Clandestine Echoes

As I was drafting the previous post, I happened to read through liber primus of Ovid's Metamorphoses. I wish I could understand the latin original more smoothly, but I haven't been practicing Lingua Mater very regularly over the last few weeks and poetic syntax is such a barrier to my rudimentary comprehension abilities. So for both our sakes, here is the link to an English translation.

The most interesting correlation was between the four created Wevel and the four elements of Ovid, which I never intended, but have somehow been forced into establishing. The Wevel were initially conceived as spiritual governors of the four fundamental forces, Alero - Electromagnetism, Ilvesu - Gravity, Oleri - Weak Nuclear, Uleva - Strong Nuclear. Of course, over time, they accrued a whole lot of other associations, which ranged from the emotional and temperamental to the racial and locative. Now, in writing the creation of Eldwan anew, I find myself writing in such a way that the Wevel align fairly well with the elements of Ovid's creation. This leads to an odd mish-mash of pagan ideas with biblical ideas. My more conservative side rebels against the blend of oil and water, but I have to add that Tolkien did something similar with Arda and that went brilliantly. I suppose the key is to emphasise the ultimate authority of the initial creator.

Reading Ovid's epic, the passage that leaped out to my imagination was this :

Then earth from air, and seas from earth were driv'n, 

And grosser air sunk from aetherial Heav'n. 

Thus disembroil'd, they take their proper place;

The next of kin, contiguously embrace; 

And foes are sunder'd, by a larger space. 

The force of fire ascended first on high, 

And took its dwelling in the vaulted sky: 

Then air succeeds, in lightness next to fire; 

Whose atoms from unactive earth retire. 

Earth sinks beneath, and draws a num'rous throng 

Of pondrous, thick, unwieldy seeds along. 

About her coasts, unruly waters roar; 

And rising, on a ridge, insult the shore.

I had wanted to associate each of the Wevel with a particular realm before, and perhaps one of the Aristotelian senses, but this passage cemented the elemental parallels in my imagination. I'll give the main alignments of each of the Wevel systematically.

Alero

Fundamental: Electromagnetism
Drive: Curiosity, Exploration

Regional: The High Heavens, space beyond the atmosphere

Classical Element: Fire
Sensory: Eyes, Sight

Ilvesu
Fundamental: Gravitation
Drive: Prudence, Reflection
Regional: The Deep, the seas and subterranean reaches of the earth
Classical Element: Water
Sensory: Ears, Auditory and Vestibular

Oleri
Fundamental: Weak Nuclear
Drive: Isolation, Originality
Regional: The Skies, the earth's atmosphere
Classical Element: Air
Sensory: Nose, Smell

Uleva
Fundamental: Strong Nuclear
Drive: Interaction, Cooperation
Regional: The Land, the land surfaces of the earth
Classical Element: Earth
Sensory: Tongue, Taste

It might be worth reinterpreting Metamorphoses, or its counterpart in the incorporated fabric of Eldwan, as a corrupted retelling of the associations of the Wevel and their domains, rather than as the Wevel being strictly tethered to whatever pseudoscientific associations that Empedocles' quartet has accrued. The Eldwanian Greeks are supposed to be descended from the Alarians after the Deluge, so that would also make sense. Thus the Eldwanian creation myth I published in the last post would be an odd meld such that the biblical creation and hellenistic creation myths would both be its derivatives, either embellishing as in the case of Ovid, or withholding information, as in the case of Genesis.

An Overview of Eldwanian History - The Creation

New information calls for new incorporations, or at least a decision over what to borrow and what to leave aside for Eldwan. Those of you who have read the series of Resolving Genesis posts probably know what is coming. This is a revised account of the creation of Eldwan, with more detail and commentary on the symbolism involved.

CISEL

Eleyon is and time began. In the stillness of the ether, contemplating the form of his existence, Eleyon formed within himself three persons, and in such a mutual comprehension he has remained since. Encountering nothing else in the etheric void, Eleyon creates Alero and Ilvesu in paired harmony, shortly followed by Uleva and Oleri. Eleyon named the four created spirits and himself the Yevel, the wills of ether, and all was in accord.

Then Eleyon wove strands of energy, fluid and fine, from the ether and set them into a grand tapestry. Threads interweaving and braiding into plexi, a plane of energy was formed on the vast cosmic loom. Eleyon now breathed life into the fabric, commanding it to teem with consciousness. So it was that the souls were formed, and Eleyon named them the Wevel, the wills of energy, and all was in accord.

Then Eleyon began to knot threads of energy into the dust of the world, aided by the other Yevel and Wevel, and the cosmos grew heavy with matter. Ilvesu gathered the substance into one place, and the Yevel and Wevel did hover above the surface of the mass. The dense sphere Eleyon named the earth and gave dominion of the deep to Ilvesu, and all was in accord.

Then Eleyon told Alero to bring light into the world, and so Alero did. Eleyon separated the light from the darkness. The light Eleyon named the day and darkness he named the night. Eleyon gave the rule of the heavens to Alero. Now there was evening and morning; the first day, and all was in accord.

Then Eleyon told Oleri to shape the firmament, separating substance from substance, and so Oleri did. Eleyon named the firmament the sky and gave dominion of the airs to Oleri. Now there was evening and morning; the second day, and all was in accord.

Then Eleyon told Uleva to gather the substance below the sky, and to let dry land appear, and so Uleva did. Eleyon named the dry land the ground, the gathered substance he named the seas and gave dominion of the ground to Uleva. Then Eleyon spoke to some of the Wevel and worked with them to make the ground and the sea bring forth grass, herbs and trees, each bearing seeds according to their own kinds. Now there was evening and morning; the third day, and all was in accord.

Then Eleyon told Alero, Ilvesu, Oleri and Unavo to fasten lights in the expanse of the heavens, to mark the passing of the days, months and years, and to give light to the earth below, and so the Yevel did. The Yevel crafted two great lights, the greater to mark the day and the lesser to mark the night. Stars they also made. Now there was evening and morning; the fourth day, and all was in accord.

Then Eleyon told more of the Wevel to let the seas be filled with living creatures, and the sky be filled with winged birds, and so these Wevel did. They brought forth fishes and beasts of waters in thousands of forms and sizes, and winged birds in the air, each producing young according to their own kinds. Now there was evening and morning; the fifth day, and all was in accord.

Then Eleyon told the last of the Wevel to let the land be filled with living creatures, walking or creeping over the ground, and so these Wevel did. They brought forth beasts of the wild and beasts of the field, and things that creeped over the ground, each producing young according to their own kinds. Finally Eleyon himself made man and woman, and when they were made, Eleyon granted dominion of the plants, the creatures of the sea, air and land to them. He blessed them and told them that all the green plants were given as sustenance, to subdue the earth with kindness and wisdom, and to be fruitful and multiply. Now there was evening and morning; the sixth day, and all was in accord.

Then Eleyon looked at all he had brought into being, and he was glad that all was in accord. Thus were the heavens and the earth completed in all their fullness. On the seventh day, Eleyon rested from what he had done, blessing it and sanctifying it, for it was a day when all the Yevel and Wevel rested.

Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Septem

This was the final session in a very illuminating series on creationism and evolution. The speaker wrapped up his section on the dinosaurs and quickly breezed through several other topics which he included in the appendices.

I. Dinosaurs and Deluge

II. Docile Dinosaurs

III. Defunct Dinosaurs

IIII. Dragons Defined

V. More on the Ice Age

VI. Racial Characteristics and Racism in Evolution

I felt some of the final topics he shared, some of which I have not included in the list above, were more speculative in their nature than most of the topics dealt with earlier in the course material. Among which, the canopy theory was mentioned; this was an idea that I examined in an earlier post and am not eager to discuss again.

