When I was in my mid-teens I developed a tactic I have used to great political effect throughout my life. Ironically, I suppose, I called it, “playing the prophet,” (though it has nothing to do with any sort of mysticism. Maybe a little inside joke with myself. I do tend to sprinkle my conversation and internal thoughts with all sorts of wry little puns and references that amuse me, but are obscure to anyone else.)
Briefly described, if I have analyzed an issue so thoroughly that I have a greater than 90 percent certainty that it will happen and have carefully considered what effects it will bring, I say it boldly, publicly and firmly, but without malice – particularly if it is diametrically contrary to conventional wisdom on the subject. If the matter is controversial, it is guaranteed to bring a boatload of public opprobrium down on you for a while, sometimes a long while. Everybody loves to propound on how stupid, crazy, and delusional you are. If you can’t bear that kind of public ridicule for a good year, sometimes three or more, you should not try it. But then when it happens largely as you forecast, many people come flooding to your banner. Some loud opponents will annoyingly claim to have been with you all along once the worm turns. When they do, smile and thank them for their fidelity. You are not trying to prove a point, but to win activists and advocates. But be very slow to trust them with leadership, as they are usually unreliable opportunists. Others will actually apologize and make common cause with you. Thank them heartily and welcome them – and consider them for key leadership spots. Even your most bitter, committed opponents will be subdued – and most will be a lot more cautious about publicly ridiculing you after doing so forcefully comes back to bite them. Of course a few, like Wile E. Coyote, never learn and keep beclowning themselves. No problem; it is an object lesson for others who have more attitude than wisdom.
A few pointers if you ever want to try this tactic:
It has to be something that is dramatically contrary to conventional wisdom. If you go and boldly proclaim that water is actually wet, you will impress no one in either the short or the long term and will only convince people that you are an inane idiot who has a firm grasp of the obvious.
You have to do it matter-of-factly and with equanimity. If you do so, it makes it easier for even people who have delighted in tormenting you to later rally to your cause. That doesn’t mean you can’t defend yourself, but exercise restraint and a willingness to accept whatever consequences may come. You want to convey, without saying so, that you will welcome all who would join you, rather than tell them, “I told you so.”
You must be brutally demanding in your research and vetting. Most people are tripped up because they are reflexively accepting of whatever they already want to believe and reflexively skeptical of whatever they don’t. This is just a formula for being perceived as a loudmouth crank. Facts, evidence, and rigorous logic are king here. If you aren’t willing to brutally attack and challenge your own premises, never try this. Once you are so thoroughly intimate with a case that you can state the conventional view more persuasively than your opponents can, you may be ready to proceed, provided you don’t fall so in love with your own unconventional critique that you allow yourself to be blinded to facts and evidence that contradict it.
When you are wrong, as you occasionally will be (90 percent certainty is not 100 percent certainty) own it fully, with no bitterness or excuses. Here’s a secret: most people will forgive you for occasionally being wrong; some men will NEVER forgive you for being right. People are generally just. They notice when you get big things that no one else saw coming right 90 percent of the time – particularly in a crazy time when the so-called elite get things that everyone saw coming wrong 90 percent of the time.
When I was in radio in Chicago, I was having lunch one day with the Majority Leader of the Illinois House when he told me that they carried tapes of some of my more provocative commentaries to the Capitol and a lot of legislators liked to listen. Puzzled, I asked him why. He replied, “You are an excellent analyst and prognosticator, Charlie, but when it is about normal things you are still within the normal spectrum. But when you say something so wild and absurd that no one else ever thought of it, you can take it to the bank – and a lot of us like to get that early warning.” Once I launched a powerful gambit for a candidate in a 63 percent Dem district that I knew would turn very quickly, but would get us a firestorm in the short term. Firestorm ignited. About a week into it the candidate told me he would not get through this if he did not have such confidence in me. The worm turned and my candidate became a champion. I was a little clumsy that time, though. The worm turned so decisively that the smartest reporter in the state suspected I had sandbagged them all. Only time a reporter ever sniffed out one of my gambits.
I say all this to tell you there is a major subject you can safely play the prophet with your friends. Though the education community, the media, and much of the governmental scientific community has not caught on yet (or are in frantic denial over) there has been an absolute revolution in the last decade over evolution. Top scientists in almost all fields now realize (many quite reluctantly) that not only is macroevolution a failed theory, it cannot possibly be true in the way it is being peddled. This is particularly delicious because all those smug ignoramuses who like to play smart on the cheap (without doing any serious actual study) like to sniff at people who question it as rubes. I’m telling you, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is in the same position that geocentricism was when Galileo was condemned for contradicting it: everyone in public authority believes it with religious fervor and they are all wrong – and will be publicly known to be so within a generation.
