1 00:00:00,200 --> 00:00:03,360 Speaker 1: What is the evidence for and against evolution? If true, 2 00:00:03,560 --> 00:00:07,880 Speaker 1: would evolution undermine Christian theism or is it potentially compatible 3 00:00:07,920 --> 00:00:10,379 Speaker 1: with it? And perhaps toughest of all, if God did 4 00:00:10,520 --> 00:00:13,040 Speaker 1: use evolution, why would he set up a world with 5 00:00:13,119 --> 00:00:16,980 Speaker 1: predation and suffering built into it? Does this make God 6 00:00:17,020 --> 00:00:20,860 Speaker 1: the author of evil and suffering? Our guest today, Dr. 7 00:00:20,900 --> 00:00:24,159 Speaker 1: William Lane Craig, has just released the third volume of 8 00:00:24,220 --> 00:00:28,980 Speaker 1: his systematic philosophical theology, which is on creation and man. 9 00:00:29,420 --> 00:00:31,590 Speaker 1: And today we're going to discuss these issues and so 10 00:00:31,620 --> 00:00:31,990 Speaker 1: much more. 11 00:00:32,110 --> 00:00:32,409 Speaker 2: Dr. 12 00:00:32,450 --> 00:00:34,930 Speaker 1: Craig, always enjoy having you on. Thanks for joining me. 13 00:00:35,390 --> 00:00:37,290 Speaker 3: Thank you, Sean. Good to be with you again. 14 00:00:37,310 --> 00:00:40,930 Speaker 1: Well, before we jump into these questions about evolution, maybe 15 00:00:40,950 --> 00:00:42,530 Speaker 1: you could give us kind of a sense of the 16 00:00:42,650 --> 00:00:46,200 Speaker 1: focus and scope of volume three, because it deals with 17 00:00:46,340 --> 00:00:49,100 Speaker 1: so much more than what we're talking about today. 18 00:00:50,420 --> 00:00:54,640 Speaker 3: It does deal with two principal subjects, the doctrine of 19 00:00:54,780 --> 00:01:00,770 Speaker 3: creation and the doctrine of man, and unique features include 20 00:01:00,830 --> 00:01:06,830 Speaker 3: a robust defense of creation out of nothing, divine conservation, 21 00:01:07,170 --> 00:01:11,399 Speaker 3: and divine concurrence, a defense of the view that God 22 00:01:11,480 --> 00:01:17,330 Speaker 3: is timeless sans creation and temporal and subsequent to the 23 00:01:17,390 --> 00:01:23,890 Speaker 3: moment of creation, a Molinist perspective on providence, a defense 24 00:01:24,230 --> 00:01:29,540 Speaker 3: of the historical Adam and Eve, a defense of body-soul dualism, 25 00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:34,940 Speaker 3: and a doctrine of sin that affirms the universality of sin, 26 00:01:35,420 --> 00:01:39,910 Speaker 3: but not the imputation of Adam's sin to us or 27 00:01:39,990 --> 00:01:44,610 Speaker 3: the corruption of human nature, but rather a privation of 28 00:01:45,150 --> 00:01:48,710 Speaker 3: of the original righteousness possessed by Adam and Eve. 29 00:01:49,880 --> 00:01:51,980 Speaker 1: All right, now there's a ton there we could talk about, 30 00:01:52,000 --> 00:01:54,820 Speaker 1: and I suspect that there's going to be some controversial 31 00:01:54,900 --> 00:01:58,080 Speaker 1: things in this volume that people respond to and react to, 32 00:01:58,660 --> 00:02:02,080 Speaker 1: but let's narrow down kind of on the question of evolution. 33 00:02:02,100 --> 00:02:02,760 Speaker 2: Okay. 34 00:02:02,800 --> 00:02:06,870 Speaker 1: And I'd really be curious, from a theological perspective— What 35 00:02:06,890 --> 00:02:10,390 Speaker 1: would you say are the essentials that any model attempting 36 00:02:10,430 --> 00:02:14,250 Speaker 1: to integrate science and Christian theism on the evolution of 37 00:02:14,330 --> 00:02:17,870 Speaker 1: life must incorporate? In other words, what are the theological 38 00:02:17,970 --> 00:02:22,669 Speaker 1: non-negotiables all Christians must incorporate when formulating such a model? 39 00:02:23,910 --> 00:02:27,769 Speaker 3: I think that we have to see the origin and 40 00:02:28,130 --> 00:02:33,110 Speaker 3: evolution of life on this planet as ultimately due to 41 00:02:33,270 --> 00:02:39,720 Speaker 3: God's providential plan and Beyond that, I think we can 42 00:02:39,750 --> 00:02:44,940 Speaker 3: be completely open to the means by which God achieved 43 00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:45,840 Speaker 3: his designs. 44 00:02:46,680 --> 00:02:49,890 Speaker 1: Okay, that's a key distinction when it comes to certain 45 00:02:50,010 --> 00:02:54,960 Speaker 1: understandings of evolution that are purely, solely naturalistic and undirected. 46 00:02:55,690 --> 00:02:59,750 Speaker 1: Those parameters separate. Of course, the devil is in the details, 47 00:02:59,850 --> 00:03:01,760 Speaker 1: and we will get into some of how this works 48 00:03:01,800 --> 00:03:04,980 Speaker 1: itself out. But your book reminded me in some ways 49 00:03:05,240 --> 00:03:08,600 Speaker 1: of where the conflict really lies by Alvin Plantinga, which 50 00:03:08,660 --> 00:03:11,180 Speaker 1: came out in 2011 during my doctoral studies. 51 00:03:11,200 --> 00:03:13,339 Speaker 2: And I remember just reading it right away, and we 52 00:03:13,680 --> 00:03:15,000 Speaker 2: discussed and debated it. 53 00:03:15,620 --> 00:03:17,850 Speaker 1: And I'm curious if you could explain kind of what 54 00:03:17,889 --> 00:03:20,910 Speaker 1: his thesis is and how maybe similar or different your 55 00:03:20,950 --> 00:03:21,889 Speaker 1: approach is from his. 56 00:03:21,910 --> 00:03:26,030 Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. Al argued in this book that there is 57 00:03:26,190 --> 00:03:33,140 Speaker 3: no conflict between theism and science, whereas there is a 58 00:03:33,419 --> 00:03:41,820 Speaker 3: deep conflict between naturalism and science. Unfortunately, Al never addressed 59 00:03:41,880 --> 00:03:47,000 Speaker 3: whether there is a conflict between biblical theism and science. 60 00:03:47,040 --> 00:03:52,390 Speaker 3: He just completely avoided that issue, and that issue is 61 00:03:52,730 --> 00:03:55,230 Speaker 3: squarely tackled in this volume. 62 00:03:56,010 --> 00:03:58,610 Speaker 1: Okay, so maybe tell me what that difference is. I 63 00:03:58,650 --> 00:04:01,710 Speaker 1: could guess, but what are some of the distinctions between 64 00:04:01,730 --> 00:04:05,630 Speaker 1: like a broad theism and a biblical theism that would 65 00:04:05,670 --> 00:04:07,710 Speaker 1: make it so important for you to address it here? 66 00:04:07,730 --> 00:04:14,020 Speaker 3: A biblical theism will take the Bible as authoritative in 67 00:04:14,100 --> 00:04:18,600 Speaker 3: everything that it teaches, whereas Plantinga was just dealing with 68 00:04:18,740 --> 00:04:23,450 Speaker 3: a sort of generic monotheism, that would be quite consistent 69 00:04:23,490 --> 00:04:28,529 Speaker 3: with denying biblical inspiration and inerrancy. 70 00:04:28,970 --> 00:04:31,029 Speaker 2: Okay, got it. That's very helpful. 71 00:04:31,050 --> 00:04:35,090 Speaker 1: Now, again, in this book, it's 578 pages, I think. 72 00:04:35,730 --> 00:04:38,419 Speaker 1: You talk about creation ex nihilo, origin of life, image 73 00:04:38,450 --> 00:04:42,520 Speaker 1: of God, anthropological dualism. But since we're going to narrow 74 00:04:42,540 --> 00:04:44,840 Speaker 1: down on the topic of evolution, I'm wondering if you 75 00:04:44,860 --> 00:04:49,099 Speaker 1: can define what is even meant by the word evolution here. 76 00:04:49,790 --> 00:04:53,900 Speaker 1: And explain how evolutionary theory itself has evolved from what's 77 00:04:53,940 --> 00:04:57,360 Speaker 1: called Darwinism to the modern synthesis to what's often called 78 00:04:57,380 --> 00:04:59,800 Speaker 1: the extended evolutionary synthesis. 79 00:05:00,860 --> 00:05:07,210 Speaker 3: The word evolution itself derives from the Latin evolvere, which 80 00:05:07,310 --> 00:05:14,150 Speaker 3: means to roll out or to unfold. The English derivative 81 00:05:14,250 --> 00:05:19,150 Speaker 3: basically means to change, and it's in this general sense 82 00:05:19,180 --> 00:05:23,120 Speaker 3: that that we can talk about the evolution of life 83 00:05:23,560 --> 00:05:30,500 Speaker 3: to indicate how life on our planet has changed over time. 84 00:05:30,560 --> 00:05:34,900 Speaker 3: There is a long history of life on this planet 85 00:05:34,940 --> 00:05:41,000 Speaker 3: from about 4.8 billion years ago until today. Now, evolutionary 86 00:05:41,080 --> 00:05:49,839 Speaker 3: biology does not treat evolution as a change in individual organisms. Rather, 87 00:05:50,080 --> 00:05:56,380 Speaker 3: biological evolution is descent with modification, that is to say, 88 00:05:56,900 --> 00:06:04,450 Speaker 3: inherited change in the characteristics of populations of organisms over 89 00:06:04,490 --> 00:06:09,690 Speaker 3: the course of the generations. Now, if we just set 90 00:06:09,830 --> 00:06:17,410 Speaker 3: to the side pre-Darwinian evolutionary theories... What people need to realize, 91 00:06:17,690 --> 00:06:21,390 Speaker 3: I think, is that the theory of evolution has itself 92 00:06:21,950 --> 00:06:28,080 Speaker 3: evolved and continues to evolve. Darwin's original theory was comprised 93 00:06:28,160 --> 00:06:33,040 Speaker 3: of two theses. One would be that there are natural 94 00:06:33,160 --> 00:06:40,970 Speaker 3: variations of different sorts of animals, and then second would 95 00:06:41,029 --> 00:06:46,630 Speaker 3: be that there is natural selection. Those best adapted to 96 00:06:46,690 --> 00:06:52,750 Speaker 3: the environment will have an advantage in the struggle for survival. Now, 97 00:06:53,089 --> 00:06:57,930 Speaker 3: it's been rightly said that Darwin's theory explained the survival 98 00:06:57,990 --> 00:07:02,570 Speaker 3: of the fittest, but it never really explained the arrival 99 00:07:03,070 --> 00:07:05,800 Speaker 3: of the fittest. That is to say, what is the 100 00:07:05,950 --> 00:07:12,100 Speaker 3: source of those variations on which natural selection operates? Well, 101 00:07:12,320 --> 00:07:17,250 Speaker 3: that was the advance of than in the modern synthesis, 102 00:07:17,830 --> 00:07:26,750 Speaker 3: which was a marriage of Darwin's theory with Gregor Mendel's genetics. 