I. Dinosaurs and Deluge

If fossils are simply a reflection of the action of the flood, then the position of dinosaurs in a creationist timeline is quite simple. They lived just like any other reptiles in antediluvian times, and would also have been present in Noah's great vessel. The speaker also points out that the dimensions of the ark would be sufficient for all kinds of land dinosaurs to board, based on a few key points. First, it would make logical sense to bring the young of dinosaurs onto the ark, as they would be logical candidates for the subsequent repopulation. This also implies that the gargantuan kinds of sauropods and other similarly proportioned lizards could be represented by far more manageable and miniature adolescent specimens. Second, the speaker estimates that there are only about fifty or so kinds of dinosaurs, which does challenge the number of species of dinosaurs that are supposed to have existed. It is worth noting however, that a genesis kind may not accurately reflect a single species by a modern definition, and variety within a species may be so great that their skeletal remains may induce too fine a subdivision upon examination. Third, the speaker points out that the nutritional demands of reptiles, even large reptiles, are much lower that that of comparably sized endotherms. If food supply was an issue, Noah would have had a harder time stockpiling for mammals than for dinosaurs.

The speaker points out that there is really an assumption that man and dinosaurs could not have lived contemporaneously. I remember my young self looking down with disdain on comics which featured dinosaurs masticating hominids or on friends who had the apparently mistaken impression that the terrible lizards and the wise men could have looked each other in the eye. Yet, I have no good reason for such a belief apart from evolutionary indoctrination. If one would consider the dinosaurs simply to be another sort of reptile, which has unfortunately gone extinct, there would really be far less of an unease accepting this point. There are plenty of other species which have gone extinct, so is it so hard to suppose it could have happened to these beasts? I'll save more of this for part III.

II. Docile Dinosaurs

The speaker points out that the majority of dinosaurs were not fearsome, towering behemoths, but rather, small and herbivorous. He also notes that many of the carnivorous dinosaurs were probably scavengers rather than active hunters, and this category includes the tyrannical-lizard king. Another point submitted was that not all animals with sharp teeth are carnivorous. As examples, he provides the giant panda and the fruit bat, both of which have pointed teeth, and yet one munches contentedly on bamboo while the other flits about from fruit to fruit.

All this contributes to the speakers point that dinosaurs could have existed at the same time as our rather naturally unarmed ancestors. There is no reason to suppose that man could not have subjugated and driven out dinosaurs just as we have practically done away modern predators. There is an attention bias towards the plausibly magnificent and terrifying members of this extinct class of reptiles simply because they make for better publicity.

III. Defunct Dinosaurs

Now, to address the obvious query, if the dinosaurs were ensconced in the ark, where are they now? The speaker draws in more flood geology at this point. Most flood geologists agree that after the flood, conditions would have been vastly different to the climate before the earth shaking cataclysm. Chief among these changes is the precipitation of an ice age. Altered wind and ocean currents, the high humidity and volcanic ash would have contributed to a runaway temperature drop, and the resulting ice age could have lasted several centuries.

Proceeding logically, with a frigid conditions descending worldwide, ectotherms would be more adversely affected than their thermally homeostatic counterparts. In addition to the climate, the survivors of the flood would face food scarcity as there would be a lack of mature vegetation to support their appetites. So it would seem that many of the kinds of dinosaurs, particularly the larger ones, or k-strategists, would have perished in the hostile new world they found themselves in.

IIII. Dragons Defined

The speaker now moves on to discuss whether there are any records of dinosaurs by the ancients, ore recent evidence of dinosaurs in general. He quotes several unusual finds of preserved soft dinosaur tissue, which would have long deteriorated by evolutionist eons. Unfortunately, he once again does not provide much needed citations for these discoveries.

There are apparently many examples of dinosaurs found in the art of antiquity. Cave paintings of creatures that look remarkably like modern visualisations of dinosaurs have been found in Native American and Rhodesian sites. From what we know about early prehistoric art, people were not inclined to imaginative depictions of fantastical monsters, but painted what they saw. There are also ancient Chinese sculptures, Roman mosaics and Mesopotamian artefacts which could easily be representations of dinosaurs.

Of course, as you would have noticed from this section's header, the ubiquity of draconic legends could easily be attributed to a hazy memory of what we now dub dinosaurs. The speaker notes many similarities between dinosaurs and dinosaurs :

1. They are reptilian in nature.
2. They reproduce with eggs
3. There are varieties of both, in the air, in the oceans and on land
4. They are scaled, armoured or smooth skinned beings.
5. Many have horns or spines

There are many mentions of dragons or reptilian beasts in world legends, from Gilgamesh from St. George. Finally, the bible itself mentions dragons many times, though this is sometimes obscured by translation. Most notably, descriptions of the Leviathan and the Behemoth in Job, which some scholars suggest may have been written in antediluvian times. Other references include Deut 32:33, Psalm 74:13, Isaiah 27:1, Jeremiah 51:37, Ezekiel 29:3 and Micah 1:8. The speaker also notes that in Genesis 1:21, the hebrew word 'tannim', usually translated as 'sea monsters', could easily encompass aquatic dinosaurs.

V. More on the Ice Age

The speaker quotes 'Willmington's Guide to the Bible' and explains that extremely high humidity would have been the primary driving force behind the ice age. If the flood was global, then all the areas which would have become our modern day deserts would have been utterly waterlogged. For a long while, these waterlogged areas, which would otherwise be dry, would have served as vast reserves of water that would be evaporated. Evaporation itself has a cooling effect, and increased cloud cover would have affected albedo. The great clouds would have been carried north and south, and precipitated as rain or snow for extended periods of time. The buildup of ice led to the formation of great glaciers, which shaped the geography of the continents in the ways that are still evident today.

VI. Racial Characteristics and Racism in Evolution's Past

In one of the final points that the speaker makes, he recalls evolutions darker associations with eugenics, racism and genocide. During an age of empires and colonial subjugation, it was easy for evolutionists to suppose that aboriginal peoples of various lands represented missing links in the chain between apes and the white man. Evolutionary beliefs carried to an unsavoury extreme were what justified wholesale murder and experimentation on subjugated peoples, in the belief that such processes would benefit humankind by accelerating our evolutionary processes, enforcing the natural law of 'conflict' and victory.

Racial characteristics could easily have arisen in the reproductively isolated populations of humans after the tower of Babel incident. But it is worth noting that evolution in the full sense of the word has not happened,all humans, everywhere, are still human beings.

Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Sex

This past Saturday was the penultimate FBI - Creationism session, and the speaker went through :

I. Fossil Evidence for the Flood

II. Geological Evidence for the Flood

III. A Diluvian Explanation for the General Characteristics of the Fossil Record

IIII. The Cambrian Explosion

V. Fossil Fuels

VI. A Mechanism for the Flood

VII. Introducing Dinosaurs

I'm rather conflicted about where I should take Eldwan now, given that I had an alternate inclusion of issues like continental drift and catastrophism, and a local flood rather than a global one. I wonder if I should alter my mythos or just remain with it to postulate a different universe instead of one with many parallels. Anyway, moving on to the material presented:

I. Fossil Evidence for the Flood

Now that it has been highlighted, it does seem very odd, that there should be intact fossils of fish in a scavenger laden environment like the ocean. Instead we observe many fossils, buried rapidly and intact, some in the process of consuming other fish. This implies a catastrophic event which was responsible for such burials in a swift and interruptive manner.

Additionally, animal fossils are also found in massive fossil beds, the remains of creatures piled up on one another, implying a large catastrophic event, rather than gradual accumulation.

Trees are also found buried in geological strata, cutting through many layers at once. These polystrate trees do away with the idea that the strata in between could have been formed gradually over millions of years. Some of these trees trunks are even found slanting or upside down, which defies any explanation that they were gradually buried while they were still alive.

II. Geological Evidence for the Flood

The speaker notes unusual geological formations, such as submarine river canyons, such as the Hudson river valley. This canyon extends far beyond the modern sea coast. If there was a flood where water covered all the earth, we would expect to see large canyons formed as the water drained back from continental land. Other canyons such as the Grand Canyon would also have been formed from similar massive runoffs, with concomitant erosion carving huge structures. The present day rivers are rather out or proportion with the canyons they are found in. The same evidence, viewed from a different perspective. 

Furthermore, how does one really expect that layers upon layers of rock can be added on dry land, without rain or wind eroding each layer. The ground does not remain undisturbed for fossils and dirt to accumulate in the natural world. Are we to accept that it did happen simply because the time scales claimed boggle the imagination?

