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

See Update material also at SMR Ch. 2A

FROM CHAOS (In Theories) TO PATHOS (In Errors) TO BATHOS (In Extremis)

As a further symptom of folly, let us recall here the trees embedded as fossils - running upwards through a number of strata representing... geological ages! (See the work of observation of Dr Steve Austin, noted in some detail, pp. 164 ff. supra.)

Trees visibly moving or placed upward through the strata of several alleged ages are therefore theoretically, prima facie... many millions of years old, having grown quietly through it all. Is that the answer ? Or were they buried as Austin's trees in fact were buried ? As attested by observation. Dr Austin has shown on the field, how trees can come at just the required, observationally noted angle, lodged in and proceeding through material that, old as it may be imagined, was in fact compacted in a brief and violent manner in the recent (consult your papers) eruption of Mt St Helens. As for the evolutionists' ludicrous presentation ? Some trees, some dates!

The oppression of evidence by theories is not in the interests of science, nor is it in method in any way related to science. On the contrary, Biblical revelation and observational science concur wholeheartedly, while reason, using the second, attests the first.

Rates? That was a rate! Trees, taking millions of years, or millions of seconds; the refurbishing of an Age, or of a couple of years ? Now let us revert to Dr Slusher who has considered the rate of flow of (what the astronaut landing on the moon showed to be, in part) basalt rock. The point was that masses of bombarding meteorites or missiles had hit the moon at a time which, says Slusher, evolutionists normally take to be before life on earth. Why ? They tend to assume this because the moon missiles, meteors colliding with the moon, would be expected to wipe out life as they indifferently pounded the earth also, at a similar time. That is their scenario, that of evolutionists. Slusher now applies such a thought.

Calculating very exactingly, he works out that the time required for the recovery of rock shape from these impacts (still visible in no uncertain way) would be of the order of a few thousand years. On that basis also, life would have been installed after that time... (Slusher's work is dealt with an article in the Creation Science Quarterly, September 1983, pp. 105-108. He has written with Richard E. Mandock under the title, The Age of Lunar Craters. His relevant works are cited elsewhere.). It would have been created within the past few thousands years.

It is Dr Slusher again who, as earlier noted, has pointed out the extreme time limits which the still spiralled character of the spiral nebulae impose, the similar time limits on comet life, on the rings of Saturn; and the virtual indifference of any time as adequate for particle formation on the assumed gaseous bases customarily imagined for an early step. That has the additional difficulty of not getting started, even if from an illogically presumed material base, at the beginning. (See Chapter 1, supra.)

All of such points are moving as rates - as Dr Slusher reviews the evidence, to the conclusion of an age of this earth of several thousands years at most, or as he states, to a different and better formed beginning being needed for the results we have.

Mental interruption of the works of God's intelligence by the irrational static and ceaseless chatter of rebellious human philosophy would of course make for just such a situation: when that intelligence is implicitly assumed by those who want some of His products, without having Him around. This causes confusion for man and judgment likewise. The Biblical statements echo through the evidence of creation and contradiction, and they likewise predict the wilful suppression of the evidence (II Peter 3:1-7).

All this, in the area of rates, is intensively verificatory of creation of objects and the miscreancy of human subjects, in general. Considerations based on assumptions which are not confirmed in any case by the general tenor of evidence in life, as we have extensively shown, and which are not verified in observation or in areas of implication, and which in fact lead to discordant and contrary, and at not infrequent times, to ludicrous results: these things do not attest a rational alternative. Nor is there one.

Logic itself merely smiles with disdain at evolutionism.

It laughs at the adventitious riots of illicit thought,
demanding of one order of things, all the others,
even when the one has contradictory capacities to the other's,
even when they are neither latent nor patent,
and likewise there is  neither capacity nor creativity to match;

while the sheer exuberant abundance
of form and format, contrivance and consequence, wonder and marvel, inward worlds and universes of attainment, and outward bounds for their display,

flits like a dizzying crowd of swallows across the horizon, laughing at need, lording it over the surface with swift and deft movement, unbounded by ground, unconfounded by height, not flung by wind but driven by a dynamic of their own.

The evidences cited in this chapter are in conformity with the speed and eruptive suddenness of creation. Any imagination that there are comparable rates for the institution of a system (such as now works before us) and its maintenance is as illusory in logic as delusive in detail. (For *37 - *40, see also Ch. 2 Supp. pp. 252G ff., infra.)

40 Pleochroic halos: the first term means 'many colours'. The phrase refers to marks made in rock (or other confining medium) in which radioactive substances are located, in some cases. Where that radioactive substance is polonium (derivable by decay from uranium), there may be only a few seconds (indeed for one isotope or variety of it, perhaps 1/1000 second) in which it 'lives' before disintegrating into other substances.

Where there is no evidence of the 'mother' chemical from which the polonium is derived, then it is argued that on known evidence, this suggests creation of the polonium. Further, with no source apparent, either it came to its location through cracks in the rock, or through a liquid state, such as that of molten rock.

Often finding no evidence of rock cracks at a location, the researcher looks at the molten method for enclosure. In that case, however, the rock needs to cool within minutes or seconds or micro-seconds, depending on the substance in view: so that the radioactive particles, being trapped, can make their impact on a solid or semi- solid substance, so leaving the now visible 'halo'. (Cf. pp. 164-165 infra.)

For such cooling, drastic change of temperature with the immediate presence of the polonium, made separately, appear indicated. The 'fit' with the nature of creation or as found later, with its correlatives, such as the enormous movements and dynamisms of the flood, is ideal: it is the sort of thing to be expected in its giant thermal upheavals, just as is the enormous amount of sedimentary rock, often high, over the earth's surface in parallel. This is indicative of a grand-scale flood on the earth, in the simplest terms. just as the lack of cleavage lines for the 'lower' rocks (those that 'should' be low, in the series of strata but are not...) when they are found higher, similarly indicates practice without theory, fact with fiction for gradualistic misconceptions. The little erosion between layers in multi-layered rocks, at times thin in deposition confirms the matter, for relatively short time exposure to erosion, as do vast planation surfaces in the form of matching plains over large surfaces of the earth, with signs of intense pressure, pointing to extensive scouring.