103 00:07:27,530 --> 00:07:33,180 Speaker 3: And in the modern synthesis, it is genetic mutations randomly 104 00:07:33,280 --> 00:07:38,000 Speaker 3: occurring that are the source of the variations on which 105 00:07:38,120 --> 00:07:44,970 Speaker 3: natural selection then operates. to advance the survivability of organism 106 00:07:45,030 --> 00:07:50,780 Speaker 3: best suited to their environment. Now, that theory persisted until 107 00:07:50,820 --> 00:07:58,320 Speaker 3: the 1980s, during which time it succumbed to extensive criticisms, 108 00:07:58,920 --> 00:08:04,540 Speaker 3: so that now evolutionary biologists are seeking to enunciate what 109 00:08:04,620 --> 00:08:11,020 Speaker 3: is called the extended evolutionary synthesis. And this moves beyond 110 00:08:11,080 --> 00:08:16,340 Speaker 3: the sort of gene centrism of the modern synthesis to 111 00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:24,710 Speaker 3: posit additional non-genetic factors and explanatory mechanisms to explain the 112 00:08:24,830 --> 00:08:31,130 Speaker 3: origin of biological diversity and complexity. And so the advocates 113 00:08:31,170 --> 00:08:36,000 Speaker 3: of this extended evolutionary synthesis are very critical of the 114 00:08:36,080 --> 00:08:44,860 Speaker 3: modern synthesis for its explanatory inadequacy. And this modern herb, 115 00:08:46,040 --> 00:08:52,220 Speaker 3: extended evolutionary synthesis, has not yet been completed or formulated. 116 00:08:52,340 --> 00:08:59,500 Speaker 3: The field is in turmoil as evolutionary biologists are seeking 117 00:08:59,559 --> 00:09:06,070 Speaker 3: to find these extended mechanisms that would explain the evolution 118 00:09:06,230 --> 00:09:08,500 Speaker 3: of biological complexity. 119 00:09:09,380 --> 00:09:11,800 Speaker 1: Very helpful to make some of these distinctions. And we're 120 00:09:11,820 --> 00:09:14,069 Speaker 1: going to get into some of the problems that still 121 00:09:14,120 --> 00:09:18,490 Speaker 1: remain for this extended evolutionary synthesis. I want to make 122 00:09:18,510 --> 00:09:21,050 Speaker 1: sure I get this right. Yeah, extended evolutionary synthesis. We're 123 00:09:21,070 --> 00:09:23,050 Speaker 1: going to get into some of that. Is it fair 124 00:09:23,090 --> 00:09:26,790 Speaker 1: to say that what ties these three different understandings of 125 00:09:26,860 --> 00:09:31,260 Speaker 1: evolution together minimally is common descent? That seems to be 126 00:09:31,300 --> 00:09:33,939 Speaker 1: the common thread that runs through the three of them 127 00:09:34,320 --> 00:09:37,240 Speaker 1: but there's a difference and a debate over the mechanism 128 00:09:37,380 --> 00:09:39,480 Speaker 1: and means by which things change. 129 00:09:39,540 --> 00:09:40,720 Speaker 2: Is that a fair summary? 130 00:09:40,880 --> 00:09:44,490 Speaker 3: Yes, I think that's right. And I think it's important 131 00:09:44,540 --> 00:09:52,310 Speaker 3: to see that each one incorporates the prior insights of 132 00:09:52,929 --> 00:09:56,829 Speaker 3: the obsolete theory. It's not as though the older theory 133 00:09:56,870 --> 00:10:06,020 Speaker 3: is simply discarded as worthless. Rather, each stage, each evolutionary 134 00:10:06,090 --> 00:10:11,190 Speaker 3: stage of the theory of evolution incorporates elements of the 135 00:10:11,270 --> 00:10:14,689 Speaker 3: previous stages and seeks to move beyond them to a 136 00:10:14,750 --> 00:10:15,809 Speaker 3: more adequate theory. 137 00:10:16,360 --> 00:10:16,620 Speaker 2: All right. 138 00:10:16,820 --> 00:10:20,250 Speaker 1: Like good philosophers, we're going to make some more distinctions 139 00:10:20,350 --> 00:10:22,390 Speaker 1: for people because it's important. 140 00:10:22,410 --> 00:10:23,390 Speaker 2: A lot's at stake. 141 00:10:23,850 --> 00:10:26,270 Speaker 1: And obviously you lay these out in your book very 142 00:10:26,350 --> 00:10:29,360 Speaker 1: carefully and you document it as carefully as I've ever 143 00:10:29,420 --> 00:10:32,100 Speaker 1: seen done. But one of the things that to me 144 00:10:32,179 --> 00:10:36,280 Speaker 1: was most helpful is that you discuss three aspects of 145 00:10:36,880 --> 00:10:40,760 Speaker 1: the evolutionary paradigm. And I'd be curious if you could 146 00:10:40,780 --> 00:10:44,760 Speaker 1: explain what these three aspects are and why it's so 147 00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:47,739 Speaker 1: important that we make these very distinctions. 148 00:10:49,000 --> 00:10:55,520 Speaker 3: The eminent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala explains that the word 149 00:10:56,090 --> 00:11:02,010 Speaker 3: evolution is used in at least three different senses today. 150 00:11:02,890 --> 00:11:07,340 Speaker 3: The first would be the thesis of common ancestry. that 151 00:11:07,559 --> 00:11:13,819 Speaker 3: all living organisms are genealogically related and descend from one 152 00:11:14,520 --> 00:11:20,540 Speaker 3: or a few common ancestors in the past. The second 153 00:11:20,860 --> 00:11:26,429 Speaker 3: aspect would be the reconstruction of the tree of life, 154 00:11:27,030 --> 00:11:33,230 Speaker 3: trying to figure out how various lines of descent branch 155 00:11:33,590 --> 00:11:37,770 Speaker 3: off of one another to form a this tree of life. 156 00:11:38,450 --> 00:11:43,750 Speaker 3: And then the third aspect would be identifying the explanatory 157 00:11:43,960 --> 00:11:52,920 Speaker 3: mechanisms of evolution. What explains the advance in biological diversity 158 00:11:53,140 --> 00:11:59,040 Speaker 3: and complexity over time? Now these distinctions are really vital, 159 00:11:59,679 --> 00:12:06,390 Speaker 3: because when biologists say that evolution is a fact, that 160 00:12:06,450 --> 00:12:12,849 Speaker 3: it's indisputable. They are referring only to the thesis of 161 00:12:12,929 --> 00:12:18,770 Speaker 3: common ancestry. They recognize that evolution in the other two 162 00:12:18,880 --> 00:12:23,679 Speaker 3: senses of the word is highly disputed among biologists today, 163 00:12:24,160 --> 00:12:27,880 Speaker 3: and this is especially true, as I've already intimated, with 164 00:12:27,940 --> 00:12:33,380 Speaker 3: respect to the third aspect of evolution, namely the identification 165 00:12:33,420 --> 00:12:38,449 Speaker 3: of the explanatory mechanisms. Now, you ask which of these 166 00:12:39,190 --> 00:12:44,100 Speaker 3: are theologically compatible with Christianity, and my answer, Sean, would 167 00:12:44,160 --> 00:12:49,600 Speaker 3: be that given that the Bible does not teach young 168 00:12:49,760 --> 00:12:55,270 Speaker 3: earth creationism, I think all of these are theologically compatible 169 00:12:55,770 --> 00:13:01,750 Speaker 3: with biblical theism. If young earth creationism is not taught 170 00:13:02,140 --> 00:13:06,650 Speaker 3: by the Bible, then the Bible says virtually nothing about 171 00:13:06,990 --> 00:13:14,000 Speaker 3: how God created the organisms on this planet. And therefore, 172 00:13:14,040 --> 00:13:18,699 Speaker 3: I think all three aspects are open to the biblically 173 00:13:18,800 --> 00:13:19,800 Speaker 3: faithful Christian. 174 00:13:20,660 --> 00:13:22,710 Speaker 1: So just to bring it back to Plantinga's idea to 175 00:13:22,750 --> 00:13:26,380 Speaker 1: make sure I understand. You're saying these three theses are 176 00:13:26,679 --> 00:13:31,300 Speaker 1: contradictory of a certain way of taking Christian theism, young 177 00:13:31,460 --> 00:13:37,910 Speaker 1: earth creationism, but are not intrinsically in themselves inconsistent not 178 00:13:37,970 --> 00:13:42,370 Speaker 1: only with theism, like Plantinga said, but a biblical theism 179 00:13:42,770 --> 00:13:47,850 Speaker 1: broadly understood. There's no inherent contradiction there between the three 180 00:13:47,970 --> 00:13:51,599 Speaker 1: ideas of evolution. Again, it would be common ancestry. It 181 00:13:51,640 --> 00:13:54,840 Speaker 1: would be the phylogenetic tree, and then it would be 182 00:13:54,880 --> 00:13:58,579 Speaker 1: the mechanism that drives it. Even if that were true, 183 00:13:58,740 --> 00:14:01,160 Speaker 1: all three of them, you don't see a contradiction with 184 00:14:01,220 --> 00:14:05,719 Speaker 1: biblical theism, assuming we don't associate biblical theism with young 185 00:14:05,740 --> 00:14:06,640 Speaker 1: earth creationism. 