The types of rocks found, sedimentary, turbidite or conglomerate rock, all suggest movement of 

III. A Diluvian Explanation for the General Characteristics of the Fossil Record

This section was a little contradictory for me, as the speaker had spent a long time discussing the incompleteness of the evolutionary history as presented by the geological column. Now he states that there is a general order of fossils found higher or lower than others, though there are plenty of exceptions. His point was, if the implications of a flood are considered, there would be a semblance of progression. The immobile, simple sea organisms would be buried first, since they would be quite helpless in the face of the great movements of soil and silt brought on by the flood. Second, other sea life would be trapped. He points out that the vast majority of fossils are corals and shellfish, followed by sea plants and marine invertebrates. Next amphibians, which are found in low lying, water rich areas, would be buried next, then slow moving reptiles and animals. Animals that could move quickly would have been able to avoid disaster for longer. Finally of course, human beings, who would have understood what was happening and known their local topography, would have headed for higher ground as much as they could help it, avoiding mudflows and burial, eventually drowning. Their bodies, though, would be floating above the sediments churning in the waters below, and would likely be decomposed instead of fossilised.

If this explanation is true, there would also be room for some exceptions, as there might be poor unfortunates buried much earlier than their peers or vice versa. Evolution is unable to counter these apparent anachronistic anomalies.

IIII. The Cambrian Explosion

The Cambrian Explosion is easily explained by the flood, mudflows trapping a vast numbers and varieties of sea organisms to produce an abundance of fossils. Evolutionists can only state that it was a period of unusually fast evolutionary action and mutation, which sounds rather unconvincing, harkening back to punctuated equilibrium.

V. Fossil Fuels

The speaker submits that there is a lack of evidence that naturalistic processes can form coal or oil. Experiments have been done that show that fossil fuels can be formed rapidly under the right conditions. Once again, I wish the speaker would give footnotes for these facts which are seemingly pulled from the nether. The speaker also references the pressures that oil is found under, when it is tapped. He states that such high pressure would not have lasted for so many years, rather the oil would have dissipated into the surrounding rocks.

VI. A Mechanism for the Flood

We now move to a possible way by which the flood was enacted. Genesis 7 notes fountains of the deep, which are hypothesised to refer to vast subterranean vaults of water, which could have been released by a cataclysmic event through the earth's crust, blasted into the earth's atmosphere along with dust, which would lead to massive amounts of precipitation. There is a view that holds the mid-atlantic ridge as the site of such a fracture. The uplift of the seafloor would have pushed the continental shelves far apart, and this would also have had the effect of triggering tsunamis. This would have pushed the continents apart, including an explanation for continental drift. The ark could have survived all this tumult by floating over the waves, as tsunamis are not dangerous in open water, but only when their kinetic energy is destructively dissipated along the coast. Eventually, the tectonic movements would have slowed and the new seafloor would have cooled, sinking as it did. This would allow water to drain back into the oceans, creating the river canyons as they did so.

VII. Introducing Dinosaurs

The speaker simply begins with the fact that dinosaurs are also a part of creation, and were made to reflect the glory of the Creator. There is no reason why they cannot be fit into the biblical narrative like any other extinct species. It could be noted that dinosaurs may have survived and thrived in an antediluvian environment, but after the flood, the climate was too adverse for them and they died out. He stops about here, leaving the rest of the dinosaur discussion for the final FBI session.

Nominal Distinctiveness

Before the series on Creationism continues, there's a little issue that needs to be sorted out. 'The Radiant' is a terribly overused epithet in fantasy and games, and upon realising this, it no longer appeals to my fringe sensibilities. 'The Radiant' was, after all, a filler name, given in place of 'The Shining Wings', which proved to be awfully clunky to type repeatedly. On a tangent, most of the names I've given my characters in the some twenty thousand words of the draft are filler names, what with Tas Eldwaraj still being a conlang with morphemes in flux.

The name I've decided to go with is 'The Luminosa', which is another expression of the fact that I may have been studying Latin a little too much. Even the article is setting me off. Perhaps it should just be 'Luminosa'. I'm conceiving it as a Latin second declension neuter plural, but since I am, jarringly, writing in English, I have decided on an adjectival and demonymic form of 'Luminosan'. First, luminosa is already an adjective derived from lux, lucis, and second, Rome, Roman; Greek, Grecian. It felt classically appropriate. Certainly not a Luminosite or Luminosese.

I hope to continue working on Tas Eldwaraj sometime soon, after I'm done with Wheelock's Latin, and when my order for a book on Sindarin comes through. Learning Latin has so expanded my understanding of grammar that I feel like I cannot continue developing my own language until I learn more about languages and grammar in general. I hope not to end up in a situation where I am calling something a 'verbal action noun' when there is a perfectly good term like 'gerund'.

I don't think I'll bother going back to change all the names of my earlier posts in accordance with this one. This can serve as the marker between posts utilising 'The Luminosa' and those employing 'The Radiant'.

Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Quinque

Today's study dealt with further problems with evolution, why evolution is still so appealing to some, and the speaker began to move into the second part of the content, which was de diluvium. These are the sections I'll remark on:

I. Problems with Gradual Evolution

II. Avian Origins

III. Why Some Scientists Still Accept Evolution

IIII. Do Evolutionists Have Any Other Arguments?

V. How is the Genesis Flood Important to the Debate?

VI. Was the Flood Really Global?

Once again, I am left incensed with the fact that no one had given me answers to these questions from the Christian perspective earlier, or simply told me that it wasn't very important to have to know. The speaker did go a little into an odd, out of place, section on Polonium radiohalos, which might be more appropriate to next week as the speaker used it as evidence for the flood rather than in direct discussion about evolution.

I. Problems with Gradual Evolution

The speaker noted that several transitions would have been nigh impossible for creatures to make in a gradual way, such that each change and required mutation would have some beneficial selective advantage. Basically, this was the argument of irreducible complexity. This of course, recalled the familiar image of the proposed evolution of the eye. However, putting an oculus aside, there are far more transitions that cannot be neatly portrayed. What of the transition from simple circulation to a full four chambered double circulation? That requires so many changes to the thorax, the development of a pulmonary system and the development of a coordinating system for the four chambers, among other things; and this was supposed to have arisen as coordinated by chance natural selection, one beneficial modification at a time? Animals may look similar and mutable externally, but internally, they are far less flexible.

How would one species transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? From external to internal gestation? Please don't say punctuated equilibrium. The mammalian reproductive system is so complex, involving irritating hormonal feedback cycles, and it is also functionally sensitive to change, as one might ask any couple who wishes for a child but cannot bear one. There is very little room for error in this area, and any errors would necessarily terminate the evolutionary journey of those unfortunate genes. 

II. Avian Origins

The widespread popular conception, as it has been promoted, is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The speaker points out that the lumbering, heavy beasts with dense bone, scales and inefficient lungs would require a miracle to have descendants, however far removed, with lightweight bone, feathers and a most efficient pulmonary system. Another case of external features and similarities being overemphasized while stark differences are blissfully forgotten.

III. Why Some Scientists Still Accept Evolution

The speaker delves into some of the backstory of evolution as it rose to prominence in the public consciousness. The modern theory of evolution may look wonderfully polished, and there are plenty who honestly believe it because they have heard no convincing arguments to the contrary. However, the fact remains that it is a theory that allows the niggling conscience to be put to rest, and the anti-theist to remain comfortably lodged in a haze of sketchy connections. For such a reason it was and is still seized upon by proponents who reject the existence of God.

IIII. Do Evolutionists Have Any Other Arguments?

Homologous structures are used to show that various features have evolved from the same common origin. This is, once again, a case of highlighted similarities and the glossing of difference. Conversely it would be quite expected that if all kinds were created by the same designer, he would use similar structures and solutions for the same common problems. The speaker also notes that homologous structures are controlled by very different loci on the genes of supposedly related animals. I'm not sure where he obtained that information from. I do wish he would fix that and provide better citations specific to the figures he quotes. The bottom of the page feels rather void of footnotes.