In the face of evidence that explains with multiple attestation of a singular and exceptional event, simply making the actual sequence fit the theory becomes farce. So to insist and act in the face of conflicting and unmanipulable evidence is the reverse of scientific method. It does not face what it has and cannot rationally account for what it assumes.

The evidence is for suddenness, as famed geologists Cuvier and Agassiz argued so well in the last century; it is for speed; it is for depositing in one way or another of the elements of chemistry and life, and the movement of giant forces of water and rock.

Peter in II Peter 3 speaks of wilful ignorance, and of the frequency with which this will be met, in men's departure from the evidence of the flood, towards the end of the Age; while Paul warns Timothy of the perilous practice of men who will give themselves to science falsely so-called (1 Timothy 6:19-20). Both these predicted events now appear, one as a specific and the other as a giant trend in history: and this is another verification along with the evidence itself. (Cf. Romans 4:17.)

This area of 'halos' has been the specialty of creationist scientist Dr Robert Gentry, who has not the gradualist's dilemma to face here! He has insisted on the enormous importance of these halos.

Amid vast research and mounting evidence, these halos point to a time, as research continues to show, far removed from the present in type, one now found to fit with that tumultuous season of the universal flood, irreducible to current-type scenarios: inundation sui generis, has left many marks but no marks for gradualism.

The irreducible facts do not bend.

The abundant irony that these polonium halos are reported found in pre-Cambrian granites (the evolutionary theory would put such at the earliest, which puts this stress on sudden formation on that rock) is not lost on those who hear so often the arrogance of gradualists. In essence, these seem to imagine that time is God, and nature is creatable without a creator if only you have the... time; oh, and the matter; oh, and the space; oh and the structure of things in which this is to happen; oh, and the language to put into the cells of living materials; oh and the laws to put into matter; oh and the powers of analysis to superimpose themselves with systematic structuring and architecture on the matter: oh and the powers of enabling laws to 'find' and apply themselves, and coherently and intimately to integrate apply themselves themselves on matter, which neither analyses nor wills, while 'tossing off'... man.

Yes, but apart from these myths- "profane and vain babblings" is the phrase Paul uses in context (1 Timothy 6:20-21)... myths from mockers who, as in II Peter 3:4-5, will be calling into question with derisive contempt the action of God Himself as a Person - apart from the fact that such activity is indicated by the Bible in its analysis of man and his ways: there is this additional fact. This folly (*47) is to zoom to a maximum as the end of the Age comes.

Another fact: this is in parallel and exact accord with all the other symptoms of the end of the Age examined in Chapters 8 and 9 (infra). God's mind has encompassed man with the strength and perspective, the grandeur and the simplicity of which attest His majesty, verifying continually His unique sovereign power.

41 HUSE: pp. 26-27- cf. Paul D. Ackerman, It's A Young World After All, pp. 104 ff.. See pp. 163 ff. supra.


'Imagined' is the point in science. Anyone can imagine, given normal intellect and human nature. It can be great material, in the line of poetry, novels, cartoons, certain types of political commentary - really great or merely sardonically called 'great'. Children may imagine; and their imaginations may be poignantly appealing, or rambunctiously amusing; and so on. But when it comes to a special phenomenon called science, one no greater but specific and distinct, then we need to beware of special pleading in endeavouring to make definitions which in the manner of a propaganda ploy, give the name and type of dignity of science, to the performance antics of what is in fact merely meretricious metaphysics. It is fatally easy to re-define science so that its verifiability and impersonality become lost, but the kudos relating to these things, is far from lost. In that case, a slide, a name misapplied, some illusionism with words, and plausible propaganda replaces hard thought. It is easy; but illicit.

Now to be sure, metaphysics is not all bad; not by any means. It is just that it often takes off from a plane of imagination and lands on a moonbeam. Science, by distinction, often takes off from what is indisputable - at its best - and lands on what is a clever, comprehensive and formulated presentation of what is going on. Not, incidentally, of what is not evidenced.

On the way, it is publicly testable, demonstrably verifiable, and even then not too thrilled with itself, as to detail, lest more data humble its proud suppositions, making it relent, if not repent, and try again. (Cf. pp. 145-174, esp. 154-5 ff. supra, and 931 ff. infra.) Science per se is disciplined. (Cf. pp. 330, 332E-G infra.)

It is because of these criteria that it has a measure of reliability and a measure of dignity, and that the term 'scientific' is not readily held in disgrace; though of course scientists when, like many others, becoming bumptious or bustling with their own importance or ideological preferences, may be digraced, as Lord Zuckerman seems to have felt with no little sorrow, by non-scientific errors. As he showed, this they may freely do as if it were science, facts being disregarded for the love of theory.

Imagination which does not have such criteria of test, purging, refinement, collaboration with other verified hypotheses and so on, may be just a marvellous exhibition of the lust for wonder, for new worlds or fabrications of pert fantasy. It is indeed not to be disregarded just because it may become the intellectual parallel of a moral libertine, in such a case. This creativity ideally, this facility is part of the wonder of the creation called man. It does not really matter if this or that pedant, scholar or sophisticate happens to prefer to call that 'science' which is mere merriment with the imagination. It is stringently necessary however that a word-game be avoided, in which the manipulation of terms obscures realities of fact. This becomes a logical slide through ambiguity.

Thus the use of the term 'scientific' for the febrile and more rollicking gestures of the human fancy is not recommended. It is not just a question of terminological abuse: it can readily become a source of profound confusion. Thus the type of attention given to testable, verifiable, carefully constructed, rigorously formulated, precisely probed work called science, can then be switched to the type of situation appropriate to children's fantasies. Then by verbal molestation, the spurts of fancy are suddenly accorded the toga of truth, or at the least, the pullover of perspirational, intellectual work, as if toiling with and on what is to be found by inspection... careful inspection, not mere insurrection against the facts, or riot against logic.