186 00:14:06,780 --> 00:14:10,800 Speaker 3: Right. That is the assumption. And in my work, I 187 00:14:10,860 --> 00:14:17,470 Speaker 3: give a detailed discussion of how to interpret the creation 188 00:14:17,550 --> 00:14:21,860 Speaker 3: story in Genesis 1. and argued that it is not 189 00:14:21,960 --> 00:14:29,850 Speaker 3: best construed as teaching the literal creation of the biosphere 190 00:14:30,070 --> 00:14:32,730 Speaker 3: in six consecutive 24-hour days. 191 00:14:33,430 --> 00:14:36,390 Speaker 1: Now, you and I could probably have a full 24-hour 192 00:14:36,550 --> 00:14:40,880 Speaker 1: conversation on each of these topics, and you discuss the 193 00:14:40,980 --> 00:14:43,700 Speaker 1: genre of Genesis. You make your case. That's a chapter 194 00:14:43,720 --> 00:14:46,590 Speaker 1: in this book. You talked about it elsewhere. You offer 195 00:14:46,630 --> 00:14:49,330 Speaker 1: a critique in your book of young earth creationism. I 196 00:14:49,370 --> 00:14:51,590 Speaker 1: know some people here want me to raise those objections. 197 00:14:51,610 --> 00:14:54,420 Speaker 1: That is just a conversation for another time. I want 198 00:14:54,460 --> 00:14:57,300 Speaker 1: people to know how much you cover in this volume here. 199 00:14:57,380 --> 00:15:00,480 Speaker 1: I really want to explicate where your thinking is on 200 00:15:00,540 --> 00:15:03,760 Speaker 1: this and why. So we're going to circle back to 201 00:15:03,780 --> 00:15:07,710 Speaker 1: the first premise about universal common ancestry in a minute. 202 00:15:08,150 --> 00:15:10,489 Speaker 1: But if you'd really kind of hone down on that 203 00:15:10,650 --> 00:15:15,390 Speaker 1: third aspect seems really where the debate is. And when 204 00:15:15,430 --> 00:15:18,550 Speaker 1: you said somebody assumes the fact of common ancestry and 205 00:15:18,600 --> 00:15:22,840 Speaker 1: people hear that assumes there's a mechanism that works, that's 206 00:15:22,900 --> 00:15:28,120 Speaker 1: a huge equivocation that is taking place. So what's your 207 00:15:28,140 --> 00:15:34,610 Speaker 1: assessment of the evidence for an explanatory mechanism? And does 208 00:15:35,630 --> 00:15:39,310 Speaker 1: your assessment line up with how many scientists who embrace 209 00:15:39,350 --> 00:15:43,490 Speaker 1: an evolutionary model also assess the evidence of that third aspect? 210 00:15:44,040 --> 00:15:49,740 Speaker 3: Well, it's really interesting to read the statements of evolutionary 211 00:15:49,800 --> 00:15:55,440 Speaker 3: biologists themselves with regard to the quest of an extended 212 00:15:55,580 --> 00:16:00,620 Speaker 3: evolutionary synthesis. One scientist put it in this way. There 213 00:16:01,040 --> 00:16:07,870 Speaker 3: is no postmodern synthesis. A kind of nice pun. There 214 00:16:07,990 --> 00:16:14,670 Speaker 3: is no synthesis that follows the modern synthesis. Rather, great 215 00:16:14,770 --> 00:16:20,090 Speaker 3: uncertainty reigns about what explains the origin of biological diversity 216 00:16:20,150 --> 00:16:24,660 Speaker 3: and complexity that we observe today. So many different sorts 217 00:16:24,700 --> 00:16:29,260 Speaker 3: of explanatory mechanisms are being explored, and much of the 218 00:16:29,780 --> 00:16:34,580 Speaker 3: modern synthesis has been overturned or called into question today. 219 00:16:35,540 --> 00:16:36,680 Speaker 2: That's really interesting. 220 00:16:36,720 --> 00:16:39,120 Speaker 1: I think important for people to hear that it's not 221 00:16:39,280 --> 00:16:43,250 Speaker 1: like a secret. It's common knowledge, and it's stated frequently. 222 00:16:43,650 --> 00:16:49,920 Speaker 1: That there's no acceptable mechanism to drive this process. That's 223 00:16:49,960 --> 00:16:53,140 Speaker 1: a pretty remarkable thing. Okay, let's shift to the first 224 00:16:53,300 --> 00:16:55,400 Speaker 1: one a little bit, and I'm really curious to get 225 00:16:55,420 --> 00:16:59,730 Speaker 1: your take on universal common ancestry. What is some of 226 00:16:59,770 --> 00:17:03,350 Speaker 1: the key evidence that's offered for this, and what do 227 00:17:03,370 --> 00:17:04,619 Speaker 1: you personally make of it? 228 00:17:05,070 --> 00:17:11,440 Speaker 3: Mm-hmm. In the book, I review the various lines of 229 00:17:11,540 --> 00:17:15,160 Speaker 3: evidence that are offered for the thesis of common ancestry. 230 00:17:15,940 --> 00:17:20,600 Speaker 3: And I think that much of the evidence is inconclusive. 231 00:17:21,240 --> 00:17:28,440 Speaker 3: It shows at best what I call extremely limited common ancestry, 232 00:17:28,940 --> 00:17:35,430 Speaker 3: as opposed to universal common ancestry. For example, the pentadactyl limb, 233 00:17:35,970 --> 00:17:40,950 Speaker 3: that is to say the appendage that features five fingers 234 00:17:41,050 --> 00:17:45,880 Speaker 3: or digits. The pentadactyl limb is found in various forms 235 00:17:46,119 --> 00:17:52,199 Speaker 3: in the human hand, in the seal's flipper, in the 236 00:17:52,280 --> 00:17:57,250 Speaker 3: whale's fin, in the bird's wing, in the wings of 237 00:17:57,330 --> 00:18:03,620 Speaker 3: a bat. All of these exhibit this pentadactyl limb. And 238 00:18:03,859 --> 00:18:08,119 Speaker 3: this is said to be explained by their common ancestry. 239 00:18:08,760 --> 00:18:15,350 Speaker 3: Over time, the pentadactyl limb has been adapted by natural 240 00:18:15,390 --> 00:18:20,149 Speaker 3: selection to serve different purposes, but they all have basically 241 00:18:20,210 --> 00:18:25,879 Speaker 3: the same structure indicating their common ancestry. But that is 242 00:18:26,560 --> 00:18:34,139 Speaker 3: almost a triviality when you look at the... various kingdoms 243 00:18:34,200 --> 00:18:39,690 Speaker 3: of life on this planet, all of those are vertebrates, 244 00:18:40,650 --> 00:18:46,450 Speaker 3: and the vertebrates are just a tiny twig of a 245 00:18:46,530 --> 00:18:50,260 Speaker 3: twig of the tree of life, so that even if 246 00:18:50,340 --> 00:18:56,400 Speaker 3: this is conceded, it really only amounts to evidence for 247 00:18:56,460 --> 00:19:02,449 Speaker 3: extremely limited common act ancestry among certain vertebrates. Rather, it 248 00:19:02,590 --> 00:19:06,449 Speaker 3: seems to me that the most compelling evidence for the 249 00:19:06,510 --> 00:19:12,760 Speaker 3: thesis of common ancestry comes from microbiology, where we see 250 00:19:12,840 --> 00:19:22,260 Speaker 3: that all living organisms, from the most primitive bacterium to humanity, 251 00:19:22,960 --> 00:19:27,980 Speaker 3: are built on the same DNA and RNA. It is 252 00:19:28,600 --> 00:19:35,660 Speaker 3: astonishing that that basically the same genetic code governs all 253 00:19:35,700 --> 00:19:40,030 Speaker 3: of life. Now certainly there have been mutations and changes, 254 00:19:40,570 --> 00:19:44,889 Speaker 3: but it's basically all the same, and that seems to 255 00:19:44,910 --> 00:19:50,540 Speaker 3: be best explained by saying that these organisms are all 256 00:19:50,660 --> 00:19:56,859 Speaker 3: genealogically related to each other. So the evidence of microbiology, 257 00:19:57,440 --> 00:20:01,000 Speaker 3: I think, would provide the most persuasive evidence for a 258 00:20:01,140 --> 00:20:04,080 Speaker 3: truly universal common descent. 259 00:20:05,500 --> 00:20:08,330 Speaker 1: I'd be curious if this is considered such the factual 260 00:20:08,700 --> 00:20:11,300 Speaker 1: of evolution, and I've seen this stated over and over 261 00:20:11,359 --> 00:20:14,020 Speaker 1: again in some of my own studies, and this is 262 00:20:14,080 --> 00:20:18,510 Speaker 1: the first of the three. Again, universal common ancestry, the 263 00:20:18,550 --> 00:20:22,570 Speaker 1: tree of life, and the mechanism. You studied this from 264 00:20:22,630 --> 00:20:26,150 Speaker 1: somebody who's saying, I don't see any theological or philosophical 265 00:20:26,210 --> 00:20:31,630 Speaker 1: problem in principle with this and my Christian faith. You 266 00:20:31,690 --> 00:20:35,180 Speaker 1: find the evidence inconclusive. Would you agree with a lot 267 00:20:35,220 --> 00:20:39,270 Speaker 1: of intelligent design proponents who would see things like methodological 268 00:20:39,350 --> 00:20:43,010 Speaker 1: naturalism and naturalism at work in the way a lot 269 00:20:43,030 --> 00:20:45,250 Speaker 1: of people are assessing the evidence? Or would you be 270 00:20:45,350 --> 00:20:50,070 Speaker 1: less likely to attribute the strong statements in favor of 271 00:20:50,150 --> 00:20:53,169 Speaker 1: universal common ancestry when it's not as conclusive as you 272 00:20:53,210 --> 00:20:53,669 Speaker 1: think it is? 273 00:20:54,330 --> 00:20:59,410 Speaker 3: Well, I think that undoubtedly methodological and even metaphysical naturalism 274 00:20:59,710 --> 00:21:03,480 Speaker 3: plays a a key role. It's easy to find statements 275 00:21:03,580 --> 00:21:09,580 Speaker 3: by evolutionary biologists to that effect, but I'm approaching this 276 00:21:09,660 --> 00:21:13,720 Speaker 3: as a Christian believer, as a systematic theologian, and therefore 277 00:21:13,760 --> 00:21:16,740 Speaker 3: believing in the God of the Bible. And when I 278 00:21:16,810 --> 00:21:20,669 Speaker 3: look at the evidence of microbiology, I do find it 279 00:21:20,730 --> 00:21:27,840 Speaker 3: to be extremely persuasive and Four, thinking that all of 280 00:21:27,900 --> 00:21:33,380 Speaker 3: these organisms are genealogically related to one another, rather than 281 00:21:33,480 --> 00:21:38,399 Speaker 3: saying that God has created them over and over and 282 00:21:38,560 --> 00:21:44,370 Speaker 3: over again on the basic same structure, the same code. 283 00:21:44,450 --> 00:21:48,830 Speaker 3: It seems more plausible to think that they are related 284 00:21:48,910 --> 00:21:49,990 Speaker 3: to one another. 