0052 The world is inverted.  Above us stands the celestial ocean of Big Government (il)Liberalism (BG(il)L).  Below ushovers an atmosphere where Christianity, Judaism and Islam are designated “religions”, and therefore excluded, by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, from public (that is, state) institutions, especially schools.  Their sublimation begins during the 1960s.

Die-hard Christians respond by generating something that appears to be science.  Creation science makes claims about natural events verifying Biblical witness.

In 1981, the leviathan of BG(il)L public education sweeps down to the surface and attacks the little ship, The Creation Science, and ruins its effectiveness.  Creation Science does not properly follow style of the empirio-schematic judgment.  The McLean case distinguishes between science and religion on the basis of methodology.

0054 The captain of the ship lost one leg.  But, he fashions a new one in the style of the empirio-schematic judgment.  He rebuilds the ship, branding it The Intelligent Design.

In 2005, the leviathan is again provoked to come down through the celestial waters and attack the ship.  The ship has a lance that pierces the skin of the leviathan.  The Intelligent Design forces experts, such as Pennock, to come up with a demarcation that is situational.  Intelligent Design does not follow the rule of the naturalist intellect.  That rule says, “No metaphysics.”

In addition, the naturalist’s rule is not based on anything physical.  So, the rule must be metaphysical.

0055 These comments reveal how the rule plays out.  Metaphysics must be hidden within the presence of the thing itself, the noumenon_1b, which is contiguous with those properties that can be observed and measured, the phenomena_1b.  The [contiguity] mirrors the rule.  A noumenon_1b [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena_1b.

Here is how that looks.

0056 What does The Intelligent Design do that the Creation Science does not?

The Intelligent Design is equipped with an empirio-schematic judgment that observes and measures phenomena that do not fully add up to their noumenon, the thing itself.  ID favors things that are very complicated, such as the bacteria’s flagellum or the human immune system, where many components are observed and measured_1a.  Their corresponding phenomena_1b can never explain the thing itself: the bacteria swims and the human recovers from an illness.  The models_2aare never sufficient.  The whole is so much greater than the parts.  The investigator experiences awe.  The investigator is struck by a noumenon, but cannot say so, since “religion” is banished from disciplinary language.

The empirio-schematic judgment_2b is supposed to virtually emerge from (and situate) mechanical and mathematical models_2a.  Methodological_a naturalism_b has a redundancy.  The situation-level actuality_2b re-capitulates the content-level nested form_a.  The situation-level actuality_2b completes the content-level nested form_a.  There should be no surplus_2b, because any surplus_2b flows into something_1b that cannot be objectified as phenomena_1b.  This something_1b is where metaphysics is hidden, according to the dictates of the naturalist intellect_3b.  ID aims to show that the noumenon_1b has a life_c of its own, a life_1c that his hidden by the rule of the naturalist intellect_3b on the order of someone or something upstairs_2c.

Here is how that looks.

0057 That’s one way to game Pennock’s system.In 2005, the celestial leviathan mauls, but does not destroy the ship, The Intelligent Design.  Plus, the leviathan takes a lance into its flank.  The lance reveals the barbed fact that the leviathan depends on a metaphysical rule, stating that metaphysics is not allowed in science. The rope tied to the lance is long.  Perhaps, 14 years long.  Cheers.

0058 The other way to game the system comes from the thousand points of light, floating where the leviathan swims, in the heights of the celestial waters.  On the surface, we humble folk see these points of illumination self-identify as “not religious”.  So, we think that they are not Christian, Jewish or Islamic factions.

Ah, but the meaning of the word “religion” changes.

Is the term still limited to the above-mentioned factions?

Must we continue the charade?

The same goes for the term, “metaphysics”.

Does this term only apply to Christian, Jewish or Islamic theologies?

Or, does the term also apply to the righteousness_1aC underlying Big Government (il)Liberal agendas_2aC?

0059 If Big Government (il)Liberal institutions (BG(il)L) self-identify as “not religious”, then they must be compatible with science.  Their organizational objectives may be taught in public schools, especially when their methodology takes on the style of the empirio-schematic judgment and ends up establishing a noumenon, corresponding to what the phenomena add up to.

Now, here comes a really big sentence.

While ID_3a observes and measures_1a phenomena_1b and demonstrates that the noumenon_1b is greater than what available mechanical and mathematical models_2a predict, BG(il)L institutions_3a rely on ideologically informed models_2a applied to selected observations and measurements_1a in order to establish phenomena_1a that guarantee the relevance of their situation-level empirio-schematic judgment_2b.