Evolutionists also point out the domestication process as proof of how much modification can occur. The speaker notes that all this modification still occurs within the Genesis kinds, and there are limits to such modification. Minute changes do not amount to a extrapolated speciation. On that note, species are also handily defined by evolutionists to their benefit. The speaker points out that God equipped the original genetic codes with layers of extra information, so that kinds could adapt more resiliently to changes in their environment. However, we do not observe changes such as massively new features like a limb or organ emerging, rather only modification of existing structures.

The speaker also addresses the supposed fusion of the second human chromosome, used to support common ancestry with chimpanzees which have an additional pair of chromosomes compared to Homo sapiens sapiens. Chromosome number does not really say too much though. Many other species which are unrelated to human beings, such as tobacco and potatoes, both have 48 chromosomes. There may be fewer genetic differences between humans and chimps, but the fact remains that while we share most of our DNA in percentage, the vast amount of information contained within DNA implies that those few hundredths amounts to hundreds of thousands of differences.

V. How is the Genesis Flood Important to the Debate?

The speaker now moves on to address the flood, which is crucial to our understanding of the age of the earth. If the flood did occur, it is able to explain our fossils and the geological column. Otherwise, such features could only be explained by glacial geological processes. If the flood was literally true, it also reminds us of the uncomfortable truth that God will not tolerate sin forever, and the comforting fact the Bible is true.

VI. Was the Flood Really Global?

The speaker provides several succinct points for why this should be the case. First, the Bible says the waters covered all the mountains. Second, why bother with an ark over so many years when a journey to relocate would have sufficed? Third, worldwide flood traditions from Deucalion to Manu. Fossils on mountaintops would also provide auxiliary support for mountain-blanketing waters. 

Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Quattuor

This Saturday's session had two main divisions:

I. The Improbability of Life
II. The Lack of a Working Mechanism of Evolution

This session really shook me, to look at all of what I've read from Dawkins and other evolutionists in a different light. It's unnerving how convincing their arguments looked to me in my teenage years, packaged up in lovely little softcovers. Reading those same arguments from a critical perspective really uncovers a chasm between the touted scientific method and the conjectures of evolutionists. Taking such a stand invites persecution, but evidence, both personal and observational, points to a Creator God. Incidentally, Crash Course just started a series on 'Big History', which adds yet more footage to support of the greatest mythology of the modern age.

I. The Improbability of Life

From my studies in high school biology, the complexity of life was already something easily apparent, so as the speaker went through his figures, I was not too surprised at the impossibly small chances he estimated for the formation of proteins, ribonucleic material and cells. Though, I was rather amused by the conviction that he had as he made his comparisons, given that the figures he was choosing were probably estimates more than anything else. One figure he rather seized on was in relation to the chirality of amino acids. He had a figure that a protein is composed of at least 410 amino acids. I'm not sure what source he derived that from. All the same, he zoomed in on the chirality of the amino acids in terrestrial life being confined to left handed enantiomers, and proceeded to base his later calculations and figures on the binary odds of each amino acid winding up left handed in a functioning protein. The probability he arrived at was 1/2^410, or 3.18*10^-124, and he used this number to go on to make comparisons with other figures, like the number of seconds that the universe has been in existence - according to evolutionists, 4.73*10^17. On the basis of other such similar comparisons, he felt that the chances of even a single protein forming by chance were infinitesimally minute.

From someone with a little more knowledge of biology, it would seem that his value for the protein probability was far too large. There are other factors that come into a protein's functionality. Structurally, the right amino acids have to be arranged in the right order, which brings in a ton of permutations. The polypeptide chain also has to fold in the right way, which also implies that the amino acids could not have haphazardly be added on to either side. The protein has remain in a stable environment for long enough, implying the need for control of other external factors such as pH and temperature for it to function for extended periods of time. Evolutionists bandy around large numbers that seem to vast to comprehend, but the fact is, after a little thought, the complexity of a single protein trumps all the billions of years of the cosmological mythos.

Evolution gained a footing in a time of scientific ignorance about the nature of cells, when they seemed like simple blobs of organic matter infused with élan vital and spontaneous generation was just being overturned. The complexity of a single cell, even a prokaryotic cell, or one of the domain archaea, should leave us agog. Can we dispense with a romantic hypothesis that the scientific method should long have rejected? Where are the observations and repeated trials that lead by logical induction to such grand notions? Rather, there are tatters of skimpy evidence stitched together by insurmountable improbabilities, shaded by the hazy cloaks of a hypothetical vast eon, as unobserved by any living human as the titanomachy or the construction of Valhalla.

II. The Lack of a Working Mechanism of Evolution

This section of the recording was one that truly got to me, and rather disturbed me about how I know what I know. It's odd how topics in the Theory of Knowledge course are supposed to foster such critical thinking, and yet the same classrooms are venues for the dissemination of shaky evolutionary ideas. The speaker began with the universally denied Lamarckian model, followed by Darwin's natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium. I suppose the speaker must be defining evolution in terms of the development of new information or complexity in the genetic code resulting in phenotypical change. Of all the examples that I have heard used in support of evolution, only only remains standing, that of multiple antibiotic resistant bacteria, which is only really applicable for microevolution.

The speaker, after dismissing Lamarck's ideas; poor fellow, always remembered as a foil to Darwin; proceeds to outline natural selection as the whittling down of populations to those that can survive best in an environment. Natural selection, he posits, does not provide a mechanism of how the variety and change in the organism comes to be, but rather, only refers to the process by which some existing varieties of the organism come to predominate the population. It is a logical idea, it is certainly demonstrable, but it fails to explain how new genetic information is demonstrated and accompanying that, how new features or traits arise. If anything, natural selection demonstrates a loss of information, as apparently unsuccessful varieties are phased out and lost. It rather reminds me of the statistics of how varieties of vegetables and fruits have been narrowed down to a handful popular with the modern consumer instead of the hundreds of localised nuanced expressions of, well, Solanum lycopersicum. Thus, if one extrapolates backward on natural selection alone, one can only arrive at an earlier state that contained more complexity, interaction and kinds of life than the one we observe presently.

So, to prop evolution up, we require a mechanism that generates variation and change in a species. The speaker moved on to discuss genetic drift, which appears to have acquired a new meaning in modern biology, or was misunderstood by the speaker, I'm unsure. The speaker explained that genetic drift was the process by which the genes of an organism's parents could be recombined to produce apparently different traits in the offspring. He claims that the differences between parent and child were once interpreted to be evolutionary in nature, rather than as the result of Mendelian shuffling in zygote formation. This point seems rather odd to me, as I was taught that genetic drift refers to the fluctuations in the frequency of an allele in the population. Even so, perhaps evolution should not really be defined by a Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium as, once again, that only measures the changes in the frequency of existing information and complexity rather than the generation of new information. I'm beginning to wonder if there is really a good, consistent definition of evolution that we can work with.

Third, mutation took the lead as the primary explanation for new alleles and genes, serving as the fount from which all diversity could arise. The speaker points out, and evolutionists also admit, that mutations are usually regressive, or have no useful effect whatsoever. There are very few alleged examples of beneficial mutation, and upon examination of a few that I can recall, I do notice that there aren't really any I know of that involve an increase in genetic information, in contrast with a modification, or deletion of existing information. Consider lactose tolerance, which as a mutation, is considered beneficial as it allows human beings to continue digesting from dairy products produced from domesticated animals beyond the infant stage. This mutation is commonly found in countries where dairy is frequently consumed, and is held to have originated in northern Europe. So, this mutation certainly helped people to survive when and where other sources of nutrition and energy were lacking. However, if one thinks about the genetic information involved, there has only been a modification to existing information, not a generation of new information. We are not producing a brand new protein, but just changing how long lactase is expressed.