285 00:21:50,690 --> 00:21:52,510 Speaker 2: Okay, that's helpful. Fair enough. 286 00:21:53,070 --> 00:21:56,389 Speaker 1: You have a section in your book that, again— There 287 00:21:56,430 --> 00:21:58,130 Speaker 1: are so many things that jumped out to me, even 288 00:21:58,150 --> 00:22:01,970 Speaker 1: the chapter on anthropological dualism. And there's a huge section 289 00:22:02,070 --> 00:22:04,490 Speaker 1: on the origin of life and the challenges of life 290 00:22:04,710 --> 00:22:08,169 Speaker 1: from non-life, how to think about that theologically. But you 291 00:22:08,210 --> 00:22:11,510 Speaker 1: have a section on the fossil record. And I'd be 292 00:22:11,550 --> 00:22:13,870 Speaker 1: curious in your assessment of this, what is the latest 293 00:22:13,950 --> 00:22:17,669 Speaker 1: data reveal about the fossil record? And what kind of 294 00:22:17,730 --> 00:22:22,680 Speaker 1: challenges does it offer to both universal common ancestry and 295 00:22:22,740 --> 00:22:24,760 Speaker 1: the extended evolutionary synthesis? 296 00:22:25,290 --> 00:22:31,320 Speaker 3: Yeah, everybody recognizes that there are abundant gaps in the 297 00:22:31,359 --> 00:22:36,639 Speaker 3: fossil record. But I'm inclined to think that this is 298 00:22:36,820 --> 00:22:42,310 Speaker 3: not evidence against common ancestry, but rather it's evidence against 299 00:22:42,369 --> 00:22:47,250 Speaker 3: Darwinian gradualism. You see, one of the features of the 300 00:22:47,310 --> 00:22:55,440 Speaker 3: modern synthesis was its gradualism. that evolutionary change occurs by 301 00:22:55,619 --> 00:23:02,310 Speaker 3: small increments accumulating over time, and we just don't find 302 00:23:02,869 --> 00:23:08,169 Speaker 3: evidence of that. Think of all of the transitional forms 303 00:23:08,270 --> 00:23:11,750 Speaker 3: that would have to exist in order for a bat 304 00:23:12,190 --> 00:23:17,369 Speaker 3: and a whale to descend from a common ancestor by 305 00:23:17,890 --> 00:23:25,220 Speaker 3: incremental change. Instead, it seems that evolution may proceed by 306 00:23:25,400 --> 00:23:30,020 Speaker 3: leaps and bounds, and so I think that the gaps 307 00:23:30,340 --> 00:23:34,699 Speaker 3: are not so much evidence against common ancestry, which is 308 00:23:35,480 --> 00:23:44,470 Speaker 3: strongly supported by microbiology, but rather it's evidence against Darwinian gradualism. 309 00:23:45,150 --> 00:23:47,989 Speaker 3: Now let me say in addition to this that one 310 00:23:48,010 --> 00:23:52,430 Speaker 3: of the problems with interpreting the gaps in the fossil 311 00:23:52,490 --> 00:23:57,429 Speaker 3: record as evidence against common ancestry, is that so doing 312 00:23:57,490 --> 00:24:03,960 Speaker 3: would require us to posit acts of divine creation out 313 00:24:04,040 --> 00:24:09,359 Speaker 3: of nothing over and over and over again throughout the 314 00:24:09,420 --> 00:24:15,010 Speaker 3: history of life. And I find it simply incredible to 315 00:24:15,050 --> 00:24:18,770 Speaker 3: think that God created, for example, a herd of 50-ton 316 00:24:18,850 --> 00:24:24,360 Speaker 3: brachiosaurs out of thin air, it seems much more plausible 317 00:24:24,480 --> 00:24:29,859 Speaker 3: to limit God's initial creation to the beginning of the universe, 318 00:24:30,480 --> 00:24:34,609 Speaker 3: and then to bring the new life forms into being 319 00:24:34,970 --> 00:24:38,250 Speaker 3: out of the pre-existing organisms. 320 00:24:39,369 --> 00:24:41,290 Speaker 1: That's really interesting. So I think you talk about this 321 00:24:41,310 --> 00:24:42,950 Speaker 1: a little bit in the book. You would lean towards 322 00:24:43,040 --> 00:24:46,220 Speaker 1: a little bit of kind of a punctuated equilibrium kind 323 00:24:46,260 --> 00:24:49,909 Speaker 1: of model than Maybe explain what that is. And if 324 00:24:49,970 --> 00:24:55,170 Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken, that still needs an adequate driving mechanism 325 00:24:55,330 --> 00:24:55,730 Speaker 1: for it. 326 00:24:55,760 --> 00:24:55,970 Speaker 3: Yes. 327 00:24:56,490 --> 00:24:56,899 Speaker 1: Oh, yes. 328 00:24:57,320 --> 00:25:01,260 Speaker 3: Yeah, this doesn't solve the problem of the mechanisms that 329 00:25:01,280 --> 00:25:08,090 Speaker 3: we mentioned. But people like Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould, 330 00:25:09,050 --> 00:25:18,190 Speaker 3: recognizing that the paleontological fossil record does not support Darwinian gradualism, 331 00:25:18,250 --> 00:25:23,770 Speaker 3: this kind of incremental change over time, suggested instead that 332 00:25:23,810 --> 00:25:29,030 Speaker 3: there could be punctuated equilibria. That is to say that 333 00:25:29,070 --> 00:25:34,129 Speaker 3: there would be long periods of stagnation where there is 334 00:25:34,250 --> 00:25:39,530 Speaker 3: no great evolutionary change, and then there would be suddenly 335 00:25:39,550 --> 00:25:46,670 Speaker 3: a change to something new. And they posited different ways 336 00:25:46,750 --> 00:25:50,950 Speaker 3: of trying to explain this by imagining populations that were 337 00:25:51,050 --> 00:25:56,990 Speaker 3: separated by natural phenomena like rivers or floods or something, 338 00:25:57,050 --> 00:26:01,650 Speaker 3: and then later those populations re-merged and one had evolved 339 00:26:01,690 --> 00:26:06,889 Speaker 3: in a way the other hadn't. So they had attempts 340 00:26:06,930 --> 00:26:11,000 Speaker 3: to explain these, and these have not won the day. 341 00:26:11,060 --> 00:26:16,139 Speaker 3: They haven't convinced everybody, but It is, I think, an 342 00:26:16,220 --> 00:26:22,310 Speaker 3: alternative to the sort of gradualism of the modern synthesis 343 00:26:23,010 --> 00:26:25,930 Speaker 3: that is, I think, eminently challengeable. 344 00:26:27,170 --> 00:26:30,270 Speaker 1: Now, I'm actually working on updating my book on intelligent 345 00:26:30,290 --> 00:26:32,389 Speaker 1: design that I did with Dembski. So I'm starting to 346 00:26:32,470 --> 00:26:35,170 Speaker 1: revisit some of these arguments that I haven't for a 347 00:26:35,390 --> 00:26:37,389 Speaker 1: couple of decades. But it sure seems to me if 348 00:26:37,430 --> 00:26:41,490 Speaker 1: we have some kind of punctuated equilibrium model it's quick 349 00:26:41,830 --> 00:26:45,369 Speaker 1: on a geological scale. So there still should be a 350 00:26:45,650 --> 00:26:49,889 Speaker 1: lot of intermediate fossils, maybe not as many as on gradualism, 351 00:26:50,310 --> 00:26:52,859 Speaker 1: but there still should be quite a few that tell 352 00:26:52,890 --> 00:26:56,560 Speaker 1: this punctuated story. Or would you say, no, we actually 353 00:26:56,720 --> 00:27:00,980 Speaker 1: might not expect any on that model because it's so quick, 354 00:27:01,160 --> 00:27:02,220 Speaker 1: geologically speaking? 355 00:27:03,000 --> 00:27:07,200 Speaker 3: Well, we could, and I think we do have transitional 356 00:27:07,330 --> 00:27:10,230 Speaker 3: forms in the fossil record. I mean, one of the 357 00:27:10,290 --> 00:27:18,290 Speaker 3: most celebrated is this organism called Tiktaalik. So they do exist, 358 00:27:18,890 --> 00:27:25,580 Speaker 3: but they're difficult to identify, and I think that what 359 00:27:25,640 --> 00:27:27,939 Speaker 3: we need would be a theory that would enable us 360 00:27:28,000 --> 00:27:33,909 Speaker 3: to explain how evolutionary change would be possible without going 361 00:27:34,010 --> 00:27:38,630 Speaker 3: through this incremental series of transitional forms. 362 00:27:39,330 --> 00:27:42,310 Speaker 2: Okay, gotcha. We'll leave it at that and we'll keep going. 363 00:27:42,910 --> 00:27:45,010 Speaker 1: I know there's a lot of debate about Tiktaalik and 364 00:27:45,030 --> 00:27:47,609 Speaker 1: where it was found and how transitional it is. We 365 00:27:47,630 --> 00:27:50,050 Speaker 1: don't have to enter into some of those particulars, but 366 00:27:50,710 --> 00:27:56,459 Speaker 1: that's helpful. Okay, so you highlight three unsolved problems for 367 00:27:56,500 --> 00:28:00,500 Speaker 1: the extended evolutionary synthesis. I want to highlight the three 368 00:28:00,520 --> 00:28:02,180 Speaker 1: of them. I think the first one you may have 369 00:28:02,840 --> 00:28:06,129 Speaker 1: stated you're position here about the problem of transitional forms. 370 00:28:06,560 --> 00:28:07,990 Speaker 1: Anything you want to add to that one, or we 371 00:28:08,040 --> 00:28:08,970 Speaker 1: covered it, keep going. 372 00:28:09,560 --> 00:28:13,580 Speaker 3: Well, this just is the old problem of explaining how 373 00:28:13,720 --> 00:28:21,260 Speaker 3: complex organisms could have gradually evolved through a series of 374 00:28:21,400 --> 00:28:27,659 Speaker 3: transitional intermediate forms. How do you explain the arrival of 375 00:28:29,119 --> 00:28:38,130 Speaker 3: new complex organisms from predecessors, it remains an unsolved problem 376 00:28:39,530 --> 00:28:41,270 Speaker 3: of the explanatory mechanisms. 377 00:28:41,850 --> 00:28:44,800 Speaker 1: And that's one that at the very beginning, Darwin commented 378 00:28:44,880 --> 00:28:46,820 Speaker 1: on that. And it feels like we, you know, it 379 00:28:47,020 --> 00:28:51,100 Speaker 1: still remains as entrenched as 200 and I'm not doing 380 00:28:51,120 --> 00:28:54,280 Speaker 1: the math, whatever it was, 100 and whatever. 