In effect, certain phenomena_1b may be deemed to be so salient that a noumenon_1b becomes manifest, thereby warranting the attention of a naturalist intellect_3b and establishing the legitimacy of a discipline’s language, models and observations_2b.

Phenomena_1b may be manufactured in order to project realness into the corresponding noumenon_1b.  This is the work of the experts in state education.

0060 In order to fully appreciate what comes next, the reader may consider the masterwork, How to Define the Word “Religion” (available at smashwords), especially the chapter on presence.

How do BG(il)L institutions, while self-identifying as “not religious”, establish their doctrines in public schools?  How do “not religious” institutions establish a state religion?

Clearly, they game Michael Ruse’s demarcation criteria.  They pretend to be a science by mimicking the methodology (just like ID does).  But, they do not get caught (like ID gets caught).

Then, they game Robert Pennock’s demarcation criteria, by self-identifying as “not religious”. Therefore, they not subject to scrutiny when they violate the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

0061 So how are BG(il)L institutions religious?

There are two types of religion, based on two distinctly different objects in the society tier_C.  One_2cC is assumed_3cC.  This relational object_2cC builds civilizations or destroys them.  The other_2aC belongs to institutions_3aC.  Organizational objects_2aC emerge from (and situate) the potential of righteousness_1aC.

Organizational objects_2aC are religious.

0062 Only two associations are required (S and T).

The organizational objective_2aC of a “not religious” BG(il)L institution_3aC goes with a noumenon_1b (S), which is where metaphysics is quietly stuffed according to the dictates of the naturalist intellect_3b.

By focusing on observations and measurements_2a that contribute to the feeling that the corresponding phenomena_1b are real, these institutions generate the impression of a metaphysics-filled noumenon_1b, the thing itself, which may take on a life of its own.  Both apparent phenomena_1b and their spectral noumenon_1b support a situation-level actuality_2b that reifies the entire content level_a.

Righteousness_1aC associates with the entire content level of methodological_a naturalism_b (T).

Scientific method is the foundation of BG(il)L belief.

Righteousness mimics the empirio-schematic judgment by promoting a disciplinary language_3a, ideologically-informed mechanical models_2a and selective observations and measurements_1a.  The content-level nested form_a establishes the realness of the situation-level actuality_2a, by establishing irrefutable phenomena_1b.  The realness of the situation-level actuality_2a, plus the unassailable status of the phenomena_1b, establish an undeniable noumenon_1b, containing a metaphysically informed BG(il)L organizational objective_2aC.

In 1981, The Creation Science is attacked by the leviathan for a crude imitation of what BG(il)L institutions have been doing for over two decades.  In 2005, The Intelligent Design is mauled for a more sophisiticated imitation.  Our world is indeed upside down.

Say what?  

In each BG(il)L institution, observations and measurements_1a are selected to support mechanistic and ideological models_2a and guide the believer’s definition of words_3a.  The “not religious” believer then accepts the realness of the corresponding phenomena_1b and the realness of the corresponding noumenon_1b.

Remember, the phenomena_1b carry the imprint of selective observations_1a, righteousness-inspired models_2a and virtue-signaling disciplinary language_3a.  These elements_a are inherently meta- (crossing out of) -physical (material and instrumental causality), even though couched in the methodology of science.

Remember, the noumenon_1b carries a BG(il)L organizational objective_2aC, which is inherently religious.

In sum, the veracity of a BG(il)L institution’s empirio-schematic judgment_2b is supported by the righteousness of the content-level’s disciplinary language_3a, models_2a and observations_1a.  The BG(il)L’s phenomena_1b cannot be refuted. The BG(il)L’s noumenon_1b is undeniable.  Those who question the veracity of the institution’s normal context_3a, actualities_2aand potentials_1a must be regarded as not properly informed.  They are not righteous_1aC.

What are public schools supposed to do?

Properly inform students?

Or indoctrinate them with “not religious” values?

0063 Here is diagram of how BG(il)L institutions game the system.

0064 Surely, the Christians have given the leviathan enough rope.  Pull the creature in and let these heavenly waters descend.  Perhaps, the celestial ocean of BG(il)L will fall on its own.  Can a sea of government liquidity levitate on borrowed and printed money?  How long can this inversion continue?

Can it reign for a thousand years?

Pennock’s essay is intended to clarify the 2005 Kitzmiller case and to provide a rule of thumb to distinguish science and religion.  These comments show how Pennock’s rule can be gamed.  It was gamed before his participation in the debate.  It is being gamed after.

0065 What is the problem?

Is methodical naturalism crowding Christianity from the public square?

Or, is methodological naturalism allowing “not religious” BG(il)L doctrines into the public square?

Clearly, both dynamics are at play.

0066 I thank Robert Pennock for his challenging article.