Perhaps if one views evolution solely as a process by which organisms adapt to their environment, this might be the case. As I interpret things now, sure, there is certainly variation in the population of a species. In a competitive world, some traits within that variation meet greater success than others. Those with such traits survive, reproduce, and pass those traits down to their offspring. Within this framework, there is, overall, a loss of information as unsuccessful varieties are eliminated. Occasionally, mutation does come in to create a little more variation, but not to the degree where it could produce vastly new features such as whole proteins, let alone organs. Sometimes, these mutations are beneficial to the affected individuals, but even if such a case is allowed to be interpreted so, it does not show that new information can arise through such a process. Adaptive success cannot be equated with descent with the drastic modification proposed by evolutionists that allows the descendants of prokaryotes to be porcupines, penguins or platypuses.

That about covers the speakers next section of Neo-Darwinism, which combines mutations as the source of variation and natural selection as the process by which beneficial mutations are promoted and maleficial mutations are disposed. The speaker also mentions that genes regulate phenotype in a far more complicated fashion than was initially thought. It was one thought that one allele corresponded to one feature in a direct relation. Now we know that genes interact in complex pathways, regulating each other in strict sequence and delicate feedback loops, that several alleles can contribute to the expression of a single phenotype. The development of a single beneficial macro-feature would involve numerous genes mutating in just such a way that confers selective advantage, or at least, no disadvantage, each time, and resulting in a situation where, somehow, all these mutations line up to dictate the instructions for something like a vertebra or an opposable thumb. I suppose another piece of evidence against mutation is also observable from the sheer number of genetic disorders that have developed in human history, in contrast with the few mutations which may be interpreted as circumstantially beneficial. Consider haemophilia, sickle cell-anaemia, cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome. The genetic code is a genetic circus act, balancing a thousand participants and objects in a sensitive living sculpture.

The speaker concludes with punctuated equilibrium, which he derides as a prime example of preconceived conclusions skewing the interpretation of evidence. The basic argument is:

1. Evolution must have happened
2. There are very few transitional forms in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, evolution must have happened quickly, moving from one distinct species to another.

This is not an argument based on evidence, but an argument from the lack of evidence to bend the facts into a determined thesis. Furthermore, it does not explain how evolution happened, but merely states that it must have happened quickly. The speaker provides an analogy of a layman fixing a broken car, with parts strewn about. If you were to return within an hour, to see a pristine automobile and a beaming layman, you might be inclined to ask him how he was able to accomplish such a feat by tinkering around without technical knowledge. If the response he provides you is 'I did it fast,' it would hardly answer your question.

Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Tres

Last week's session covered three main subjects:

I. The Appearance of Age Argument
II. Against the Big Bang
III. Undermining the Evidence for Transitional Forms

I felt there were a couple of questionable points that he was making, that either seemed factually inaccurate or quite the logical leap. It would also help if the speaker treated the opposition more level-headedly, instead of seizing on every opportunity for an argument ad hominem. However, overall, there are still points worth considering. The shaky edifice of evolutionary cosmology looks shakier than ever.

I. The Appearance of Age Argument

The primary point this argument makes is that if God did indeed create a full and complete universe, it would not appear to be young, but rather, mature. This approach holds that when an evolutionist looks at the universe, they naturally assume that it must have taken eons to develop because, first, there is no supernatural power to shape the universe such, and second, known naturalistic process could not have formed it so without eons to work with. Contrariwise, when a theist gazes upon creation, since he accepts that there is an omnipotent Creator, he is not puzzled by what appears to be an old creation, as it could simply have been created as such.

II. Against the Big Bang

I think the largest problem with the Big Bang, that modern science does not have a good explanation for, is the matter-anti-matter asymmetry. This was duly brought up by the speaker, and is yet another example of a little exception that the layman is asked to make because the mathematics is simply too incomprehensible. The speaker also discussed the apparent uniformity of the universe in temperature, which immediately recalled the cosmic background radiation image. The speaker holds that the temperature differences are too minute to be worth consideration, which I found rather suspect, since, once again, neither of us are privy to the infallible mathematics behind all these predictions. The speaker attributes such minute differences to interstellar material, gravitational interference and a host of other cosmic factors. The speaker refers to the expansion of the universe being adverse to astrogenesis, as the expansive forces would have overwhelmed gravity. The redshift in light is supposedly also attributable to a rotation of the universe rather than an expansion, and is also rendered weak if the speed of light is not constant as we would like to assume.

The Big Bang is also reliant on dark energy and dark matter for the model to work, which is admittedly, as of yet unproven and only a logical consequence of naturalism. The speaker takes this chance to transition into a long tirade on how evolutionists and cosmologists are constantly conjuring up new ideas to salvage the Big Bang theory to make it work. He claims that no other field would find such behaviour scientifically acceptable, especially as the more recent ideas such as dark energy and matter are not even readily detectable. The Big Bang theory is another case of using present day observations to extrapolate backwards into the far distant past. Again, if we were to chart change and make predictions like so in any other field, it would hard to establish credulity. 

It is a little bit of expansion on my own part, but I feel it ought to come in about here. It is impossible to be certain that just because the universe behaves in a predictable and regular manner now, in the few hundred years that we have observed it systematically, it has always done so. In terms of the timescales that evolutionists claim are involved, it would be like someone monitoring their body temperature over the day, using the data from the last few microseconds and extrapolating backwards in a best fit trend. In all likelihood, he will end up with a reading that suggests he was suffering a terrible fever or must have awoken from some bizarre cryonic. Admittedly that is a rough analogy. Regardless, no matter how sensitive and accurate the instruments we design now, the fact remains that we cannot go back in time to observe what has actually taken place. To extend what data we have is speculation, not science. Science should have repeatable observations, done under controlled conditions.

The speaker also chose to go into several points about the nature of the solar system, which did not seem relevant to the Big Bang per se, but I shall include them here all the same. He points out that the substances of the solar system are arranged strangely and not uniformly at all. The compositions of moons and planets do not suggest a common origin, and atheistic cosmologists are at a loss to explain the differing rotations of Venus and Uranus (Ουρανοσ). There are some theories, and moons could have been captured in orbit. However, it either requires a lot of little exceptions here and there, and strange coincidences, which are no stranger to the evolutionist because it must have happened somehow, and it must have happened without the intervention of a Creator.

Ultimately, the Big Bang fails to answer the question of origins. It is a theory of change, development from one state to another, but it does not answer how the energy of the universe comes into existence.

III. Undermining the Evidence for Transitional Forms

This section can basically be summarised as - Every transitional form from unintelligent primate to the wise man was either a hoax, a misinterpreted animal skeleton, or a human skeleton. Other transitional forms in other branches of the tree of life are of extinct species or do not actually fit the supposed order of evolution in the fossil record. We hear more about the supposed claims rather than the embarrassing retractions. Furthermore, if evolution happens gradually, we would expect large populations of such transitional creatures and they should be comparatively abundant. Evolutionists may argue with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, but that is an argument from a lack of evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.

Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Duo

The class went through three 45 minute lectures today, which one can partition into the following sections :

I. Perspectives on Creation and Evolution (Part Two)

1. The Failures of Gap Theory

2. The Impossibility of Theistic Evolution

3. The Day-Age Theory

4. Other Compromise Theories

II. The Age of the Earth

1. The Evolutionist's Perspective

2. The Creationist's Perspective

3. A Refutation of the Evolutionist Evidence

4. A Presentation of Creation Science's Evidence for a Young Creation

I. Perspectives on Creation and Evolution (Part Two)

This was a continuation of last week's sharing on the gap theory and other Christian attempts to explain the biblical creation account.

1. The Failures of Gap Theory

The speaker's main point was that the Gap Theory is ultimately superfluous as it calls on us to read around the literal meaning of the creation account, introducing many events on a speculative basis when much of the evidence that we see can be explained by creation science and the flood of Noah. Ultimately, the gap theory and its proposition set the precedent for reading around and reinterpreting scripture, which places the interpretation of man above the dictation of God, and this attitude of pushing the literal meaning of the Bible has eroded the authority of God's Word. The speaker still acknowledges the well-intentioned spirit behind the Gap Theory - that it still denies the veracity of evolution and attempts a reading of the creation account that allows each verse to remain intact.