381 00:28:55,120 --> 00:28:55,640 Speaker 2: What is the math? 382 00:28:55,640 --> 00:28:55,700 Speaker 3: 1859. 383 00:28:55,680 --> 00:28:56,100 Speaker 2: Yeah, roughly. 384 00:28:56,120 --> 00:29:01,380 Speaker 1: Fair enough. So the second one is what you call 385 00:29:01,390 --> 00:29:05,860 Speaker 1: the problem of organizational form. Maybe explain what that is 386 00:29:05,920 --> 00:29:07,720 Speaker 1: so we're on the same page and why that's a 387 00:29:07,780 --> 00:29:08,780 Speaker 1: persistent problem. 388 00:29:09,440 --> 00:29:13,610 Speaker 3: This is the problem of how the basic body plans 389 00:29:14,310 --> 00:29:19,110 Speaker 3: of the fundamental phyla that are present in the Cambrian 390 00:29:19,170 --> 00:29:24,490 Speaker 3: explosion originated. In the Cambrian explosion around 500 million years ago, 391 00:29:26,210 --> 00:29:31,140 Speaker 3: all of the basic body plans of various animals are found. 392 00:29:32,280 --> 00:29:36,290 Speaker 3: And there aren't any predecessors for them in the fossil 393 00:29:36,370 --> 00:29:39,830 Speaker 3: record to be found. And they basically are the body 394 00:29:39,850 --> 00:29:44,710 Speaker 3: plans that have persisted until today. And so the problem 395 00:29:44,760 --> 00:29:50,600 Speaker 3: of how this organizational form came to exist remains unexplained. 396 00:29:51,680 --> 00:29:54,280 Speaker 1: So maybe explain for people listening exactly what you mean, 397 00:29:54,340 --> 00:29:56,640 Speaker 1: because when they think body plan, they might think, well, 398 00:29:56,700 --> 00:29:59,340 Speaker 1: body plan of a dolphin and body plan of a human, 399 00:29:59,380 --> 00:30:03,500 Speaker 1: but those are both chordates. What do we mean by phyla, 400 00:30:03,620 --> 00:30:06,239 Speaker 1: and why is that such a big problem when we 401 00:30:06,300 --> 00:30:10,040 Speaker 1: don't have these earlier precursors leading up to them? 402 00:30:10,620 --> 00:30:15,640 Speaker 3: Well, the phyla are one of the very broad categories 403 00:30:16,180 --> 00:30:21,880 Speaker 3: of living things akin to aginus and species and order 404 00:30:22,380 --> 00:30:29,790 Speaker 3: and family. The various phyla are types of organisms. And 405 00:30:29,830 --> 00:30:37,410 Speaker 3: these basic types exhibiting these organizational structures are, they just 406 00:30:37,470 --> 00:30:44,550 Speaker 3: appear in the Cambrian explosion. And this has not yet 407 00:30:44,690 --> 00:30:49,760 Speaker 3: received an adequate explanation from a evolutionary theorists. 408 00:30:50,500 --> 00:30:52,260 Speaker 1: And this would be some of the work that Stephen 409 00:30:52,300 --> 00:30:55,150 Speaker 1: Meyer has done in his book Darwin Doubt. And I 410 00:30:55,180 --> 00:30:58,350 Speaker 1: think you highlight some of these. And then you point 411 00:30:58,400 --> 00:31:02,150 Speaker 1: about how on a Darwinian model, you have similarity and 412 00:31:02,170 --> 00:31:05,490 Speaker 1: then complexity and difference emerges over time. That's what we 413 00:31:05,510 --> 00:31:08,390 Speaker 1: would expect kind of in a fanning out model where 414 00:31:08,410 --> 00:31:11,890 Speaker 1: you have the complexity and the diversity at the beginning 415 00:31:12,070 --> 00:31:16,030 Speaker 1: appear without these precursors. Like that kind of flips the 416 00:31:16,110 --> 00:31:17,870 Speaker 1: model on its head a little bit. 417 00:31:18,320 --> 00:31:18,680 Speaker 3: Yes. 418 00:31:19,020 --> 00:31:21,180 Speaker 1: Now, the objections I've heard, and I know these are 419 00:31:21,200 --> 00:31:22,980 Speaker 1: in your book, but some would say, well, we just 420 00:31:23,080 --> 00:31:27,090 Speaker 1: don't have, like these kind of soft-bodied animals were not 421 00:31:27,220 --> 00:31:31,550 Speaker 1: preserved in the Precambrian, but we assume that they were there, 422 00:31:32,590 --> 00:31:34,730 Speaker 1: or we just haven't found them yet. What would be 423 00:31:34,770 --> 00:31:36,390 Speaker 1: your take on those kind of objections? 424 00:31:37,130 --> 00:31:39,430 Speaker 3: Well, I think the problem with that is you can 425 00:31:39,750 --> 00:31:46,260 Speaker 3: always say that, but we do have fossils of microorganisms 426 00:31:46,280 --> 00:31:52,170 Speaker 3: that little soft-bodied things that are found in the shale 427 00:31:52,270 --> 00:32:00,080 Speaker 3: and the pre-Cambrian. So it's just not true that these 428 00:32:00,320 --> 00:32:04,960 Speaker 3: organisms would not leave any evidence of their existence in 429 00:32:05,000 --> 00:32:06,680 Speaker 3: the fossil record if they were there. 430 00:32:06,700 --> 00:32:07,760 Speaker 2: All right. 431 00:32:07,780 --> 00:32:10,910 Speaker 1: So we're talking about the three unsolved problems for the 432 00:32:10,950 --> 00:32:14,330 Speaker 1: extended evolutionary synthesis. One was the problem of transitional forms. 433 00:32:15,040 --> 00:32:18,300 Speaker 1: Second was a problem of organizational form we just talked about. 434 00:32:18,740 --> 00:32:23,219 Speaker 1: And then third is you described the problem of genetic information. 435 00:32:23,940 --> 00:32:27,880 Speaker 3: Yes. And this is basically the problem of the origin 436 00:32:27,920 --> 00:32:33,820 Speaker 3: of the genetic code and the process of replication by 437 00:32:34,120 --> 00:32:38,620 Speaker 3: RNA and DNA. And what we confront here is a 438 00:32:38,940 --> 00:32:47,880 Speaker 3: vicious circle. How could an extremely... complex translation system involving 439 00:32:48,080 --> 00:32:55,640 Speaker 3: RNA and DNA evolve before there were functioning proteins. But 440 00:32:55,780 --> 00:33:02,020 Speaker 3: there couldn't be functioning proteins without an effective translation system. 441 00:33:02,500 --> 00:33:06,240 Speaker 3: So you have this sort of chicken and egg situation 442 00:33:06,380 --> 00:33:10,180 Speaker 3: that results in a vicious circle, and it remains to 443 00:33:10,220 --> 00:33:13,070 Speaker 3: be discovered how this is to be solved. 444 00:33:14,050 --> 00:33:18,350 Speaker 1: Now, you highlight these as the three unsolved problems. Are 445 00:33:18,390 --> 00:33:21,450 Speaker 1: there other unsolved problems that you didn't bring in and 446 00:33:21,490 --> 00:33:25,780 Speaker 1: didn't discuss that just seemed somewhat secondary or not as 447 00:33:25,840 --> 00:33:27,040 Speaker 1: important to highlight on? 448 00:33:27,680 --> 00:33:31,340 Speaker 3: Certainly, there are lots of specific questions. For example, one 449 00:33:31,380 --> 00:33:35,750 Speaker 3: of the advances in the extended evolutionary synthesis is the 450 00:33:35,830 --> 00:33:44,670 Speaker 3: integration of developmental biology— with evolutionary biology. Developmental biology is 451 00:33:44,730 --> 00:33:48,910 Speaker 3: the term for what used to be called embryology, how 452 00:33:49,470 --> 00:33:57,560 Speaker 3: that single cell, fertilized cell in the body develops into 453 00:33:57,600 --> 00:34:02,420 Speaker 3: a full organism of a certain type with a certain 454 00:34:02,520 --> 00:34:08,310 Speaker 3: body plan and everything. trying to figure out how to 455 00:34:08,469 --> 00:34:17,090 Speaker 3: integrate developmental biology with evolutionary biology is one of the 456 00:34:17,690 --> 00:34:25,839 Speaker 3: most fruitful areas of exploration in the extended evolutionary synthesis. Also, 457 00:34:25,860 --> 00:34:37,270 Speaker 3: other so-called epigenetic factors that would explain evolutionary advance evolutionary 458 00:34:37,310 --> 00:34:44,110 Speaker 3: biologists are finding out that is Lamarck believed inherited characters 459 00:34:44,210 --> 00:34:50,879 Speaker 3: are rather acquired characteristics can be inherited. And there can 460 00:34:50,940 --> 00:34:57,180 Speaker 3: be non-genetic factors that can affect this. So everything is 461 00:34:57,300 --> 00:35:00,080 Speaker 3: really up for grabs today. 462 00:35:00,100 --> 00:35:03,890 Speaker 2: So, Let me ask you this. 463 00:35:04,010 --> 00:35:05,750 Speaker 1: Maybe you can't answer this, but when I look at 464 00:35:05,870 --> 00:35:09,050 Speaker 1: like that third premise again in terms of how close 465 00:35:09,090 --> 00:35:13,279 Speaker 1: they are to a mechanism that describes this process or 466 00:35:13,400 --> 00:35:18,100 Speaker 1: actually many of my biologist friends would say multiple mechanisms 467 00:35:18,140 --> 00:35:22,210 Speaker 1: that contribute to this, not just one. Like would you 468 00:35:22,290 --> 00:35:24,870 Speaker 1: say like we're 2% of the way there? We're 80% 469 00:35:24,870 --> 00:35:28,430 Speaker 1: of the way there? Like how– I know numbers are impossible, 470 00:35:28,810 --> 00:35:30,390 Speaker 1: but if you had to give a sense of like 471 00:35:30,469 --> 00:35:34,430 Speaker 1: we have such a massive gap to jump across, we're 472 00:35:34,469 --> 00:35:37,029 Speaker 1: not even close. Like some of my colleagues, Doug Axe here, 473 00:35:38,110 --> 00:35:41,390 Speaker 1: he's argued on this show. He actually thinks the steps 474 00:35:41,469 --> 00:35:44,550 Speaker 1: from the first life to the complexity of human beings 475 00:35:44,690 --> 00:35:47,969 Speaker 1: is a greater step and more information than explaining the 476 00:35:48,030 --> 00:35:51,430 Speaker 1: origin of life itself. That's what he argues for. But 477 00:35:51,489 --> 00:35:54,250 Speaker 1: what's your sense of that third component? 