There's an ELEPHANT in the Room...
1. There's an Elephant in the Room!
This amusing English saying descibes a very obvious truth that is being ignored or which goes unaddressed. It is based on the idea that an elephant in a room would be impossible to overlook; thus, people in the room who pretend that the elephant is not there might be concerning themselves with relatively small and even irrelevant matters, compared to the looming big one, so the saying suggests the refusal to face a very obvious truth or fact.
In The Ledger magazine of February 17th, 2000, an amazing article appeared called, 'The Biologist'. In this article, journalist George Caylor interviewed a molecular biologist who made a most amazing admission. Sadly, we are not able to use this scientist's name, but we understand that the original article was archived for a while by The Ledger of Lynchburg, Virginia, USA (date: February 17th 2000). Unfortunately, we now understand that that particular archive is no longer there. A pity.
Here are just a few comments which this molecular biologist makes in the article on the subject of the complexity of DNA and human code. We have called this scientist 'MB' (for 'molecular biologist'):
Caylor: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
MB: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
Caylor: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
MB: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times:
One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself.
Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures -- everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.”
Caylor: “I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”
MB: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.”
Caylor: “What elephant?”
MB: “Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!”
Evolutionists tend to busy themselves with various theories and configurations within an evolutionary framework which is simply assumed, but evolution itself is seen as something which may not be challenged, despite the huge 'elephant' of creation design breathing down the necks of evolutionists.
This is really a very good description of the ardent evolutionist's refusal to face the fact of design, order and information in the universe. In fact, examples are so abundant that one does not even need to add any. On several occasions I have likened evolution to an apparent grand home of some prosperous and secure individual. You see the house and it looks grand, a truly imposing edifice; but then you decide you want to look in through the windows. One would expect to find a lovely interior with fine furnishings, but when you look inside you are shocked - the house is in complete disrepair and the upper floor has already collapsed!
In like manner, when the general public look at evolution, they see a fine, confident and smart edifice; no problems on the exterior at all. Evolutionary science has become pretty successful at giving the appearance of a united front, yet the truth is that the various theories are in a mess. Darwinism has already been jettisoned (although, craftily, the public were never told that this happened), in order to be replaced with Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is the result of an editor's red pen tearing through Darwin's original works; it is a retreat in order to attempt to hold a stronger position against anticipated enemy attack. It also takes account of Mendelian genetics. Gregor Mendel is now considered to be the 'father of genetics,' he was, by the way, a Christian. In this area Darwin had been naive, but Mendel came to his rescue. This didn't matter to those who simply wanted a united, atheistic, naturalist 'front' to use as a bulwark against Christianity within the entire western educational system. They wanted a bit more consistency, so added Mendel; then again, they didn't want racism so they deleted Darwin's racist comments. They didn't want somebody who believed that the aborigines were "a lower species," so covered up that part. Neither did they want any comments about women being "less evolved," so they hid that part of Darwin too.
So the 'elephant in the room,' scenario means that research scientists avidly research various sideline issues which assume evolution, but never dare to challenge evolution itself. Of course, they sit in a room with a huge elephant (creation science) which has already explained the 'whys and wherefores' of all life but cannot acknowledge it's existence because of a philosophy. Is that not incredible?
Is Evolution's 'House' REALLY in Good Shape?
The mansion or well-appointed and respectable house is somewhat akin to the widely-encouraged public perception and facade of evolution (especially in the UK and Europe). People are encouraged to think that to challenge evolution is simply to reveal ignorance and superstitious prejudice. Yet the truth is rather different. So evolution is given the respect often afforded to a fine and stately building. Yet if one decides to peep through the windows to see what things are really like inside "Evolutionary House," what may one discover?
2. If You Tell a Big Enough Lie, Often Enough, People Will Believe You.
This basic claim can be pinned down to a comment by none other than Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf.
"...the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. I, chapter X).
Of course, Adolf Hitler was referring to the Jews whom he considered to be great liars, and to Jewish influences within pre-WW II Germany; the amazing thing is that he seemed unaware how much this could be applied to him and to his henchmen who continually blamed the Jews for all of Germany's problems. Minister of Propaganda Josef Goebbels readily took on-board Hitler's analogy and accusation and the people at large were soon influenced. There seems little doubt that within a few short years, the majority of Germans really believed that the Jewish community had been responsible for most all of Germany's problems. So Hitler used this principle against the people whom he had accused of being the greatest perpetrators of it.