It is for this reason that W.R. Bird's attempt to bring in a sort of pseudo-sociological survey of who says what about science, does not affect the issue. Whoever says whatever, it will always be error to bring the well-grounded kudos of one thing, earned in one way, to the name of another. Perhaps two definitions of science would help: one for work and one for play, word-play. (See also Ch. 3, esp. pp. 311-316.)


Professor Søren Løvtrup of the University of Umea, Sweden, gives some useful summary, relative to his own review of the evidence. Thus he declares in his Darwinism:the Refutation of a Myth (p. 352): "I have already shown... that there are now considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not fit the theory." Professor Nilsson, somewhat earlier, demonstrated much the same: Gould, Hoyle, Grassé, Denton, Thompson Schützenberger, and Eden (q.v.) likewise sharply decry its agèd elements.

Again, p. 351, Løvtrup relays the design point that "neither in Nature nor under experimental conditions have any substantial effects ever been obtained through systematic accumulation of micromutations." Even man-the-manipulator seems significantly harassed in the mere task of engineering from pre-made vital parts! That experienced author is constrained to conclude that (p. 352) "only one possibility remains: the Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false." These statements may with advantage be compared with pp. 145-162, 82-88, 109-110 supra, and in particular with Popper's acknowledgement (p. 145; cf. pp. 150 supra, 199-232, 311-312 infra).

Indeed Cambridge physicist, Professor Fred Hoyle (q.v. and cf. *46), 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.)

Hoyle, like many before him, stresses the total integrative, mutually meaningful, separately ludicrous character of many "all or nothing" components in highly specialised living equipment, without which items, effectiveness as well as functionality itself, alike are missing. One does of course need to point out that however and whatever the way-stations might be, the end is the same; in the beginning what was sufficient was present or in the end what is the result simply... will not be obtained.

In fact, systems - not least living ones - are operative integrally, and man has yet to make more fascinatingly brilliant ones than he carries with him from birth. They so operate in unity, unison, character: whether in symbolic logic in cell language, correlation of parts in mechanical system, formation of parts in cell construction sites, information cohesion in language style, member-units and controlling operational concepts, execution of administrative control direction, co-operation of parts so gained, storage of information, duplication of information, re-creation of control-executive agents and agencies, co-ordination of specialised cell types, as of organic structure specialities, or adaptation of the whole to coherent total meaning or unitary performance in varying test situations.

Further the semantics as well as the structure of the language are both operational realities necessary as precursors to effective "speech", and so action.

It is then that the meanings which sound semantics, inbuilt into the cell, transmitted, can reveal themselves. It is then that this meaning can be set forth, live and act; it is then it may demonstrate no hidden plan or project, but rather one which is visible in its performance criteria. It is not suppositious or surreptitious, but in action - as one brilliantly dazzling whole. Layer on layer, cell components, molecular sub-units, atomic sub-units, fragmentary sub-units of these; and going upwards, organic components; organic correlations; overseeing control in nervous systems; overseeing thought using the same; and on and on it arises till man in his own conscious cognitive capacity, and arbitrary potential, albeit one that is self-disciplinary in scope, may be seen. Then spirit surveys the operations of Spirit, and with the glorious freedom given, may do so with asinine oblivion or with contemplative enthralment at the constructive powers shown: powers so great, that in the case of man, even wilful misconstruction is made a meaningful outcome, code-named rebellion.

In another perspective, nearly half a century ago, Professor R.B. Goldschmidt, who served as a Professor at the University of California (cited by Gish) pursued his theme with similar anguish at folly. He noted and listed various high technical marvels of life ARRIVING UNHERALDED AND ABRUPTLY, and posed well the absurdity of gradualism in yet a third perspective. In this he is not unlike Professor Gould of Harvard today; for Professor Goldschmidt cries (it. added):

The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (*48) (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear (*49) suddenly and without any apparent transitions ... American Scientist, 40:97 (1952).
Indeed, in a growing swathe of scientists now, with famous examples, he was weary of pretence, exposing those: ''who claim that the facts found on the subspecific level must apply also to the higher categories''. He pursued the point in a way many have yet to heed:
Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude towards those who are not so easily swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine. It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations ... American Scientist, 40:94 (1952) (*50).
And as to the selector, man, he ... is intelligent (*46).

Whether therefore it be in the mathematical- technical texture of life, its logical-linguistic expressions, or in its abrupt appearance, the former in the least of it, the last in its dispensations: or rather in the stultifying refusal of the laboratory to co-operate in any rational test, either biological or in computing schematisation, as noted at the Wistar Symposium ... what do we find? It is this: a highly justified near delirium of dismay is besetting leaders in thought who face data and not God.

Let us however return to Professor Løvtrup. Continuing in lament, he asks of the theory, "so why has it not been abandoned?" ... noting they -'follow Darwin's example - they refuse to accept falsifying evidence." This topic in our present work is extensively reviewed.

Assuredly evolutionism, the dream-time of much of the Western world - in whatever organic model - has a lavish share of what myths require. (Thus its construction is not buttressed by any observed operational data and it is contrary to all known operational laws for its support.) As roué and habitué of thousands of Classrooms, mythicised and mystified, it has served its generation with the required... delusion (II Thessalonians 2:10).

44 See *43, *36 supra; also pp. 149-151, 160-162, and compare pp. 204-207 all supra.

Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith in his Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (pp. 300, and 139-140) notes tracks showing "five toes and an arch which is unquestionably human" (it. added), in Carboniferous formations. The maker of these imprints - their setting marvellous indeed - W.G. Burroughs, Professor of Geology at Berea College, Kentucky, calls 'Phenanthropus mirabilis'. Measurements made indicate a length of 9½ inches, breadth 4.1 inches at heel and 6 at toes.