478 00:35:54,270 --> 00:35:58,589 Speaker 3: Well, I am not expert to answer a question like 479 00:35:58,630 --> 00:36:01,509 Speaker 3: that or to give my own opinion. All I can 480 00:36:01,590 --> 00:36:05,910 Speaker 3: say is that in my reading of evolutionary biologists, I 481 00:36:06,050 --> 00:36:12,390 Speaker 3: never see anyone offer a confident estimate that we're 50% 482 00:36:12,390 --> 00:36:15,430 Speaker 3: of the way there, for example, or something of that sort. 483 00:36:15,489 --> 00:36:20,200 Speaker 3: They just don't do that. Instead, they will confess that 484 00:36:20,760 --> 00:36:27,160 Speaker 3: that there is great uncertainty. And you mentioned the 150th 485 00:36:27,219 --> 00:36:34,870 Speaker 3: anniversary of Darwin's origin of the species. One evolutionary biologist 486 00:36:34,930 --> 00:36:39,069 Speaker 3: said the next time we celebrate this anniversary, he says, 487 00:36:39,210 --> 00:36:43,629 Speaker 3: we don't know what evolutionary theory will look like by 488 00:36:43,670 --> 00:36:46,629 Speaker 3: that time, but it will be very, very different than 489 00:36:46,650 --> 00:36:47,570 Speaker 3: what we have today. 490 00:36:48,110 --> 00:36:48,830 Speaker 2: Interesting, right? 491 00:36:48,850 --> 00:36:52,320 Speaker 1: If we've had Darwinian model was replaced by kind of 492 00:36:52,360 --> 00:36:56,540 Speaker 1: the Darwinian synthesis or neo-Darwinism. And then this third model, 493 00:36:56,600 --> 00:36:58,140 Speaker 1: what's going to be the fourth? What's going to be 494 00:36:58,160 --> 00:37:02,390 Speaker 1: the fifth? I guess we'll find out in due time. Now, 495 00:37:03,590 --> 00:37:05,410 Speaker 1: maybe tell us a little bit here because there's probably 496 00:37:05,430 --> 00:37:07,450 Speaker 1: a lot of people listening going, okay, wait a minute. 497 00:37:08,010 --> 00:37:08,410 Speaker 2: Is Dr. 498 00:37:08,450 --> 00:37:12,790 Speaker 1: Craig going to make an argument for design because so 499 00:37:12,830 --> 00:37:16,339 Speaker 1: many things that you said, there's a creation or design 500 00:37:16,560 --> 00:37:20,319 Speaker 1: alternative to some of these facts. But maybe tell us, 501 00:37:20,380 --> 00:37:23,000 Speaker 1: what is your unique approach that you're doing in this 502 00:37:23,080 --> 00:37:25,520 Speaker 1: book as you look at some of these questions? 503 00:37:26,510 --> 00:37:32,089 Speaker 3: Well, I'm not doing natural theology. As a systematic theologian, 504 00:37:32,850 --> 00:37:36,670 Speaker 3: I assume the truth of Scripture, and I come to 505 00:37:36,710 --> 00:37:41,200 Speaker 3: the table with my theism already in hand, and I ask, 506 00:37:41,680 --> 00:37:47,180 Speaker 3: how is my Christian theism best to be integrated with 507 00:37:47,219 --> 00:37:53,040 Speaker 3: the evidence of evolutionary biology? So it's not about constructing 508 00:37:53,500 --> 00:37:58,259 Speaker 3: a design argument. It's about theological integration. But I have 509 00:37:58,300 --> 00:38:01,250 Speaker 3: to say I'm pretty open to a case for a 510 00:38:01,290 --> 00:38:07,730 Speaker 3: cosmic designer who has planned the evolutionary process to eventuate 511 00:38:07,930 --> 00:38:13,410 Speaker 3: in man. I think that that conclusion is very plausible 512 00:38:14,930 --> 00:38:19,630 Speaker 3: given the fine-tuning of the universe that already requires a 513 00:38:19,670 --> 00:38:25,029 Speaker 3: cosmic intelligence to set the fundamental constants and quantities of nature. 514 00:38:25,510 --> 00:38:29,100 Speaker 3: So the evolution of biological complexity as well as the 515 00:38:29,200 --> 00:38:32,780 Speaker 3: origin of life would simply be icing on the cake 516 00:38:32,840 --> 00:38:34,060 Speaker 3: for a design argument. 517 00:38:34,739 --> 00:38:38,540 Speaker 1: As you well know, the Intelligent design proponents are not 518 00:38:38,640 --> 00:38:42,540 Speaker 1: doing biblical theism. They're starting with an understanding of science, 519 00:38:42,840 --> 00:38:46,660 Speaker 1: an understanding of philosophy, asking, is there evidence for intelligent 520 00:38:46,700 --> 00:38:49,770 Speaker 1: design either in the biological world, in the natural world, 521 00:38:49,890 --> 00:38:53,510 Speaker 1: in the cosmos? And so there's actually disagreement. You cite 522 00:38:53,730 --> 00:38:58,270 Speaker 1: Behe in the book. Behe embraces a kind of common descent, 523 00:38:58,910 --> 00:39:02,890 Speaker 1: which is the first principle of but argues that A, 524 00:39:03,000 --> 00:39:07,120 Speaker 1: it couldn't happen through purely natural means, and B, there's 525 00:39:07,360 --> 00:39:11,489 Speaker 1: positive evidence of intelligent design. So there's a lot of 526 00:39:11,530 --> 00:39:13,810 Speaker 1: folks who will say, yeah, I believe in common descent, 527 00:39:13,850 --> 00:39:17,069 Speaker 1: but there's no positive evidence for intelligent design when we 528 00:39:17,110 --> 00:39:20,549 Speaker 1: look at, say, the flagellum or the cilia or DNA, 529 00:39:21,170 --> 00:39:23,710 Speaker 1: whereas design proponents will go further and say, oh no, 530 00:39:23,750 --> 00:39:28,410 Speaker 1: God didn't just providentially guide this. He actually makes himself 531 00:39:28,489 --> 00:39:32,040 Speaker 1: known and we can empirically interpret it. Now the reason 532 00:39:32,060 --> 00:39:34,040 Speaker 1: I'm framing it this way is you're right and you 533 00:39:34,060 --> 00:39:37,820 Speaker 1: make it clear in your volume you're doing systematic theology here, 534 00:39:38,360 --> 00:39:41,690 Speaker 1: not natural theology. But you have a volume earlier where 535 00:39:41,710 --> 00:39:45,360 Speaker 1: you kind of take an excursus and do natural theology 536 00:39:45,430 --> 00:39:48,220 Speaker 1: and lay out your six arguments for the existence of God. 537 00:39:48,719 --> 00:39:51,900 Speaker 1: When you said you're open to a design argument being plausible, 538 00:39:52,460 --> 00:39:55,620 Speaker 1: is it– it seems to me there's two possibilities here. 539 00:39:55,680 --> 00:39:58,279 Speaker 1: Maybe you have a third. A, saying I just haven't 540 00:39:58,480 --> 00:40:00,940 Speaker 1: researched this, and I don't know. That's not my specialty. 541 00:40:01,360 --> 00:40:04,030 Speaker 1: Or B, I'm just not persuaded by the arguments yet. 542 00:40:04,430 --> 00:40:08,049 Speaker 1: What does that openness mean to the plausibility in terms of, say, 543 00:40:08,090 --> 00:40:09,969 Speaker 1: like the DNA argument that's made? 544 00:40:12,030 --> 00:40:16,070 Speaker 3: Well, I think it's a both-and rather than an either-or. 545 00:40:17,030 --> 00:40:27,830 Speaker 3: Evolutionary biology is an almost impossible field to master because 546 00:40:28,630 --> 00:40:33,669 Speaker 3: it involves so many diverse fields of science that no 547 00:40:33,810 --> 00:40:38,270 Speaker 3: one person can be expert in all of them. And 548 00:40:38,330 --> 00:40:41,960 Speaker 3: so I think it's requires us to approach it with 549 00:40:42,040 --> 00:40:49,450 Speaker 3: tremendous humility rather than to be dogmatic. And so I'm 550 00:40:49,680 --> 00:40:57,049 Speaker 3: open to a design argument based on biological evolution. And 551 00:40:57,110 --> 00:41:02,030 Speaker 3: as I say, given that I already defend a fine-tuning argument, 552 00:41:02,610 --> 00:41:08,299 Speaker 3: that just seems to layer on more improbability that would 553 00:41:08,540 --> 00:41:13,859 Speaker 3: point to this cosmic designer. Um, so I'm, I'm, I'm 554 00:41:14,110 --> 00:41:17,690 Speaker 3: open to it, but that's just not my project in 555 00:41:17,730 --> 00:41:18,490 Speaker 3: this volume. 556 00:41:18,950 --> 00:41:20,550 Speaker 2: That's, that's totally fair. 557 00:41:20,730 --> 00:41:23,650 Speaker 1: I appreciate that. I, uh, I thought there, there was 558 00:41:23,690 --> 00:41:25,650 Speaker 1: a quote I'm just thinking of now by Behe where 559 00:41:25,690 --> 00:41:30,050 Speaker 1: he said it wasn't so much challenging evolution that upset people, 560 00:41:30,469 --> 00:41:32,700 Speaker 1: but that he made a case for design. 561 00:41:32,719 --> 00:41:33,480 Speaker 2: Yeah. 562 00:41:33,520 --> 00:41:35,339 Speaker 1: Tell me what you make of that and why you 563 00:41:35,360 --> 00:41:36,520 Speaker 1: think that's so significant. 564 00:41:36,540 --> 00:41:40,790 Speaker 3: Well, I, I want to, um, reemphasize or underline the 565 00:41:40,850 --> 00:41:44,549 Speaker 3: point you made for our listeners that many proponents of 566 00:41:44,650 --> 00:41:50,410 Speaker 3: intelligent design are perfectly fine with the thesis of common ancestry. 567 00:41:50,489 --> 00:41:55,200 Speaker 3: Not only Michael Behe, but Michael Denton as well, uh, 568 00:41:55,380 --> 00:41:59,540 Speaker 3: affirms the thesis of common ancestry. And in his book 569 00:41:59,640 --> 00:42:06,060 Speaker 3: on Darwin's doubt, Stephen Meyer shows himself quite open to the, um, 570 00:42:06,670 --> 00:42:09,910 Speaker 3: notion of universal common descent. He says this is not 571 00:42:10,510 --> 00:42:15,670 Speaker 3: where the central issue lies. Rather, the issue really lies 572 00:42:16,250 --> 00:42:23,140 Speaker 3: in the adequacy of the explanatory mechanisms behind this remarkable 573 00:42:23,760 --> 00:42:29,540 Speaker 3: history of life and evolution of biological complexity. So, ID 574 00:42:29,600 --> 00:42:35,700 Speaker 3: theorists themselves recognize that the part of the controversy does 575 00:42:35,800 --> 00:42:40,080 Speaker 3: not lie with the thesis of common ancestry, but with 576 00:42:40,160 --> 00:42:42,060 Speaker 3: those explanatory mechanisms. 