Yet it is a very accurate statement! The truth is that if the leaders of any particular society continually repeat a particular teaching, then train their leading educators to continually repeat it and never to doubt it, that teaching really does soon 'stick,' of this there can be no doubt. Humanly-organised governments have always been prepared to use blatant lies in their propaganda. Hitler did it, the Soviets even more successfully. Very soon the factuality of a matter and considerations of whether a thing is evidentially strong are not even considered important. Even quite recently we have seen the efficacy of this tactic proven by the climate change people; that is, within as little as 10-15 years; the lack of strong scientific evidence to back up their teaching has not hindered these people even one iota; today it is assumed everywhere, but especially within the more liberal areas of the media.
The Big Lie of Macro-Evolution
But, of course, the greatest example of this within about the last 150 years is plainly the teaching of evolution! All the evidence which Darwin himself plainly expected to be uncovered within a century of his writings (the evidence mainly in the fossil record), has never emerged, rather, the fossil evidence has never ceased to point to divine creation as our true origin. But has this hindered evolutionists? OH NO! Not one bit!! This is because the teaching always was based on a philosophy - not on science! That philosophy is Naturalism, which is the belief that the physical realm of things is all there is and all there ever was or ever will be, therefore anything which gives even the slightest scent of the divine, must be rejected. The evolutionist's determination to uphold this philosophy through thick and thin has been truly remarkable, and undeniably consistent. This is why although evolutionary theories are truthfully in confusion (the 'inside' of their proud 'house'), the public continue to be presented with a picture of the 'exterior' of their house (clean, smart, respectable and "educated"), meanwhile the dark, murky and dirty dealings inside their house largely remain hidden. This is why keen young research scientists who appear about ready to challenge evolution are warned that to do so will mean their being thrown out of university, and why gainfully employed scientists are warned that a major challenge to evolutionary dogma will mean losing their job. Society has been very successful at 'closing ranks' over what is no more than a philosophical dogma. This, of course, is 'meat and drink' to the conspiracy theorists since it seems almost impossible that such a thing could ever have been accomplished without an unpublished, behind-the-scenes agenda being fully agreed, then held in place for many years.
This is why UK Apologetics occasionally receives contact from people who currently (and formerly) lecture on evolution; they often tell us that (in the area of macro-evolution - not micro-evolution) they are required to teach obvious errors and unprovable assumptions, indeed, "fantasies and fairy tales" in the words of one such lecturer, but that they dare not publically challenge it. I think that the number of such e mails which I have received now stands at something around ten over 2-4 years. We actually know the name of one such man but we hold it in strict confidence; he was a very well-respected lecturer on evolution here in the UK until his retirement.
Richard Dawkins; A New Pagan High Priest?
The major western evolution propagandist is now probably the biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has built up quite a following with a succession of heavily Darwinist and atheistic books, although he has more recently lost some ground with his 'The God Delusion,' which has been widely received as being very poorly argued, and sometimes contradictory, anti-Christian rhetoric. I have referred to Dawkins as our new, 21st century 'High Priest' of Paganism! Some have expressed surprise at that comment. What did I mean? Well, despite Dawkins' regular assaults on "religion," he himself adopts a supremely religious approach and Darwin is his "saviour." The only purpose of paganism was to deny Monotheism (one, almighty God), and it was prepared to encourage worship of just about anything as long as denial of the Creator God was facilitated. So pagans worshipped trees, forests, music, the sky, human leaders (who were deified), animals, poetry, the seasons, anything, just as long as one eternal, Creator God was denied. It was perfectly fine for the pagans to be outright atheists. A pagan could willingly support modern 'scientism' (that is, to worship that form of science which insists on denying a supreme God). No problem there whatever. Therefore I have no hesitation in labelling the supremely religious, but God-denying, Richard Dawkins as the new High Priest of modern paganism.
Robin A. Brace, September 1st, 2009.