Professor C.W. Gilmore of the Smithsonian Institute collaborated in the work. Photographs were published in Antiquities (May 10, 1938), which magazine indicated that similar tracks had been also found, in Carboniferous formations in Pennsylvania and Missouri; the latter in fact closely resembling human prints in S.E. Asia. The date set by current 'orthodox' geological theory - 250 million years old. These 'dates' are parallel with those of other finds, pre-dating even the Glen Rose and Laetoli cases.

Wilder-Smith notes Albert C. Ingalls (Scientific American, Jan. 1940 - The Carboniferous Mystery - also with photographs), who gave citation of extensive findings of such arresting footprints, ones which repeatedly appear, in half a dozen U.S. States. (Relevant dates cited around 300 million years. Marvellous endurance!)

What repeatedly disappears are facts congenial to the fantasy of evolution, which domineers in their absence, as luxuriantly attested as waterfalls in the desert.



The body is indeed an inter-related system. Not least, it is a managed (*51) system of robotics: codal, chemical, vital. Computing, engineering, mass-production, assembly-line robotics, advanced mathematics, all interact in a way to which the mind of man, as analyst, is BEGINNING to leap, in its quest for its own limited creative work. Man's built-in system is before his own enquiring mind; he has the professor's work to study, to train his thought. The maker of man precedes the machinations of man. (The term 'man' is God's trade-marked copyright).

Let us study this further.

Beyond the greatest attainments of our race is this: the body which each member of it uses. Man outshines all his own creations, as a fait accompli, before he ever creates.

However, this body can be damaged - its structure, bones: its complex functional reproductive areas also, at macro-level, as with other organs; or at micro-level. Reproductive cells and their components - even programming codes that activate chemical robots that construct cells for the next generation: these too can be afflicted.

Though heavily guarded and defended, the transmission of data is not invulnerable, whether in the reproductive data-base, or elsewhere. Hence deformities can indeed be transmitted, of more or less moment; defective genes can be reproduced, mutations occur.

Dr Ted Steel's insistence on pathological incursions, on disease-activated alteration - say to the immune system (ANU, The Australian, p. 3, Dec. 6, 1994), moving into the area of reproductive typing, is of interest - no more - in the illusory field of organic evolution. Here the rational question has always been - not this:

1) Is man's system impregnable to change in any area ? Is it invulnerable in the code-room to disease ? Is its reproductive system immune ? or are those vital premises inaccessible to disease-engendered diversification, to ravaging assaults, salient impacts, to the dynamic of graded and ungraded stimuli, moving through the activation, de-activation, re-activation, mis-activation or invasion of the genes ? . . . but this:

2) Where did this system come from ? and this:

3) How is it so highly organised as to render most junior by comparison, man's highest conceptual, structural, engineering, accomplishments, his most advanced functional designs ? What is asked is this:

4) Who has contrived this system ? What called to be this correlated, co-ordinated, integrally multi-disciplinary masterpiece - one that in turn acts as equipment for a mind and a spirit that move in splendid facility, in the imaginative triad called 'man' ? (See pp. 348-350 infra; and Ch. 1 supra). What contrived, composed, conceived, constructed that technical triumph, that creative wonder !

As noted, there are many forces, there are many stimuli to the system in situ, to which it can respond, activating, de-activating, re-activating or abusing it, in many ways. A new generation may receive from its predecessor, and receiving, pay . . . So-called pleiotrophic genes (multi-task supervisory, sub-system managing) might multiply such destructive, warping or deforming, such mutant effects. The pith however remains this: What created it ?

An accident (cf. pp. 81-88, *18, supra) is not an automobile plant, nor is it an automated production facility: nor is an incident an engineer, nor is a corruption a code-maker, an event a signification, a happening a command, an impact a conception, nor is an embroilment the equivalent of synthetic, symbolic thought!

Accidents have interesting results, not in all circumstances materially regressive for a given purpose. To be sure, they could have superficially advantageous results . . . Thus belly-fat could conceivably be sheered off by an unforeseen impact (though it could be a sanguinary affair). However that is no systematic advance in the design, in the functional, synthetic criteria of the system; and it is this, when we are examining the construction of such systems, which makes demands upon reason. Accidents indeed may diversify cars (for example, a mudguard of a 1963 Pontiac, knocked off in a slow trip, might conceivably reduce petrol consumption . . .); but they do not build them. They do not moreover fabricate, create manufacturing premises, the genius of which is opposite in kind.

Like viruses, accidents may 'modify' productive premises. They may even reach to the core codes, in the case of sophisticated robotics costing billions of dollars to instal and operate: these however they do not make. They do not construct them, or for that matter, make their power to absorb undesigned impacts (those unforeseen, undesired, or anti-functional); or intended ones (covered in the scope of the code: design-correlatives). As to these latter: in the case of complex living equipment, provided with a complex range of inbuilt, programmed responses, this variable is an awesome and impressive option. Not amazingly, moreover, many genes are subject to alteration like any other maulable hi-tech equipment. The marvel is the depth and efficiency of the defence of 'kind', in the case for example of the human body, as an exponent of life (see pp. 140-145 supra) - the rigour of its copying, even to hundreds of generations; and of its power to produce such copies, to hundreds of generations, and this despite the ever-growing impacts of 'mankind's' misused environment - whether spiritual, mental, physical or terrestrial.

The requirement to the point - to achieve and account for the depth and height of biological life . . . ? This is not horizontal byplay at any given level; but rather is it vertical ascent which is integrated, codified, empowered, activated, sustained, secured, achieved and enforced. And, of course, observable . . . All that is foundational. Haphazard 'helpfulness' is not systematic construction; the onsets of evocative stimuli are not the genes with facility in their systems to respond (like car alarms), in certain cases. Confusion and creation are alternative options - but not for reason.