577 00:42:42,760 --> 00:42:44,339 Speaker 1: I've got a few more for you, but I'm wondering 578 00:42:44,360 --> 00:42:46,739 Speaker 1: if we could maybe map for people just so they're 579 00:42:46,780 --> 00:42:50,489 Speaker 1: tracking some of the discussions here is each of us 580 00:42:50,550 --> 00:42:53,049 Speaker 1: are going to come to this question with certain assumptions 581 00:42:53,170 --> 00:42:56,230 Speaker 1: and with a certain approach. And like I said earlier, 582 00:42:56,870 --> 00:43:00,989 Speaker 1: Intelligent design proponents are simply looking at nature asking, is 583 00:43:01,030 --> 00:43:05,830 Speaker 1: there positive evidence that an intelligent agent has act? And 584 00:43:05,870 --> 00:43:09,160 Speaker 1: then it's a follow-up question. If so, who or what 585 00:43:09,520 --> 00:43:15,100 Speaker 1: is that intelligent agent? Not even necessarily the biblical God. 586 00:43:15,500 --> 00:43:19,390 Speaker 1: That's how intelligent design approaches this. Some young earth creationists 587 00:43:19,550 --> 00:43:24,580 Speaker 1: and old earth creationists typically start with a certain understanding 588 00:43:24,719 --> 00:43:29,080 Speaker 1: of Genesis and what it teaches and then find science 589 00:43:29,320 --> 00:43:32,140 Speaker 1: as they understand. I'm not saying they're necessarily picking or choosing. 590 00:43:32,160 --> 00:43:35,520 Speaker 1: They just have certain biblical commitments here and then find 591 00:43:35,560 --> 00:43:39,020 Speaker 1: the science to match that model of what they have. 592 00:43:39,800 --> 00:43:45,120 Speaker 1: You're approaching this uniquely here as a Christian Christian. theist asking, 593 00:43:45,400 --> 00:43:48,860 Speaker 1: even if this is true, how would I wed it 594 00:43:49,040 --> 00:43:54,040 Speaker 1: with certain Christian theist positions that I have? Is that 595 00:43:54,080 --> 00:43:54,900 Speaker 1: a fair summary? 596 00:43:55,400 --> 00:43:59,200 Speaker 3: Well, it's almost right. I would say that your description 597 00:43:59,239 --> 00:44:03,540 Speaker 3: of the creationist's approach is mine, that I begin with 598 00:44:03,580 --> 00:44:09,819 Speaker 3: the biblical teaching, and then I ask, how is this 599 00:44:09,940 --> 00:44:14,070 Speaker 3: best integrated with what we learn from modern science? not 600 00:44:14,750 --> 00:44:19,450 Speaker 3: assuming that evolution is true. No, no, I don't assume that. 601 00:44:20,090 --> 00:44:21,750 Speaker 3: What I want to say is I want to look 602 00:44:21,810 --> 00:44:25,350 Speaker 3: at the evidence. What is the evidence for these three 603 00:44:25,650 --> 00:44:29,450 Speaker 3: aspects of evolutionary theory? And then ask, how is that 604 00:44:29,510 --> 00:44:33,640 Speaker 3: best integrated with my biblical commitments? 605 00:44:34,530 --> 00:44:35,570 Speaker 2: Fair enough. That's helpful. 606 00:44:35,610 --> 00:44:37,810 Speaker 1: And I had you for a few classes and you're 607 00:44:37,830 --> 00:44:39,890 Speaker 1: one of the toughest graders I know. So to say 608 00:44:40,030 --> 00:44:41,899 Speaker 1: I almost got it, I'll take that. 609 00:44:42,080 --> 00:44:43,800 Speaker 3: Close enough. 610 00:44:44,340 --> 00:44:44,920 Speaker 2: Kidding aside. 611 00:44:44,980 --> 00:44:45,219 Speaker 3: All right. 612 00:44:45,260 --> 00:44:48,460 Speaker 1: So I followed your writings for a long time. And 613 00:44:48,500 --> 00:44:51,520 Speaker 1: I remember you kind of weighing in on evolution, if 614 00:44:51,570 --> 00:44:55,430 Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken, in that debate with Zindler back in 615 00:44:55,489 --> 00:45:01,569 Speaker 1: like the 90s at Willow Creek. that Lee Strobel moderated. 616 00:45:01,690 --> 00:45:05,450 Speaker 1: And he argued something in effect of evolution disproves God. 617 00:45:05,760 --> 00:45:08,259 Speaker 1: And your take was, look, even if evolution were true, 618 00:45:08,300 --> 00:45:10,800 Speaker 1: it would take so many steps that it would point 619 00:45:11,480 --> 00:45:13,660 Speaker 1: towards God. If I remember correctly, you kind of had 620 00:45:13,700 --> 00:45:14,719 Speaker 1: a response like that. 621 00:45:15,200 --> 00:45:15,500 Speaker 3: Yes. 622 00:45:16,000 --> 00:45:19,140 Speaker 1: And I've always wondered, you know, where does Dr. Craig 623 00:45:19,200 --> 00:45:22,880 Speaker 1: land on some of these evolutionary issues? And this is 624 00:45:22,940 --> 00:45:26,020 Speaker 1: the first time I've really seen you weigh into some 625 00:45:26,040 --> 00:45:30,170 Speaker 1: of the biology here. So I'd just be curious, from 626 00:45:30,610 --> 00:45:34,060 Speaker 1: when you started in your ministry to the time you 627 00:45:34,080 --> 00:45:37,020 Speaker 1: studied this, and now reading this volume, which must have 628 00:45:37,060 --> 00:45:42,040 Speaker 1: taken hundreds of hours of just reading biological texts themselves, 629 00:45:42,700 --> 00:45:46,290 Speaker 1: how have your views of the evolution of life shifted 630 00:45:46,430 --> 00:45:49,530 Speaker 1: or changed or been solidified over that time? 631 00:45:50,290 --> 00:45:54,070 Speaker 3: Well, I do think that I've become much more open 632 00:45:54,170 --> 00:45:58,270 Speaker 3: to the thesis of common ancestry. I really am impressed 633 00:45:58,989 --> 00:46:06,730 Speaker 3: with the evidence of microbiology. And the creationist alternative to 634 00:46:06,790 --> 00:46:09,930 Speaker 3: common descent, as I say, just seems to me to 635 00:46:09,989 --> 00:46:17,420 Speaker 3: be incredible, because it would postulate repeated interventions of creation 636 00:46:17,520 --> 00:46:21,480 Speaker 3: ex nihilo throughout the history of life. And that's not 637 00:46:22,540 --> 00:46:28,469 Speaker 3: God of the Bible as I see him. Moreover, that 638 00:46:28,590 --> 00:46:33,469 Speaker 3: would not be a good explanation of the genetic defects 639 00:46:34,230 --> 00:46:39,980 Speaker 3: that we find in organisms that seem to be the 640 00:46:40,140 --> 00:46:45,660 Speaker 3: residue of a common ancestor. For example, a mutation that 641 00:46:45,700 --> 00:46:50,770 Speaker 3: both chimpanzees and human beings share that would be a 642 00:46:51,030 --> 00:46:55,129 Speaker 3: defect that they inherited from a common ancestor. It seems 643 00:46:55,190 --> 00:46:59,610 Speaker 3: to be much more plausible to think that this defect 644 00:46:59,719 --> 00:47:07,440 Speaker 3: would be inherited rather than that God would create independently 645 00:47:08,160 --> 00:47:14,860 Speaker 3: defective organisms with these sorts of mutations. So I just 646 00:47:15,100 --> 00:47:21,419 Speaker 3: don't find the creationist alternative to common descent to be 647 00:47:21,580 --> 00:47:28,700 Speaker 3: very credible. So in writing this, I don't think my 648 00:47:28,820 --> 00:47:34,680 Speaker 3: views on creation changed very much. They were pretty much settled, 649 00:47:36,020 --> 00:47:39,759 Speaker 3: although I learned a great deal in the process of 650 00:47:39,820 --> 00:47:43,109 Speaker 3: writing the book. I think that in terms of changes, 651 00:47:43,570 --> 00:47:46,049 Speaker 3: most of them would come in the locus on the 652 00:47:46,090 --> 00:47:46,740 Speaker 3: doctrine of man. 653 00:47:48,150 --> 00:47:48,830 Speaker 2: Oh, interesting. 654 00:47:48,870 --> 00:47:51,700 Speaker 1: Now, we didn't have that conversation here. Do you want 655 00:47:51,719 --> 00:47:53,859 Speaker 1: to make some comments in that or leave that for 656 00:47:53,900 --> 00:47:54,359 Speaker 1: another time? 657 00:47:54,380 --> 00:47:57,780 Speaker 3: Well, I think in particular, my views on original sin, 658 00:47:58,580 --> 00:48:05,819 Speaker 3: I came to be very skeptical that Adam's sin is 659 00:48:05,920 --> 00:48:11,750 Speaker 3: imputed to every one of his descendants so that you 660 00:48:11,930 --> 00:48:16,990 Speaker 3: are guilty for what Adam did. or that Adam's sin 661 00:48:17,070 --> 00:48:21,930 Speaker 3: resulted in a corruption of human nature. When you look 662 00:48:22,010 --> 00:48:26,520 Speaker 3: at the biblical text, those doctrines are not to be 663 00:48:26,600 --> 00:48:31,020 Speaker 3: found there. Those are theological doctrines that have developed in 664 00:48:31,060 --> 00:48:35,900 Speaker 3: the church, but I don't think that the biblical basis 665 00:48:36,800 --> 00:48:41,819 Speaker 3: for those doctrines is at all persuasive. So I enunciate 666 00:48:41,890 --> 00:48:45,189 Speaker 3: a doctrine of original sin, or of sin I should say, 667 00:48:45,989 --> 00:48:52,930 Speaker 3: that affirms the universality of sin and thinks of the 668 00:48:53,010 --> 00:48:57,650 Speaker 3: propagation of sin in terms of a privation of the 669 00:48:57,730 --> 00:49:03,070 Speaker 3: original righteousness that Adam and Eve had prior to the fall. 670 00:49:03,570 --> 00:49:07,029 Speaker 3: So that the view that I enunciate and defend is 671 00:49:07,430 --> 00:49:10,710 Speaker 3: rather similar to that of Thomas Aquinas, actually. 672 00:49:10,969 --> 00:49:12,410 Speaker 2: Oh, interesting. 