2. The Impossibility of Theistic Evolution

Basically, this doesn't work. Theistic evolution is the position which holds that the evolutionary epic holds true, but God was behind it all and used these natural processes to create the universe as evolutionists explain it. The speaker argues that this is a lazy compromise, that doesn't think about the heretical implications that result. He points out that the order of Genesis and the evolutionary order don't at all match up. One goes: Light, Sky and Seas, Land, Plants, Sun, Moon, Stars, Fish, Birds, Animals, Man, while the other goes: Light, Stars, Sun, Earth, Moon, Seas, Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, Plants, Fish, Insects, Reptiles, Mammals, Birds, Man. Theistic evolution implies a heap of death before sin, man and woman emerging simultaneously, and fluidity of kind, which contradicts with the Genesis account. He also notes that a theistic evolution dispenses with a literal Adam, which contradicts the words of major authors of the Bible, Moses and Paul, and the words of Jesus Himself.

3. The Day-Age Theory

The speaker notes that while 'yom', the Hebrew word for 'day', does occasionally indicate an indefinite period of time, its grammatical context in Genesis 1, placed next to a numeral, indicates a literal 24 hour day. This is similar to how one might say 'back in the day' in contrast with 'on day one we went hiking'. Furthermore, the creation days are days with evenings and mornings, and it would seem rather strange for plants to go by for a millennia or more without a sun, or that Adam lived out two ages of day 6 and day 7. If God defines a day with the sun here, but we choose not to say it was a literal day, then we also challenge God's definition of things.

4. Other Compromise Theories

The speaker goes through several more bizarre compromises that I've mostly never heard of before. The revelatory day theory (the days are the days when God told Moses what happened), the alternative day theory (the days are 24 hour days, but there were long gaps in between), the progressive creation theory (all the oddities of evolution are explained by miracles and divine intervention). The speaker notes that all these theories, the gap theory included, are trying to wrap the scriptures around the idea that the earth is an old planet, with millions of years of development. He then goes on to challenge the evolutionist doctrine of an old earth in the next section.

II. The Age of the Earth

The speaker mentions that while Christians remain mum about the age of the earth, the outside world, schools and documentaries are all telling children and students that the earth is an aged aged sphere, undermining the credibility of the Bible not only in creation but in everything else.

1. The Evolutionist's Perspective

The earth is about 4-5 billion years old, and this age is necessary to grant the time for evolution to take place. Although, in the speaker's opinion, no matter how old the universe is, evolution wouldn't have gotten started or produced anything noteworthy.

2. The Creationist's Perspective

The earth is between 6,000 to 10,000 years old, dated from biblical genealogies and matched up with archaeological evidence.

3. A Refutation of the Evolutionist Evidence

The speaker argues that the evolutionists have a preconceived notion that the earth is very old because their worldview demands it, and then they assume uniformitarianism and that present day processes can be extrapolated backwards to suggest the age of the earth. He takes radiometric dating and demonstrates how many assumptions really go into such a technique.

a. We know the original composition of the rock.
b. The rate of radioactive decay is constant,
c. The system is closed, so no substances enter or exit.

None of which we can say for certain, and definitely not over the supposed age of the rock in question. The speaker also pulls on studies that show how rocks of known ages were dated to wildly inaccurate times of formation.

Because of the unreliability of radiometric dating, most evolutionists rely on index fossils, which are supposedly from species that lived for a short geological period of time, to tell how old the rocks they are embedded in are. Unfortunately, the biologists in turn take the geologist's description of the age of the rocks to date their fossils, resulting in a circular chain of fossils dating rocks and rocks dating fossils. In addition, the fossils are not arranged by anything more than their supposed evolutionary tree, based on biological complexity. This also implies that evolution is being used to support the dates and ages that are being used to support evolution. Another circulus in probando.

4. A Presentation of Creation Science's Evidence for a Young Creation

The speaker now goes through evidence, much of which I have not heard previously, for how the universe ought to be young. This ranges from the helium levels in earth's atmosphere, the abundance of carbon 14 in certain coal beds and in diamonds, the decay of the earth's rotation, the shrinking of the sun, the concentration of minerals in the oceans, the erosion of geological features, the abundance of hydrogen in the universe, the increasing orbit of the moon, the instability of spiral galaxies and saturn's ring system, and population statistics and records for human activity.

Perspectives : Resolving Genesis - Partus Unus

I'm very excited to begin a series with the Faith Bible Institute on the creationism and evolution debate. I've actually put my thoughts on Eldwan's mythology on hold for awhile to see if the elective course will offer any fresh perspective to this over-analysed and irrationally charged ground. The first of eight classes is today, and I'll update this post once I've had the time to digest what they present there.

~

Outline of Lesson 1

I. Why the Creationism and Evolution issue matters for the Church

II. Explaining Evolution

III. Explaining Creationism

I. Why the Creationism and Evolution issue matters for the Church

Content
The FBI preacher begins by raising awareness of why this issue is something that the Church needs to address head on. His primary thrust is that because what our culture accepts as truth contradicts what is in the bible, many Christians, particularly youth and young adults, come to view Christianity's position on Creation as an outdated fallacy. By extension, the rest of the doctrine becomes unreliable as the Church doesn't seem to address or have a solid position on how the world was created and how that meshes with empirical evidence.

He also points out that the Gospel requires the Genesis account to be true in several ways: There could have been no human death before the fall, or death would be part of the natural cycle and we are discrediting the apostle Paul, who teaches that death entered by Adam's sin. If there is no Creator God, there is also no standard for moral absolutes, no standard for sin and no standard for forgiveness.

A wishy-washy understanding of the Creation account has been a contributing factor for a diminishing view of who God is and what He intends for us.

Comments

I agreed with this section for the most part, and certainly with the idea that the Church has, for the most part, failed to address key issues with the current generation, which is why we are experiencing such a great time of apostasy. Where is God's voice in the debate? I was particularly struck by speaker's point that America is approaching a point where ten times more babies have been killed by abortion in the United States than Jews were killed by the Nazi regime. He was using it to illustrate the extent of moral degradation and how far the USA has left God's Law as a result of the lies that the Church's silence and failure to represent God has allowed to infiltrate popular culture.

II. Evolution

Content

Atheistic Evolution - Completely undirected evolution was sufficient to give rise to the complexity we see today.

Religious Evolution - Evolution incorporated into some larger superstructure of religious belief.

The speaker points out that the majority of religions have no particular objection to evolution. He then provides a list of religions that are compatible with evolution. He also takes the argument that evolution should not be taught in schools and pushes it further, suggesting that the facts of Creationism should be publicised just as much and that people should be allowed to evaluate the evidence personally, instead of being presented with only one perspective on the issue.

Comments

I didn't really know what to make of the claim that evolution is also religious because other religions incorporate evolutionary ideas. Personally I do know that Buddhism and Confucianism have no objection, because they don't claim to have any authority on where things come from. However, with other religions like Animism, Bahaism, Spiritualism and so on, which he lists as 'structured around evolutional theories', I don't know enough about those beliefs to be able to accept that statement at face value. Of course, the idea that people would see the truth and past the lie of evolution once they are presented with all the evidence, or that evolutionists are afraid to let creationists stand up for themselves, smacks of the initial assumption that creationists have the truth in the first place, which isn't a very good place to start when addressing a skeptic.

III. Explaining Creationism

Content

The Young Earth Perspective - The earth is but several thousand years old, literal 7 days of creation. Supported by creation science and flood geology. The speaker claims that the majority of evidence that we have empirically supports a young earth, but evolutionists choose to rely only on the ones that can be interpreted to imply an old earth. 

As part of a defence of creationism, he then goes on to attack what is traditionally used to support evolution, beginning with the sketchy nature of the fossil record and geological strata. He then moves on to untangle the observable examples and points that have been used to support evolution. Evolution is too slow to be observed - Seems more like a cover than anything else. Peppered moth - Doesn't demonstrate evolution, but only population dynamics. Mutations in subject animals like fruit flies - Doesn't demonstrate that evolution can drive increases in complexity, but rather overwhelmingly that mutation is negative and results in loss or corruption of information. Minor variation in a species does not imply evolution, just variety. 