The logical need we face: it is arrival, not survival. It is construction - not constriction, emplacement or displacement. We are not in effect, talking of 'bombing'; of pathological environment; of invading the factory (here in the special case of human life in particular). Our topic is the building of it: not onset, but outset; not its impact-sustaining or -responding powers, but their origin. UPGRADING of codal design specification, of synthetic symbolism with its implementation - not irruptive intrusion into prepared premises: this has demands that nothing can demean ... Indeed, as for man the surveyor of this scene, human life, like the rest being 'finished' as God's creation: here such upgrading is never seen. Our time is God's display-unit, not His easel.

For the precise emplacement of this item in Christian-Apologetic procedure, see pp. 316B-C, *18-*19 infra. In effect, just as Ch. 1 shows the necessity of God, and Ch. 3 His inescapability, so Ch. 2 (verification) illustrates the lack of rational competition at the level of Scientific Method, to the acts of the Creator. To this reality, scientific method must bow; from this, aggressive myths - in science or elsewhere - may depart.


i) The Quality of Intelligence

Intelligence must not be confused with wisdom, or even rationality when it comes to man's ascertaining and verifying his own source, his own life. Even on the visible side, life in fact - as is the case with many complex, semi-automated, man-made designs - though wonderfully responsive to demands, is active on a rigorous, conceptual, logical and linguistic foundation.

Many thinkers - wilfully without such a base when they direct their normally rational thoughts to this area, in their own voided thought world - idly fantasise life, like little children looking at the work of their parents, yet without understanding. Not in innocence, however, does such ignorance persist to adulthood: casuistry replacing causality, and magic, the work of mind. (Cf. pp. 88, 112-113, 117-169 - esp. pp. 138-141, 202-203, 208-214; 621; Ch. 1 supra; Ch. 3 infra.) It is still logically insufferable to estrange the necessary and sufficient criteria of intelligence from the arena for the play of the word; and vice versa. (Cf. pp. 113-116, 141, 210-211, 251-252G, this work.)

ii) Codes, Concepts and Chaos

As to various sequences, credited with various powers: if in the given case, intelligence confers them, that is well. It is not the case in point in this: that we do not SEE that happen. We act on what is already credited to our life accounts; we simply proceed.

If, then, intelligence seizing upon an ordered system with conceptual implications, with inherent conceptualisable laws, formulable codes, explicable in terms of concepts, wishes to address conceptualised considerations to it, from the case in point, it differs in this. We see it happen, are spectators.

Thus if one is writing, then one could talk of certain sequences of print dots which make up certain letters, and certain sequences of letters which make up certain words, and certain sequences of words which make up certain sentences, and certain sentences which make up certain paragraphs, and certain paragraphs which make up certain monographs, and start all over again on certain sequences of dots... and so on, which in the end make up certain words which make up the bibliography.

Again, as readers, we search it for the underlying defining intelligence; as writers there are underlying items which are managed to the point for our purpose by intelligence, using concepts which are researchable in Ph.D. theses or by Central Intelligence codal specialists, to show what they are; and then these are verified or otherwise and so on. Mind is searching for its prototype, or its parallel, as the case may be; its co-ordinative correlatives in matter. In the process, it often errs, which matter abhors, since it merely does - and error is irrelevant to it.

All this is well, but it is wholly beside the point if it or anything even remotely like it were surveyed in intellectual oblivion, and effort were made to 'explain' or ignore with simplistic reductionism the fact that in the actual case, product required thought and understanding and correlated concepts in ways which are not in the evidenced domain of matter; though matter can modally be manipulated to interpret chatter with the form intelligence chooses to give. In general, the confusion of such things and the facile failure to allow for the purpose-product, analysis-action, method-means distinctions are not really very heartening as an exercise in analysis.

It is the nature of apt means to be manipulable to ends; but they neither create the ends nor imply any, per se; only as instruments... Of what ? of intelligence which moves in the domain of thought where error and imagination alike can work outside the reference point of matter... which, in any case, is known only (or assumed) because of mind. This is what we habitually do; and to fail to note these distinctions in looking at other products is a failure which, though perhaps 'self-forgetful', is scarcely dutifully inclined to the whole field of the known. (Cf. p. 80 supra.)

iii) Products

Products ? For a moment, let us pursue that. Areas, then, of functionality, conceptualisability, integral and synthetic codal or procedural sequences in form or act, with symbolic outcomes of their results: this would seem near the norm for the term. To dispense with the term 'product', while observing the ingredients of what it is... is odd categorisation. If these human lives be not products, the world does not know any; for here is the acme of invention. The world however very well knows plenty of them; it has a certain... reluctance to talk about these in the terms the ingredients provide for definition. It knows precisely what it is to have products slowly slip from their high estate by the second law (hence law) of thermodynamics and to have to re-create them as a consequence. It does not know, find or observe non-products with the insignia of products, or how to provide formal logic by the movements of particles; only through them, from mind employing it, or having deployed it, expressing it in symbols.

To revert to the 'whole field of the known', to which we came before 'products'... if all the things which don't (I speak as a scientist, not a dreamer) happen, did happen, then the world would not be what it is. If the collocation of particles induced thought, it would be of much interest: both in terms of the nature of things and of our observations. However, it is the other way around. Thought can produce collocations of particles, and it is per thought that mind does so, using codes very often to symbolise what is in mind.

Thoughtless references to what contains systematic, articulable, symbolic, integrated, correlated and activated codes and their means of implementation, as if it were simply a matter of sequences, suggest blindness.

What is not seen is that neither do such codes arrive in practice (we speak of observation, that old hall-mark of science), nor does the machinery for its operation; nor as Professor Murray Eden of MIT points out, do we perceive anything linguistic capable even of enduring in time when subjected to chance, which (somehow or other) is currently a code. Code presupposes concept. Concept implies mind, and explains system. ( Cf. pp. 137-138, 140-145, 252B supra; 285-308 infra.)

