb the hideous depths to which the heart of man can fall; but they CAN tell the wonderful heights to which it can be regenerated (John 3, II Cor. 5:17ff.). After all, NONE OF US is not a sinner; and ALL who are Christians have been redeemed by the cost of the blood of Christ, killed a sacrifice, the ONLY atonement fort the soul which weighs in with the death cargo, or freight, of sin. The liberation which HE confers is not to Black Sea aristocrats, or Tiananmen sophisticates, who overthrow the voice of moderation and kill anyway; it is to LIFE and life more abundant. After all, He made it (SMR Chs.1- 3); He understands it; and all that you, reader, are personally, He not merely understands, but has created (ex-sin and spoliation); so there is no danger of the reductionist frauds who would mislead.

Also He, Jesus Christ,  was not highly paid... He just spoke the truth, manifested God as God in human form, and paying the penalty for those who should come, abstracted from the scene, but not without providing for His Holy Spirit of power and grace, to work in those who are His. THAT, it is life in its REAL continuity: not of metaphysical reality, but of derivative charm, where you acknowledge who and what you are, and delight to co-operate with the God who made you, and to love Him, who though He is just, has shown a mercy which gives to it its name.

  • "But when the kindness and the love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by grace, we shall become heirs according to the hope of eternal life"- Titus 3:4-7.

  • Actually, when you consider the realities of code, and the obvious fact that Professor Eden of MIT so stressed, that you cannot CONSERVE language in the fact of chance invasions of the code (something which Denton beautifully demonstrated likewise - op.cit. pp. 308ff.) - it is useful to apply the obvious to OURSELVES. Just now I was spell checking some of the words in this Biblical quotation just given, and had failed to check one of the substitutions. Thus what I INTENDED was muddied first by my own typographical error; and THAT was altered by the programmed EFFORT to replace it with something in some ways rather like the ERROR which I had made. The result: the word 'renewing' in just two mistakes, became something like 'tended'. Similarly, 'Christ' became 'chart'. THIS (one would hope)  was in the presence of at last SOME intelligence, and indeed, it did not even take ONE thousand years - just a day!


  • Repent or Perish Ch. 7 gives some first conception of the ENORMOUS series of areas of their own function and competence, which have to be SATISFIED if one is to produce what is produced and KEEP IT in ANY sort of order!  One  admits, that at 71, one is not quite the specimen one was! Errors are treated perhaps less forgivingly by the body! But there is a special and select ground for marvel concerning the complex and intricate marvel which is put so liberally at my disposal - admittedly I have freely put it at the disposal of its Maker with a great sense of privilege, since it cost Him so much to make the way for me. It is this: Having been MADE (creation is something I like), it is SUSTAINED (maintenance to me has less appeal) in ANY sort of functionality over the generations.


  • Denton (op.cit. p. 267) speaks of this error matter: "The only possible escape from the paradox of self-destruction is to envisage a very high level of redundancy in the proto-cell."  Each cell would need plenty of extras...  "One of the implications of such redundancy would inevitably be the existence of vast quantities of randomly coiled junk protein in the cell, a reality which is almost certainly incompatible with cell function. Such junk proteins would stick randomly to various entities in the cell and tend to combine in a haphazard manner with all its essential molecular machinery..."


  • Another way was implemented : enormous copying ingenuity, for making new cells. That is always the way: enormous productivity in the field of intelligence, the deployment of limited resources for systematically efficient, effective and result-related productions in an integral manner for a coherent overall purpose for the organism; and this to the point of amazement at the AMOUNT of intelligence DISPLAYED (cf. SMR pp. 211ff.).


    • For the believer in the Bible, this is PREDICTABLE;
    • it is a necessary consequence of the INTELLIGENCE of the maker of our derivative and limited intelligence,
    • that His works should be EMINENT in the exhibition of the QUALITY of their intelligence.


  • It is the height of irony, that the most bitter enemies of God (we might as well face the issue), are the more effective precisely to the extent that HE has equipped them with JUST the intelligence that is in fact His, with the ability to deprogram the facts in such assaults (cf. SMR p. 212), in a masterly and lawyer-like fashion; and the more so, in that the case is hopeless in advance. Such enterprise, such zeal: how religious, really, is unbelief!


  • But one word more on the intelligence and the copying and the wonder at the - no, not improvisation, for that implies a meeting UNDER given circumstances - imagination and practicality of the Maker of the replicative machinery.


  • Anent that: one reads with a sense of profound awe the account of the proof-reading PROGRAMMATICALLY INSTALLED (this gives one great joy to consider, since it is not a particularly pleasant task): not merely is there one type of exclusion of error (in cell copying), but further DEVICES perform ON this resultant, to reduce residual error to minute dimensions, by an organised and dual approach. As it is written (Psalm 139:14):

    • "I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    • Marvellous are Your works,

And that my soul knows very well." (On more of this Psalm's description of the body procedures, now verified,  with simplicity and accuracy, see Joyful Jottings 16.)

This is  consistent with WHAT WE FIND,  this amazing fact, that most of us are fully operational after what the evidence attests is quite a few thousands of years! Do that with other equipment without servicing and see how it goes! Simply, this is better made, with more devices, more miniaturised, more equipped with stable circuitry, more resistant to calamity, more composed in fixity than our products; but that is not all, it is also more equipped WITHIN category, for brilliant responses to the environment resulting in wonderful diversification WITHIN KIND. The fact that the multiple devices to achieve this, currently a subject of conspicuous research, are brilliant in conserving while within limits adjusting, is merely one further attestation of mind at work, programmatically, purposefully and effectually.

  • ALL that is demonstrated (Ch.1,3 SMR), is CONTINUALLY verified. THAT is the message of SMR Ch.2, in essence, in life ; just as Chs. 8-9 show just the same in prophecy, a subject as vast as life, but one in which precise propositions, exact words that we can read without being technicians, are presented. After that, history is presented; and with this, comparison is instituted. With this, perfection is found, just as, to use Denton's term, it is found in the prodigiously brilliant techniques inherent in living things. Logic, in avoiding senseless and self-contradictory crucifixion of its very being, attests the same (Repent or Perish 7).


  • These are some of the grounds for the necessary classification of Christianity not with the religions of unreason, or unempirical hope, but alone, as META-RELIGION, where fact, logic and evidence like a giant trio, make their mighty song to the world, though it be deaf.