In other areas, there is no convincing theory for the origin of life. Darwin thought that the cell was a simple part of a complex organism when he proposed the leap from non-life to life, but we now know that cells and life, even the simplest prokaryotes, are already densely packed with complexity. If anything, the leap from non-life to life is larger than ever. Without God, we also have no convincing answer for the origin of the universe, as the Big Bang also doesn't return to T=0, and also offers no reason why it should have happened in the first place. The Big Bang is a theory of change, not of creation. He also suggests that the fossil record is not a result of evolution, but rather of the flood in Noah. The reason why the fossil record has been misinterpreted is that no one really took the time to consider what a catastrophic worldwide flood would produce. He argues that such a flood would indeed produce millions of dead creatures, all over the world, that are buried under layers and layers of silt compressed into rock, which is what we see with fossils.

The Old Earth Perspectives

The Gap Theory - Tries to stick with a literal interpretation of Genesis, but finds sections of the text that could allow for vast ages of prehistory. This gap is generally taken to be between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Dinosaurs and the fossil record fit into this extended period that was hastily glossed over. The speaker argues that the gap theory begins with the assumption that an old earth is correct. The age of the earth is only necessary to explain gradual geological and biological change. Since the gap theory rejects evolution, which requires millions of years, and still proposes a massive flood, which can explain the fossil record, there is no need for such a convoluted explanation. In addition, the idea of the gap theory was initially proposed as an explanation for when Lucifer's fall took place, and that the gap theory only works with science as it was understood 150 years ago, when gap theory was first proposed.

The content on the gap theory and old earth ideas continues into next week's lesson.

Comments

This section might be better titled: Arguments against evolution. I felt it was a little premature to bring some of what he did. It would make more sense to present the various creationist stands in an overview before going into arguments against evolution, or internal contradictions in the stands. Anyway, since this was what he did, I shall have to tag along in my reflections.

It was funny to see classic biological examples used to support evolution overturned. In truth, if one thinks critically, they often only demonstrate the premises of evolution, such as population drifts, genetic change, variation within a population and so on, but fail to demonstrate macro-evolution itself. It is of course compelling to claim that all these observations must add to up evolution on a long and large scale, as many people have done, but it does seem that we haven't observed it empirically. 

A long standing issue that I have with evolution, and this was addressed by the speaker, is that evolution demands that coherent, complex information is able to emerge from randomness. The evolutionist argues that out of the pool of mutations, one in some improbably high number is beneficial and proliferates within the breeding population. I accept that as true, and we have seen it with traits like lactose tolerance. However, I don't think we have examples of new information actually emerging, rather than just existing information being modified. In the case of lactose tolerance, it has to do with extending the time in which lactose is expressed, a far cry from something like the emergence of the lactose enzyme in the first place. It seems to me that in our daily experience, new information does not arise from an unintelligent source, but existing information can be modified or corrupted, and the result of that may even be beneficial, but the information itself is not genuinely new. 

If one takes a simple image, and photocopies it, and copies the copy, ad infinitum, we do not expect that a final product will somehow acquire the same complexity as Da Vinci's Last Supper or Van Gogh's Starry Night. Rather, errors that do creep in distort the image and one eventually ends up with a streaky, blurry mush. If one makes a copy of an audio track ad infinitum, we don't expect it turn into Debussy's Arabesque or Dvorak's New World. Even if there are some snatches of randomly generated good music from copying errors, and even if there was a 'natural selector' looking out for those good melodies, the sheer rate of bad mutation would overwhelm any snippets of sense. In our everyday experience, information as a net whole is lost in repeated replication. I never liked the idea that evolution wants to make an exception in this area.

Another major exception that the atheistic evolution worldview begs us to make is that of the transition between non-life and life. The speaker touched on the idea that when early evolutionists made their suggestion that a cell could have arisen from non-life, we knew much less about cells than we know now. Cells are not simple building blocks in a complex arrangement, they are complex building blocks in a doubly complex system of a whole organism. What we have learned about cells in recent decades should, if anything, convince people about how difficult it is to make that transition from the inorganic to the organic. All these recent studies that have had research teams making artificial genomes and advances in what we might call artificial life are subject to the same problem. They do not prove that life could have arisen by chance. If anything, they show how much thought, experimentation, planning, resources and calculation have to go into creating even a single cell. What they do prove is that human beings are acquiring the technical capacity to craft life. In my opinion, such advances do not do away with the need for a designer, any more than the experiment could have succeeded without a dedicated researcher.

Ecclesiastical Order

It would be useful for me to codify the positions that exist within the organisations of the Temples in Eleris, both for my own reference and for any of you who have hopped on over to my wordpress blog to read the first few chapters of my draft.

Service in the Temples was equivalent to service in the public sector in Radiant society. The Temples were responsible for social policy, taxation, safety regulations, formal education, the military et cetera, distributed between the five temples. Emerging from the compulsory education track, graduates so inclined could submit their applications to the Temples for whatever field caught their interest. In exchange for access to what was, often verifiably, the best equipment and resources for research, the Temples required additional duties of their staff.

A breakdown of the ranks within the religious hierarchy is given below, along with their canonical average duration and age, although it is worth noting that the Radiant education system was primarily concerned about mental development than physical development; it was not unusual to find exceptional sparks ascending through the progression far faster than the norm.

Initiate (36 - 37): Fresh out of school, they spend a year learning about the organisation of the temple they are posted to, various responsibilities of prayer and basic exercises of the mind and body, as well as appropriate manners and mores for their temples. They are also introduced to the temple's infrastructure in preparation for their next phase.

Servant (37 - 42): In these five years, a Servant is tasked with the maintenance of temple grounds, from the landscaping, to the architecture, research equipment, dormitories, cleanliness and so on.

Disciple (42 - 114): Shifting away from a rank of responsibility, the Disciples begin a lengthy phase of study. At this stage, they learn about the many years of history and developments of the cultural traditions of the Temples. Religious and philosophical texts and ideas are studied, compared and debated to ensure a complete understanding of each Temple's ethos and how they integrate to form the supporting pillars of Radiant Society. In this phase, mental training is accompanied by physical and magical training, and greater Aleric powers are unlocked for Disciples than for the average populace.

Devotee (114 - 180): Devotees begin to specialise in a certain department of the Temple they are with. They study it in more detail, with more rigour and are subjected to the scrutiny of superiors that comes with perceived ownership. They are often given the menial ends of research work for their departments, and greater magical abilities are unlocked for them.

At this point, the career progression bifurcates. In the story, Lelia is a Senior Devotee, which is one of the two options available to those in Temple service.

Senior Devotee (180+): Those who are content at this level of power and responsibility will choose to remain as quieter, dutiful servants in their respective departments. They may be permanently attached to one Priest as a full time assistant, but they are also granted the freedom to pursue small independent projects. They may stay with the Temple indefinitely and are held to have completed their obligations at the age of 216. Some oversee the younger servants, or serve as substitute teachers for Disciples.

On the other path, there are the ordained ranks, which will progress on to higher positions of management. The first of these are the Acolytes.

Acolyte (180 - 240): An ambitious Devotee must catch the attention of a fully ordained Priest and bid to be chosen as their Acolyte. At this point, the Acolyte receives personal attention and guardianship from the Priest, and is trained in that specific realm of responsibility or interest. Acolytes are also burdened with the responsibility of planning and coordinating for ceremonial events and routine Temple duties. The three most promising Acolytes, in line to replace the High Priest, are specially designated as the First, Second and Third Acolytes.

High Priest (240 - 252): The High Priest is responsible for the overall management and policy decisions of Radiant Society. The five High Priests from the five Temples form the High Council and are at the top of the hierarchy for the active public service. This is a phase of intense societal responsibility and the High Priest often has to put aside any personal pursuits, right from when he was in training as First Acolyte. The term in this office lasts for a duodecade, or twelve years. Once the High Priest steps down, he is accorded priority in the temple above the other priests as recognition of the work he has done. This position is increasingly occupied by younger Priests, as it allows one to bypass the age threshold of 240 that is canonically required for a full Priesthood.