In Chapter 3, the underlying principles of these delusive confusions are exposed as a case of 'Emperor's clothes', and are 'dismantled' with due rigour. Thus, just as we have found blindness to divine building involves cataracts for matters of definition, so in Ch. 3 we see further requisites to cater to this analgesic blindness: namely the dispersal of the undergirding principles of rationality that concern series, subjects and affirmation. This is shown to be the case, not merely generically, as often expressed in this work, but calamitously in this specialised field in particular.

47 (Cf. pp. 578-579, 660-674, 681, 685-687, 808-809 infra.)

How well does the plight of ancient Israel resemble the life of multiplied segments of our current generation! This should speak to us - loudly! Isaiah 8:19-22 gives a foretaste of the hollow, spiritually vacuous echoes, and the destructive existentialist tremors that work their way to youth, and mock vendors.

And when they say to you, "Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter," should not a people seek their God ? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living ?
To the law and the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
And they will pass through it hard pressed and hungry; and it shall happen, when they are hungry, that they will be enraged and curse their king and their God, and look upward. They will rush to the earth, and see trouble, and darkness, gloom of anguish; and they will be driven into darkness.
How exact is the present correspondence to the underlying cause also (Isaiah 28:16-18), there seen in prophecy, now realised in history: the chronic rejection of the only workable foundation for man - Jesus Christ. As God's advice is wise, so is the penalty able to advise even the deaf, from Age to Age.

48 Drs Tinkle and Lammerts (Modern Science and the Christian Faith, p. 94) note, on size, per se:

If all fossil species had changed into modern species it would be a remarkable demonstration of evolution in reverse... we find the giant beaver... nine feet long, the imperial elephant... as tall as the giraffe and well-proportioned... and horse tails twelve inches in diameter... Many animals and plants of early geological time were not only large but well proportioned and highly ornamented.
The average current horse tail diameter ? one inch, we are advised...


- follows *51 infra.


Notable Polish geneticist, Professor Maciej Giertych, Head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kornik, Poland declares (as cited in Creation, Ex Nihilo - June-August, 1995, p. 42):

What do we see in the short time interval available to our cognition ? An increase in the number of useful alleles or a decrease ? An increase in the number of species or a decrease ? An increase in information in nature or loss of it ? Is nature moving from chaos to ever-increasing organization, or from an organized state towards ever-increasing chaos ? Evolution is not a conclusion drawn from observations.
Refer also pp. 109, 146-154, 199-200, 252A ff. supra.

What is thus found in practice, moreover, is merely what is found both in appropriate simulation, such as that constructed by Dr Jay L. Wile (Creation-Ex Nihilo, Technical Journal, 1992, Part 2, pp. 6-9); and in information theory, which this exercise illustrates.

Thus in his researches, Dr Wile found that a sentence exposed, in computer simulation, to random variation of various relevant dimensions - advantage being allowed, as a refinement of method, to those changes which were more sensible from an interpretive point of view - relentlessly lost interpretability over 'generations': that is, during fresh variation operations. There was a systematic trend to incomprehensibility in the sentence: as space, content, sequence were varied by small amounts.

In this way, a simple sentence resulted in no product that made sense, or even specious sense (allowable words). It was destroyed in the simulation: syntactically and semantically, for any useful purpose.

This simple case is far short of the brilliant constraints needed for the operation of the command-symbol of incredible complexity, and the synthetic inter-relationship of information, execution and sustenance, required in the DNA situation of physical life.

In fact, Dr Wile indicates of this result, even for the simple case, that it "not surprising to anyone who has studied information theory ... (which) states that any highly-developed system of information will be harmed by the random mutation of any of its components." You cannot proceed by destruction, which is moreover, cumulative. (Cf. pp. 14, 134-135, 213 supra, 263-268 infra.)

This fully accords in turn, with the results of Schützenberger, the observations of Giertych and the noted constraints of logic. (Cf. pp. 15 ff., 80-88, 105, 112-122, 130, 133-134, 144-146, 156-159, 202-203, 209-210, 219-229, 251-252G supra, 422H-N, 277, 285-290, 306-309, 311-316G, 330-331, 332E ff. infra; and Index: series, thought, reductionism, rejection syndrome.)

Creation for its part does not cease to gain verification.

What would you expect ? Significance is not chatter. Performance is not direction. Motion is not conception. Chance is not law; the absence of relevant constraints is not to be confused with their presence, and the work of such intimate constraints in dimensionally characterisable products is not to be attributed to their categorical absence. Effects are not without cause (q.v. causality), and the cause must be comportable with the consequence.

The 'perfection' that minutely increases the excellence of a design is not achieved, in its myriad constraints, by brute material motion - properly called bombardment. You do not bomb it better, as Sarajevo well knows. For any chance move in the right direction of a 'brick' or part of a flex cord brought to pass in this way, multiple irrelevant motions that come with it spell disaster, for the statistical bulk of impacts. The city suffers, and the more so, the more intricate it is - and in intricacy what surpasses the human body in all visible designs ? That is precisely why we do not try to build a better city by bombarding a worse one. What is required at each level of input is what must be put in. There are no short-cuts. Magic is in vogue, but not in view.

The myth (q.v. Index) of non-creation exactly fulfills a just definition of myth: the imagination of results without adequate cause, for the satisfaction of desire. (Cf. p. 316A infra.) This particular myth is just one more mirage, founded (ultimately, literally) on nothing (q.v.). Nothing doing. Nothing does nothing.

What is positively required for any species of rational science, or anything approximating what could be called science, or even indeed rationality, is an unmythically adequate cause for existence on the one hand, and for each stratified dimension of it on the other. Of these things, language and thought are one expression. (Cf. Ch. 3 esp. pp. 316D ff. infra.) What that cause - as also of serial causality itself - must at least be, and is, one finds in Chapter 1 supra. Our present interest however is language in particular, and it has yet much more to present to us for our instruction in this area.