Even Darwin had some concern with the challenge that the Cambrian Explosion presented to his theory when he composed it, but hoped that lower strata of the fossil record would eventually clear up the mess. Understand that Darwin was, indeed, a giant whose brilliance added dramatically to our understanding of the world. His theory of adaptation has not been a theory for a long time: it is a fact, proven by experimental evidence. Adaptation means that, within a species, over time, traits that are advantageous become common. Thus, in chilly northern climes, animals with thick coats have a competitive advantage which will lead, over time, to most animals in those climes having thick coats. All of this happens within the same species using DNA that is already there. Some evolutionary biologists started using the term, “microevolution” to describe what is fundamentally a from of adaptation. Why? Probably to rhetorically prop up the failed theory of macroevolution.
Darwin’s theory of macroevolution posited that over geological eons, random mutations became inheritable and that this was the origin of completely different types of species from species to which they were unrelated. This would, necessarily, entail a very slow, very stately continuous process. The Cambrian fossil record challenged that theory because, during that period, complex animals first made their appearance in abundance and seemingly out of nowhere. There was no fossil record of any transitional species. They all just appeared. What advances in geologic strata in subsequent decades showed was that in following eras, many species died off entirely while new species would arise out of nowhere. One could posit that minor mutations could be genetically transferrable, but major mutations just made the affected animal sterile or killed it early. You have probably heard tales, in your lifetime, of the “missing link.” The dirty little secret is that there are none. Even if one could find a mutated animal that one could, with some violence, posit as such a link, for it to be father of a whole new type of species, there would have to be a multitude of them – and that has never happened. Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory is dependent on a stately continuity, but the fossil record shows constant and abrupt discontinuity.
Again, this is something that troubled Darwin even in his time – and he candidly acknowledged the problem, even if he was confident that further geologic research would clear it up. It has not – only made it murkier.
But now, microbiology and, ironically, the genetic coding in DNA have done more than made Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory unlikely: they have utterly refuted it.
I won’t bore you with much more detail. The great genius who has led the charge on this is Stephen C. Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. Panicked opponents call him a pseudo-scientist (amusing to hear dull-witted media mavens calling a Cambridge Ph.D. a “pseudo-scientist.” It really stinks to be condescended to by your inferiors), but over the last decade a trickle of interdisciplinary scientists started dealing with his data and evidence instead of just sneering at him – and that trickle is on the threshold of becoming a flood of prominent biologists, geneticists, paleontologists and more. To get a taste of his work (which is accessible to laymen as well as detailed for scientists), just pick up one of his books, “Darwin’s Doubt.”
The dwindling number of opponents in serious quarters continue to sneer at, rather than engage with, him. Why? Well, far lesser scientists than Darwin jumped on the macroevolutionary theory with gusto – largely because they think it militates against the existence of God. The truly shocking thing about the evidence Meyer has marshalled is that it points to the most likely and plausible method of creation of new species as being intelligent design. The genetic coding in DNA sequences is roughly analogous to the computer languages used in developing new software programs. Whenever a new species arrives, its genetic coding is filled with new information that preciously did not exist in nature at all.
The Bible’s story of creation works as a metaphor for what the actual evidence shows. Macroevolutionary theory does not work as either science or metaphor – and that is what has the dummies who think themselves the “smart set” so riled against him. But with the growing flood of prominent scientists acknowledging reality, the dikes of smug ignorance won’t hold for another generation.
Why is this important to me? I think it no coincidence that at this perilous time in history, actual science, evidence and reason have conspired to point to the existence of God, rather than to the godless universe so cherished by the smart set. God always gives hints to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
It may well be that secularist atheists eventually raise another plausible theory to explain the evidence, but what is certain is that Darwinian macroevolutionary theory is already a dead man walking. And you can play the prophet on this one, for in a generation all the smart set, like officials in Galileo’s time, will know that they were wrong and the dissident was right.
My next talk will be on Thursday, July 21, at the Harvest Room, 1465 Tharp Rd., Yuba City, CA 95993. It is just about 40 miles north of Sacramento – and one of my favorite spots in California. Doors will open at 5 pm and the talk will begin at 5:30. We had a great talk in Redwood City, just south of San Francisco, last week (all the atmosphere without all the crime). Alas, I forgot to get any pictures – as I frequently do when doing a talk. I will try to remember this Thursday. But y’all come!
If communication goes out for any length of time, meet outside your local Church at 9 a.m. on Saturday mornings. Tell friends at Church now in case you can’t then. CORAC teams will be out looking for people to gather in and work with.
Find me on Gab at Charliej373 or at the CORAC group.
Find me on Twitter at @Charlie62394802