673 00:49:12,450 --> 00:49:15,759 Speaker 1: Now, you just raised 18 questions in my mind, but 674 00:49:16,400 --> 00:49:21,440 Speaker 1: that's a conversation for another time. Like I mentioned, I'm 675 00:49:21,480 --> 00:49:24,819 Speaker 1: working on updating the book that Dembski and I wrote. 676 00:49:24,820 --> 00:49:28,430 Speaker 1: 2008 it was, so really researched it 20 years ago. 677 00:49:29,070 --> 00:49:31,509 Speaker 1: And so I'm definitely going to go back and revisit 678 00:49:31,570 --> 00:49:34,950 Speaker 1: some of the latest arguments for universal common ancestry and 679 00:49:35,010 --> 00:49:36,969 Speaker 1: take a look at them as you do in this book. 680 00:49:37,860 --> 00:49:38,580 Speaker 2: But let me ask you this. 681 00:49:38,620 --> 00:49:41,600 Speaker 1: Where would you like to see discussions regarding the intersection 682 00:49:41,620 --> 00:49:45,779 Speaker 1: of faith and science like head moving forward? What would 683 00:49:45,800 --> 00:49:49,160 Speaker 1: your encouragement be to the church and maybe young philosophers 684 00:49:49,200 --> 00:49:49,950 Speaker 1: and apologists? 685 00:49:50,410 --> 00:49:53,350 Speaker 3: Well, it seems to me, Sean, that brain science is 686 00:49:53,410 --> 00:49:57,090 Speaker 3: the next frontier. And I suppose that will also connect 687 00:49:57,150 --> 00:50:02,410 Speaker 3: with AI, but especially the functioning of the brain and 688 00:50:02,489 --> 00:50:05,110 Speaker 3: how this is to be integrated with the reality of 689 00:50:05,150 --> 00:50:08,990 Speaker 3: the soul and seems to me to be an area 690 00:50:09,050 --> 00:50:14,900 Speaker 3: that requires further exploration by Christian philosophers and neurologists. 691 00:50:15,440 --> 00:50:16,500 Speaker 2: That makes a lot of sense. 692 00:50:16,820 --> 00:50:20,580 Speaker 1: Did I miss anything in the section on the evolution 693 00:50:20,620 --> 00:50:23,259 Speaker 1: of life that you want to emphasize, you want to explain, 694 00:50:23,280 --> 00:50:26,080 Speaker 1: you want to clarify? Because I'm guessing this is, well, 695 00:50:26,100 --> 00:50:28,739 Speaker 1: I know this is controversial stuff, which is fine, but 696 00:50:28,760 --> 00:50:31,340 Speaker 1: you've written it clearly here. You've done your research and 697 00:50:31,360 --> 00:50:34,529 Speaker 1: you're advancing it. So did I miss anything that you 698 00:50:34,570 --> 00:50:35,170 Speaker 1: wanted to say? 699 00:50:35,190 --> 00:50:38,350 Speaker 3: No, I don't think so. I would just say that 700 00:50:39,090 --> 00:50:44,219 Speaker 3: I'm in awe of the history of life on this planet. 701 00:50:44,300 --> 00:50:47,360 Speaker 3: That is one of the things that doing this book 702 00:50:48,900 --> 00:50:54,640 Speaker 3: gave me. Life originated on this planet over 4 billion 703 00:50:54,680 --> 00:50:59,660 Speaker 3: years ago. And for much of that time, it was 704 00:50:59,719 --> 00:51:10,510 Speaker 3: just single-celled bacteria. just stoking the atmosphere with oxygen until finally, 705 00:51:10,530 --> 00:51:14,989 Speaker 3: around a little over 500 million years ago, there was 706 00:51:15,070 --> 00:51:24,989 Speaker 3: this explosion of life. And the great evolutionary change of 707 00:51:25,310 --> 00:51:32,710 Speaker 3: biological diversity and complexity hasn't happened over 400 billion years. 708 00:51:33,190 --> 00:51:38,030 Speaker 3: It's basically happened over the last 500, 600 million years. 709 00:51:38,650 --> 00:51:44,330 Speaker 3: So it's a remarkably short time, relatively speaking, and I'm 710 00:51:44,390 --> 00:51:48,509 Speaker 3: just in awe of the history of life on this 711 00:51:49,050 --> 00:51:53,920 Speaker 3: planet and what God has done, I think, to bring 712 00:51:54,000 --> 00:51:59,839 Speaker 3: about humanity. The human brain is the most complex structure 713 00:52:00,380 --> 00:52:03,509 Speaker 3: in the universe. And to think that he brought this 714 00:52:03,590 --> 00:52:10,969 Speaker 3: into existence, starting with single-celled bacteria, I think should just 715 00:52:11,210 --> 00:52:15,150 Speaker 3: inspire us with awe and worship, frankly. 716 00:52:15,850 --> 00:52:16,350 Speaker 2: I love that. 717 00:52:16,469 --> 00:52:18,669 Speaker 1: Now, part of me wants to mic drop right there, 718 00:52:18,730 --> 00:52:21,350 Speaker 1: but I realized I didn't ask you one of the 719 00:52:21,410 --> 00:52:24,629 Speaker 1: questions in the intro that people are going, what did 720 00:52:24,670 --> 00:52:27,150 Speaker 1: you not ask about, which is the last section in 721 00:52:27,190 --> 00:52:30,150 Speaker 1: your chapter on the evolution of life. You have a 722 00:52:30,210 --> 00:52:34,710 Speaker 1: section on the problem of natural evil. Oh. And I 723 00:52:34,750 --> 00:52:38,029 Speaker 1: realize this could be a whole show in itself, but 724 00:52:38,110 --> 00:52:40,980 Speaker 1: this is the big one, especially that young earthers will 725 00:52:41,020 --> 00:52:44,480 Speaker 1: bring up, that God built in predation and death and 726 00:52:44,600 --> 00:52:49,180 Speaker 1: suffering into this process itself. What kind of God would 727 00:52:49,219 --> 00:52:53,719 Speaker 1: do this? And it's a theological and maybe somewhat philosophical objection. 728 00:52:54,400 --> 00:52:56,960 Speaker 1: What's maybe just a few things you would say within 729 00:52:57,000 --> 00:52:58,940 Speaker 1: your model of how you might respond to that? 730 00:52:58,960 --> 00:52:59,180 Speaker 2: Uh-huh. 731 00:52:59,870 --> 00:53:04,759 Speaker 3: I think that the evolutionary history of this planet is 732 00:53:04,860 --> 00:53:10,520 Speaker 3: God's setting the scene for the drama of human salvation, 733 00:53:11,300 --> 00:53:16,100 Speaker 3: and it is justified, all the pain, suffering involved is 734 00:53:16,200 --> 00:53:23,580 Speaker 3: justified ultimately by his bringing men and women freely into 735 00:53:23,640 --> 00:53:28,310 Speaker 3: an eternal love relationship with himself, the supreme good. And 736 00:53:28,390 --> 00:53:33,870 Speaker 3: that is an incommensurable good that outweighs any of the 737 00:53:33,930 --> 00:53:39,189 Speaker 3: suffering and the pain that was involved in achieving that. 738 00:53:39,670 --> 00:53:43,590 Speaker 3: But then I think, as you know, I also think 739 00:53:44,750 --> 00:53:51,920 Speaker 3: that animal suffering is qualitatively different from human suffering. And 740 00:53:51,960 --> 00:53:57,219 Speaker 3: I've made this point numerous times that animals, even the 741 00:53:57,280 --> 00:54:02,140 Speaker 3: highest level of them, other than humans, don't have a 742 00:54:02,300 --> 00:54:09,880 Speaker 3: first-person perspective. And so they cannot think, I am suffering. 743 00:54:11,000 --> 00:54:16,410 Speaker 3: They feel pain, yes, but they're not aware that I 744 00:54:16,610 --> 00:54:21,550 Speaker 3: am in pain. And so animal suffering is just qualitatively 745 00:54:21,670 --> 00:54:25,690 Speaker 3: different than the suffering that you and I experience in 746 00:54:26,930 --> 00:54:31,120 Speaker 3: And that therefore God has really spared most animals from 747 00:54:31,140 --> 00:54:35,180 Speaker 3: the sort of intense suffering that you and I experience. 748 00:54:36,200 --> 00:54:36,960 Speaker 2: That's really helpful. 749 00:54:37,000 --> 00:54:39,440 Speaker 1: Now, again, I have so many follow-up questions on that one, 750 00:54:39,480 --> 00:54:41,160 Speaker 1: but it is interesting when I think about the times 751 00:54:41,200 --> 00:54:44,230 Speaker 1: I've suffered in my life, the times I start feeling 752 00:54:44,290 --> 00:54:49,550 Speaker 1: despair and reflecting on it, like magnifies that pain more 753 00:54:49,630 --> 00:54:52,070 Speaker 1: than the pain itself and the self-awareness. 754 00:54:52,790 --> 00:54:55,950 Speaker 2: And God has spared animals that component of it. All right, 755 00:54:56,010 --> 00:54:56,830 Speaker 2: we'll let this go. 756 00:54:57,210 --> 00:55:00,260 Speaker 1: I'm guessing people watching have a ton of questions, but 757 00:55:00,900 --> 00:55:05,420 Speaker 1: as always, it's 578 pages. It's your systematic philosophical theology. 758 00:55:05,520 --> 00:55:09,759 Speaker 1: Volume three is out. There's evidence for the soul. There's 759 00:55:09,960 --> 00:55:13,009 Speaker 1: a case for the challenges to the origin of life. 760 00:55:13,780 --> 00:55:16,190 Speaker 1: So much more in here that even some folks who 761 00:55:16,250 --> 00:55:17,870 Speaker 1: read this who will probably disagree with some of the 762 00:55:17,890 --> 00:55:20,650 Speaker 1: things you shared today, it's fine. You document and you 763 00:55:20,750 --> 00:55:23,990 Speaker 1: always make your case solidly. So I enjoyed it. Enjoyed 764 00:55:24,030 --> 00:55:26,110 Speaker 1: this conversation as well. Thanks for coming on, Dr. 765 00:55:26,150 --> 00:55:26,390 Speaker 2: Craig. 766 00:55:26,830 --> 00:55:28,350 Speaker 3: Thank you, Sean. All the best. 767 00:55:28,830 --> 00:55:31,049 Speaker 1: All right, friends, before you click away, make sure you 768 00:55:31,070 --> 00:55:34,040 Speaker 1: hit subscribe and think about joining me in studying here 769 00:55:34,060 --> 00:55:36,719 Speaker 1: in either the philosophy program or the apologetics program at 770 00:55:36,760 --> 00:55:38,940 Speaker 1: Talbot on campus or online. 771 00:55:39,500 --> 00:55:41,319 Speaker 2: We'd love to have you. We'll see you soon.