#A n   E x c u r s i o n

It may be that some will wish an excursion into more detail in this area, and when pp. 316G ff. and 348 ff. have been studied, then what follows may be considered most readily.

In fact, the affair of language is even more ludicrous than this, when it is considered as the recipient of bombardment. Just as the letters of language are no mere objects, but symbols that operate in a world of syntax, unit meaning and formal constraints of their own, so these in turn relate to other worlds of their own. They operate indeed in a universe of meanings which in turn relate to ideas, ideology, ideational syntheses and refinements of inter-relationships, purposes, sectional program, logical developmental structure, inter-active phases and phrases, figures, features, feeling, finesse, aesthetics, formal and operational functions, integrative hierarchy of control, thrust and focus, with cumulative consistency-constraints and sensitivity at all levels to contamination.

This sensitivity item applies at the level of each system and sub-system, and then retro-actively to the ultimate functionality of the whole, which in this way comes to be faced with sectional change of tone, or feeling, or analytical co-ordination or consistency and so on. The destructive efficiency of a medical virus at the control level, is merely one illustration of processive barbarism in the midst of multiply disciplined thought, semantics, signification and significance at all levels.

We have taken the occasion to consider language more generally, but to do so in order the more to conceive the type of situation which it evokes. We do however have before us the result of constructive action - that is, we are operational human beings. We consider simply the function; and with it, the finesse and sensitive webbing of inter-relations behind this. Of this we are avid, astounded learners. Nor should we be so astounded: for as functioning persons, we ourselves are constantly aware of the high wonder of our performance characteristics in thought, feeling, ideas, perspectives, aesthetics, morals, spirituality, mentality and intelligent understanding.

The synthetic, finally unitary, directable, yet prepared concourse of correlated components is like a dream of marvels, that would leave the U.S. national highway system, complete with earth-works and signals, signs and bridges, a silly little joke by comparison. This is provided for one person: but we ? the race... we communicate and may co-operate, each in various groups, so that multiple communication-highway systems have intermittent, intelligible arrangements with each other, formalisable by contract, but equally susceptible to nuance and nicety.

If of all such a relatively simple national highway system, we expose the structure, the form, the features, the functions, the pathways, the signs, their time-tabling and the bridges: all this, to random bombardment - do we still expect it to function after trillions of such uncouth alterations ? Any bureaucrat would be likely wisely to regard a Director who expected success from such operations either as possessed of a rare form of madness, or as an enemy agent - though possibly on drugs, drunk, or seeking stress leave by deceit.

Operationally, this is the principle of the cytological situation. Logic, symbolism, signification, semantics, rules, channels, consistency, direction, control, co-ordination, performance on this basis, integration of performance components, timing and sequence, myriadfold specialties compounded to progressively eminent and functionally exalted conclusions are in place, just as in our example. It is admittedly a poor one. The case surpasses such simplicity as the highway system and all the cars in their goings, to an extreme degree. That however only serves to increase the impact of the facts. (Cf. pp. 332F ff..) The principles in all such cases have been considered therefore; and they apply causatively as has been and is in detail shown (esp. Chs. 3, 5 infra), pervasively.


At the language area, then, the question arises: How is there to be preserved this myriad-formed concourse of symbolic, syntactical, analysable, semantic, synthetic signals and operational performance... in something creatively effective... ? We need not be concerned in this, at the merely physical level. It is a problem which has been solved for us in the wonder of DNA, and its associates, its editorial controls and the symbolic magnificence that performs such wonders in a kind-preserving work... and indeed, language in its various formulations, installations and evocations, is part of the preservation, in genes as in Genesis, of Kinds.

If however we do not beg this delicious question: How can any language (possessed of the facilities and functions the possessor shows) be fostered, or even preserved, by bombardment ? - the answer is simple. It cannot. Cascades of changes successively fail to conform to, but rather attack, through lack of both understanding and intelligence, the massive constraints operative and required. Invasion is like that: it may serve this or that, here or there; but its nature is unakin to the system it assaults, on which it makes its incursions, to which it comes with small or no regard for the requirements of order, efficiency and operability.

It is indeed a case comparable to that of bulls joining football teams, neither knowing focal constraints, nor caring for the rules or for that matter, the performance - grossly or in finesse - of the game. The game could not go on. The program would be ruined.

In general, and of necessity, massive non-conformity is no answer to the logical requirement of continual, sensitive characterisable, synthetic, symbolic and operational conformity. You can of course attribute an opposite as the cause of what it denies, and indeed of what it attacks - but not with reason; and that after all, is currently our field...

If a language and all the operational features it entails (whether in the conscious arena or not) cannot continue with random incursions into all or any of its system, again let us emphasise, how much less could it thus be built!

What then of man ? The individual is equipped with spirit (q.v. esp. pp. 348 ff. infra), and this has a conscious, cognitive language of its own - with personal powers of creative thought. That is one wonder. That we should also have our pre-prepared, readily utilisable material equipment with its operating system and language, beneath our vital, personal activity, allowing ready and inter-active movement with our physical and vital environment; that our inbuilt cell-language is preserved from unsystematic dissolution (for a fascinating time of function), both by the unit or cell and by inter-connected billions of units in synthesis, and this through magnificent defence and management procedures, written into our physical coding at the cell level: this is simply one characteristic, but here brilliant phase of what creation is always all about.

Adequate power beyond the system, produces in the system, what is beyond the certifiable power of the system to produce. It happens in hats, short-stories, buildings and surgery: what is needed is able to be received as necessary input; but the recipient system is not able to produce it. (Cf. pp. 316G ff..)

Whatever the level of such input, that is the attestation of creation. However, since that is the issue here, it cannot be used unless invoked by name: creationism. If not, then one notes that the power even to preserve language is not effective without its first being formed. You cannot preserve a fortune before you make it. Making it is the point. You must create it first. Each symbolic, and in the cells, directive level and feature must be granted the privilege of existence. For each, the causation must be adequate. As to the features and foci, the functions and systems, the scope and significances, their more extended review here merely extends the requirements of and for that adequacy. The machinations of magic may have their moments, but in the end, there is the answer of reality.

