The WND column I posted here last Saturday deals with another in the long train of judicial abuses arising from the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court, and indeed almost all the legal and other professional elites in the United States, no longer hold to the self-evident truths acknowledged in the American Declaration of Independence. This includes, of course, the liberal/socialist/Marxists who openly deride and ridicule every attempt to apply the Declaration’s clarion acknowledgement of God’s authority. But, though many of them are loath to admit it, it also includes many Americans who sincerely profess to be conservatives, and to believe in limited government and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that implement or protect the rights of the American people, as individuals and as a whole.
The leftist Declaration haters
Socialist/Marxist minded would-be dictators, like Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, reject the idea that just government must be subject to constraints arising from an authority that supersedes the judgment of history. They hate the truths acknowledged in the Declaration because they constitute the rational basis for understanding and implementing such constraints.
Of course, in the American context, these leftist politicos know how unpopular it would be openly to admit their actual goal, which is to impose the elitist rule of the “vanguard of history”. So they don the rhetorically egalitarian disguise of champions of justice advancing, against the heartless juggernaut of capitalist greed, the demands of the otherwise inarticulate, barely subsisting masses Marx ironically contemned as the “lumpenproletariat”.
As long as America held to the logic of the Declaration of Independence, these masked elitists achieved only marginal political success. In the first decades of the twentieth century, however, the irrationally godless materialism that lends a semblance of substance to their otherwise insubstantial ideology, scored its great and only triumph. Borrowing, under false pretenses, the authority of modern science, it abused the force of favorable opinion generated by early and very provisional improvements made possible by that scientific discipline, to challenge and overturn the premise of creation.
With a lavish show of “undeniable truth”, projected and magnified in song and story by the delusional media of mass communication and entertainment, they conjured up the supposedly “scientific” theory that a mindless universe had, by chance, produced the complex, variegated, still mostly un-comprehended plethora of material events that is the universe of our experience. Wielding this awesomely introduced, but ever so thinly drawn out thread of illogic, they applied a pinprick to the Godhead which, in all their shows, promptly explodes into nothingness.
“Nothing to see here,” they magisterially proclaimed, “Nothing to see or fear. It was all along a tissue thin hot air balloon, inked with a fearsome frowning face. One pinprick and it flutters all away.” This was, of course, mere intellectual sleight of hand. The balloon was an idol of their own making, with not even one of the essential attributes of God.
The whole elaborate show was (and is) meant to distract from the little kernel of truth conveyed in what is otherwise a melodrama of deceit. This consists in the fact that the “theory” of evolution is a thinly drawn out fabrication. It has no more rational implications for our understanding of reality than the prick of a strand of dried pasta, purporting to explode a bowling ball.
The irony of the “theory” of evolution is that it assumes (in order to establish the evidentiary value of the remnants we can here and now observe) that a law or rule (a verifiably regular pattern observable in the dynamic relations that constitute the universe of our experience) exists and has always existed in the constitution of the universe. But it then draws a conclusion from the evidence which asserts that the rule produced by chance the living creatures (including ourselves) we observed in order to develop our understanding of the rule. Evolutionist fabricate images of dinosaurs we have never seen by rigorously applying rules derived from what we see, then claim that what we see is as it is by chance.
But if what we are today we are by chance, surely the beings that we imagine based on what we see today may, by chance, have been different than we imagine them to be. For if the rules produced us only by chance, chances are they produced past results in the same way. So there is a chance the remnants we see were connected with radically different results than the ones we now imagine based on the rules that only randomly govern what the future will produce out of what we see now.
The chance of this increases if we take account of the possibility that, by chance, the program which governed the relation between the remnants and the beings to which they correspond involved a different programming language than the language which, by chance, prevails today. If that is the case, the remnants of the past we now observe would imply factual results very different than the superficially similar remnants of contemporary beings on which we base our inferences about the past. The “|” I just typed on this page has a different meaning, and produces a different result, depending on the language context in which it is deployed.
Finally, order may be in the eye of the beholder. On our own, what understanding do we have of the eye that beheld what we know as the universe, when first it came to be? Even now, in regard to our very selves, what observations can we directly make of the observant being that looks upon every object encompassed by our gaze? Try as we may, all we can observe, even in ourselves, are the consequences of the hidden processes in and through which our understanding constitutes the objects of our experience.
In this respect what we call “our” understanding can never be held empirically accountable for itself. The cameraman is. as it were, inside the camera. Or, even more frustrating, the camera is the cameraman, so that when we seek to bring to light the inner workings of the observer, what we seek to examine slips away into the viewless darkened room in which each and every observation is developed for our sight. (More to come in my next post.)