Priest (240/252 - 864): A Priesthood is granted upon an Acolyte reaching the age of 240, or upon the completion of a High Priest's term of twelve years. At this point, Priests are able to lead full research projects, are required to perform or participate in many ceremonial duties for the temple, and full magical autonomy is granted. Of course, they also have the responsibility of teaching the younger generation and possibly having to adopt a personal Acolyte.

Bishop (864 - 1296): A Bishop is exempt from any teaching duties, unless they wish to do so. They are granted the right to pursue what they will, directing Temple departments and research projects, reserving veto power for the Priests under their charge. At this point, most Temple servants will spend their days in poetry, philosophy, theatre, sculpture, worship or language construction, although some choose pursuits considerably more esoteric. They are no longer required or expected to have concerns for the basic functions of the world.

Elder (1296+): Elders are granted no longer required to participate in any duties both temporal or spiritual, absolved from any ceremony or responsibility to the Temple. They, while free to use any of the Temple facilities, are typically more engaged in virtual realities and abstract projects. A sizeable number choose to adopt the post-corporist stance and discard their physical bodies entirely. An Elder may also express interest in joining the Elder Council, though they are largely a dormant political body with most of the work left to the discretion of the High Council.

At any point along this progression, a servant of the Temple may decide to leave to join the private sector, though there will be penalties for those who either do not complete their time as Senior Devotees or as Priests. Furthermore, the ordained ranks will have their magical abilities restricted to those of a Senior Devotee, which may seem quite debilitating to them after centuries of growing accustomed to a high degree of magical sensitivity.

Vignette: Urbs Musicae

Tangled streets gird ornate palaces and pale townhouses, plastered over with classical divinities and emblems of victory. Each one plays a variation of the imperial theme in its symbolically infused facade. Wings and robes, kotinoi and trumpets resound in an enduring efflorescence. Every anthropomorphic pilaster and corinthian capital romantically suggesting far more than any current amalgamation of ferrous alloy and brittle silicon. When Nox arrives, the organic generation of multifarious melodies by composers long inhumed put the artificial perfection of present popularity to sonorous shame.

Yet, globalised modernity rises like a tide to drown bastions of antiquated practice. The majestic mirage is disillusioned by the commercial proliferation of 'Kassa'; reinventing itself as a curiousity to maintain a voided existence.

Perspectives : Ostensible Counterproductivity

It's always struck me as rather odd that the demons in the gospels declare that Jesus is the Son of God. Just some references for you - Mark 1: 23-24 / Mark 5: 6-7. Isn't it somewhat against the grain to lend credence to someone you logically should be discrediting? Surely, if even the demons are declaring Him to be the Son of the Most High God, this man is worth paying attention to.

It has been conventionally proposed that the demons are helpless when they encounter Jesus. As they are beings who can see through this fuzzy physical shell that we call reality, they recognise Jesus immediately for who He is and they respond by declaring His Sonship in fear and compulsion. Jesus, wanting nothing to do with unclean spirits, drives them away, that His ministry would not be tainted by their demonic testimony. 

What follows may be but idle speculation, but perhaps someone could advise me of its veracity and plausibility. I suppose that when the rebellious forces of Satan noticed that the Son had descended to earth in the form of a man, they would have been highly suspicious and perplexed by the unexpected play from heaven. This is evident from the questions that they confront Jesus with:

And they cried out, saying, 'What business do we have with each other, Son of God? 

Have You come to torment us before the time?'

- Matthew 8: 29

They don't really know why He has come, the divine salvation plan was hidden from them. They know their time of judgement will eventually fall, but they also seem to know that this was not yet the right time for that final judgement. I gather that there must have been an attitude of puzzlement and curiousity. There was an increase in demonic activity around the time of Jesus; perhaps all these spirits were all watching anxiously, wondering why the Creator of the universe was in a fragile human body and sanding away at wood in Nazareth.

Now, they would certainly have noticed Jesus' baptism, and perhaps after this, they took extra note of Jesus' activity, with Him having emerged from a hiding of sorts. It certainly seems the case as the father of lies himself came to tempt Jesus after that incident. I'm sure the darkened light-bringer must have been wringing his wits to figure out what the Light of the World was up to. This time of temptation must have been an opportunity for the enemy to probe and figure out how he could derail the divine directive.

One thing that would have been very apparent would be Jesus' reluctance to declare Himself publicly. In the temptation on the temple, Jesus resisted what would effectively have won the allegiance of the people by claiming the promises of God. He didn't want to demonstrate Himself as the Son of God openly, but countered Satan's challenges to 'prove' Himself with reservation and steadfast resolution to obey God. Thus it could have been revealed to Satan that Jesus was resisting a glorious unveiling that would overwhelm the people into rapturous submission.

If my train of thought was accurate, Satan could have communicated this information to the rest of his unholy hierarchy and instructed them to toy with it a little more. In this fashion, the demons' declarations would be a rather more sophisticated attempt to undermine the success of Jesus' first coming. I think we get traces of this when Jesus is more well known as a miracle worker than as the Messiah. The crowds have their own expectations of Jesus that are not in line with God's purposes. 

Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, 

withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

- John 6: 15

The exhortations from the demons would have added to that detrimental revolutionary impulse. They might not have known the whole plan, but they knew enough of it to latch on to whatever they did suspect and aim for those characteristics. Of course, at the end, the Lord prevailed with the amazing resurrection of Christ.

Then again, perhaps, as my father remarked, that coordinated attack in this mode might be giving the enemy forces too much credit. I don't really know, part of me is wary of underestimating the fallen morning star. If you've got any ideas, let me know what you think.

Abandoned Adjectives

Adjectives have been entirely eliminated, or rather, their function has been subsumed under verbs and participles. I haven't detailed the participle system before, but suffice to say that my imagination has birthed a system with more inflections than Latin. Partially because I'm avoiding fusional endings and because my verbs have five aspects instead of Latin's two aspects.

In Tas Eldwaraj, there are three verb conjugations, the concrete verb - first conjugation, the stative verb - second conjugation, and the abstract verb - third conjugation. Stative verbs serve the descriptive function in the language. 

The example verb 'barze' is strong, will be used to demonstrate.

os barze - he is strong

A quick thing to notice is that the copula in English, which serves to indicate the time when the adjective applies to the noun, is not a separate word. It's function is incorporated into the stative verb of Tas Eldwaraj. So it would be more accurate to think of the stative verb infinitive, if I come up with one, as 'to be in the condition of strength'.

os barge - he was strong

os barfe - he will be strong

Similarly, all the other verbal tenses and aspects applied, and can be translated by altering the form of the ever-versatile English 'to be'.

os bargivie - he had been strong

os barzevem - he is not (being) strong

et cetera

When it comes to the other voices for stative verbs, they take on the meanings to make ____ and to be made ____, for the active and passive voices respectively. As you might deduce, the reciprocative voice will be where both the subject and object make each other ____.

os barzo isü - he makes you strong/he strengthens you

os barfavo isü - he will be making you strong/he will be strengthening you

os barfu isü - he will be made strong by you/he will be strengthened by you

os bargivaotu isü - he and you began to make each other strong/he and you began to strengthen each other

et cetera

Participles are used in a fashion more recognisably adjectival. The participles are formed by taking the positive conjugation of the verb and adding on the appropriate declensional noun ending. Participles have to match the declension and case of their linked noun, but not necessarily their polarity. To illustrate :

os barzes - he, being strong

osem barzes - not he, being strong

os barzesem - he, not being strong

osem barzesem - not he, not being strong

In all four examples, the noun and participle are in the anthropic nominative case, but each of the combinations of positive or negative noun or participle are valid, and have specific meanings.

When used to describe a natural noun, the participle takes on the declensions of natural nouns. With some tenses, a relative pronoun might yield a more idiomatic translation.

selen bargen - the animal, which was strong

seledi barfaviedi - with the animal, which will cease to be strong

And of course, with an abstract noun, the participle uses abstract declensions.

yel barfelem - the spirit, which will not be strong

yelam barzevulaj - of the spirit, which is being made strong

As a result of this system, there are a total of 2160 participles per verb. Sixty positive verb conjugations by twelve noun cases by three noun declension systems. All of them are regular though, and their formation follows simple agglutinative rules.