The fact that you could not preserve language by bombardment thereon, is simply an added woe to the something-from-nothing irrationality, which as we see continually in this work (see Chs. 3, 5, 10 and Index - nothing, causality, irrationality) is a mere contradiction in terms. Such a proposition first destroys the validity of the thought from which it comes; and what is destroyed is by its very nature, inoperative. That can do nothing which is itself dead; nor attack anything which first itself fails; nor logically deny anything, which first denies itself.

The supervening, consciously conceptualised, purpose-error structure intimate to our spirits with all their involvements, is then simply one more marvel - greater in freedom and significance than the first - where we are permitted personal involvement. This, with its language conception and control, including the power to break and make rules, issues one more requisition for its causative source. Language in its cognitive and non-cognitive forms issues its own eloquent call for the multiply causative systems maker, and for the causative ground of its integrated character.

Creation is as always emphatically and obtrusively attested in a cumulative and comprehensive way. Its verification never varies. Other paths are built on air; or perhaps in this case more aptly, on the bombardment of guns on what isn't there. Little children in toyland may try to "create" in this way, but they have to mature. Imagination is a wonderful thing; but in the end, the job has to be done.

Indeed, it had to be done. It is time to realise this: As to our world - the pantomime is past; the phantasmagoria of philosophy does not create it. Such flurries are themselves merely a creation of the mind of man, and that ? modelled by the mind and power of God Almighty, it can misuse its capabilities, abort its procedures and forget its Maker.

51 Dr Michael Denton (see pp. 114 ff. supra) 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. See *52.


Indeed, we could go further. There is in evidence a supreme independence within creation. Just as similar creations, products, may be constructed (as we have just noted Denton has shown) with diverse principles; so too may most diverse objects employ similar modules (cf. Denton, op.cit. pp. 109-110). Such is the genius of creativity: untamed, exuberant, intelligent. Through versatility, neither is art enslaved by method, nor is technique dimmed in brilliance in the presence of art.

Dr Evan Shute in his brilliant work, FLAWS IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, p. 169, mentions Onychophora, a class of creature resembling an annelid in "having more regularly arranged nephridia, something not seen in insects. But it has tracheae, like simple forms of those used by insects and centipedes - something worms never have". He mentions Peripatus, with body-wall musculature like that of worms - but resembling insects in having TWO pairs of appendages serving the mouth. Such composites do not "fit the tidy taxonomies of biologists", but a "living form can share the morphology of other lowly types without being related genetically". This of course is wholly contrary to evolutionary expectation, as Shute observes.

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, Masrsupials 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...

We have reviewed such declarations not a little. It is all there: there is no mystery about that. The cries seem to come more and more from the heart of unbelieving scientists.

Not only is there a whole series of different suggestions about these gaps. We have attested that they are an avenue to a) increasingly divergent and b) increasingly ridiculous theories, even in the eyes of others of the evolutionary faithful. This is one of the greatest areas of chaos this ludicrous fantasy of evolution supplies.

All the time, what the evidence is actually exhibiting here is creative interchange of elements of design, new uses with variation of complex functional units, interesting recombinations of custom-built variations of original equipment. What the evidence shows indeed is this: that simplicity is NOT required for the more lowly creatures (ONE cell is a living monument to astute complexity and an organisational inter-relationship, reminding one in miniature - but beyond that in marvel - of the British World War II war-effort, in its interstices and co-operation, and direction).

Even Cambrian trilobites - therefore supposedly in the early orders of biological life - not merely have eyes (equipped to perform a task per se specialised in its nature and in its contribution); but, indicates Parker (CREATION - The Facts of Life, p. 92), many were possessed of visual apparatus highly sophisticated in its specifications. Indeed, Gould (Wonderful Life, p. 227) considers them to be "deep in the lower Cambrian", while Shute (Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, pp. 5-6) deems them "highly organised", displayed in "earliest Cambrian rocks", and possessed of "a complex respiratory system".

Further in overwhelming virtual fossil satire, this group of creatures is found in abundance! The facts mock the theory of evolution. (Cf. p. 110 supra.) So far from its being required by them, it is lampooned, parodied, burlesqued. They, the facts, are its deadly enemies. And these, they minutely follow creation, rather like a sophisticated assembly plant, with simple jobs done with complex concepts, and collaborative equipment units.

As with the work of any great designer, even relatively simple models, then, can convey a depth, a meticulousness and - one could say - a majesty of scope and mastery. Indeed in the actual case of life, the majesty is there, even where the things are simple.

In this way, God is quite evidently and actually attested; and the alternative is evidently and actually denied. For the theoretical and logical and linguistic elements, see under 'Design', in various contexts.

Design is the name of the game. Mathematically, systematically, logically, evidentially, inferentially, the case is this: the criteria of design are satisfied, and the criteria of non-design are not.

Nor is this all. The ways - well-rehearsed in human life ... the criteria of creativity make their own intimate impress, wear the subtle forms of authenticity.

Creatively in conformity with all of this technical wonder is another wonder: it is the exuberant surge of enormous variety of life, of form, type, triumphantly splashed onto the early Cambrian canvas. This astounds the greatly impressed Gould (loc.cit.), who stresses the subsequent "decimation", loss, narrowing of life left, time 'creating' a constriction of life, not abundance.

Creative design has the force of consistent realism. Its absence is an assumption which aborts facts (even in the draping of an alien theory!), insults science and accounts for the evidence by invoking an irresistibly ineffective ghost, which superintends just such LOSS as a first creation would predict.

What happens is the opposite of what is imagined; what is imagined is just the opposite of what happens.

Go to:

Previous Section | Contents Page | Next Section