1
00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:07,320
Speaker 1: Life audio. So it's one thing to make the arguments

2
00:00:07,360 --> 00:00:11,200
Speaker 1: from science for origin of life and cosmology, But on

3
00:00:11,240 --> 00:00:14,480
Speaker 1: a cultural level, do you sense a difference now than

4
00:00:14,520 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 1: maybe four decades ago.

5
00:00:16,400 --> 00:00:20,480
Speaker 2: I think these scientific developments, the spotlighting, enhancing of the

6
00:00:20,520 --> 00:00:24,040
Speaker 2: case for theism based on the fine tuning argument, based

7
00:00:24,079 --> 00:00:28,000
Speaker 2: on the evidence from cosmology, based on the information argument,

8
00:00:28,080 --> 00:00:31,160
Speaker 2: showing that there was a positive case for God from science,

9
00:00:31,400 --> 00:00:36,720
Speaker 2: undermined the key playing in Dawkins's scientific argument for atheism.

10
00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:39,280
Speaker 2: Those things have played a role in this cultural shift

11
00:00:39,280 --> 00:00:41,520
Speaker 2: that we're seeing. The cultural shift is everywhere.

12
00:00:42,040 --> 00:00:44,680
Speaker 1: A new film tells the story of everything through the

13
00:00:44,760 --> 00:00:48,479
Speaker 1: lens of intelligent design, arguing that the case for an

14
00:00:48,560 --> 00:00:53,360
Speaker 1: intelligence behind the universe is scientifically stronger than ever. What

15
00:00:53,560 --> 00:00:56,320
Speaker 1: is the state about the debate of the existence of God?

16
00:00:56,360 --> 00:00:59,360
Speaker 1: And are we in a new cultural moment of openness

17
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:04,160
Speaker 1: to design and the supernatural. Our guest today, doctor Stephen Meyer,

18
00:01:04,200 --> 00:01:06,520
Speaker 1: came all the way down from the Discovery Institute to

19
00:01:06,560 --> 00:01:09,840
Speaker 1: be here in person at Tabsco Theology by All University.

20
00:01:10,080 --> 00:01:11,679
Speaker 1: My audience will know that you were one of the

21
00:01:11,760 --> 00:01:15,160
Speaker 1: leading proponents of intelligent design. You've written some great books

22
00:01:15,200 --> 00:01:17,720
Speaker 1: like Return of the God, hypothesis, and you're here to

23
00:01:17,800 --> 00:01:20,000
Speaker 1: kind of catch us up on what's going on thirty

24
00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:22,720
Speaker 1: thousand foot view in this debate and talk about a

25
00:01:22,720 --> 00:01:25,319
Speaker 1: new film that I saw an early cut on and

26
00:01:25,360 --> 00:01:27,440
Speaker 1: Steven it could be one of the best things I've

27
00:01:27,480 --> 00:01:30,360
Speaker 1: seen out of Discovery, But we'll come back to that.

28
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:33,520
Speaker 1: I'd like to start, if it's okay with you, is

29
00:01:33,560 --> 00:01:36,479
Speaker 1: when I was going back look at your book, you

30
00:01:36,600 --> 00:01:41,160
Speaker 1: tell a story that at fourteen years old, you thought

31
00:01:41,240 --> 00:01:44,679
Speaker 1: your life was over. Why did you feel that way

32
00:01:45,240 --> 00:01:47,200
Speaker 1: and what happened and how did that kind of set

33
00:01:47,240 --> 00:01:48,680
Speaker 1: you up for what you do today?

34
00:01:49,280 --> 00:01:51,240
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, the short answer is probably I was a

35
00:01:51,320 --> 00:01:56,880
Speaker 2: melodramatic teenager. That's fair, But well, I was prone to

36
00:01:56,920 --> 00:02:02,480
Speaker 2: overthinking everything, and I was having lots of strange questions

37
00:02:03,240 --> 00:02:07,280
Speaker 2: that I couldn't answer, questions about the one, the most

38
00:02:07,360 --> 00:02:09,160
Speaker 2: haunting one was what's it going to matter in one

39
00:02:09,200 --> 00:02:09,760
Speaker 2: hundred years?

40
00:02:10,160 --> 00:02:10,200
Speaker 1: What?

41
00:02:10,840 --> 00:02:14,000
Speaker 2: What does anything I do today? What does anything I

42
00:02:14,000 --> 00:02:18,160
Speaker 2: could hope to accomplish? What will will anything that I

43
00:02:18,200 --> 00:02:22,359
Speaker 2: do have? How? How will? How will that have any

44
00:02:22,440 --> 00:02:26,600
Speaker 2: lasting or enduring meaning? And I was also freaked out

45
00:02:26,600 --> 00:02:30,799
Speaker 2: by time, just thinking about time, what what what it is?

46
00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:35,239
Speaker 2: I was I would have an event, could drop something

47
00:02:35,320 --> 00:02:38,480
Speaker 2: on the table. I can remember that event taking place,

48
00:02:38,520 --> 00:02:44,160
Speaker 2: but that event is gone. Where did it go? It?

49
00:02:44,360 --> 00:02:47,280
Speaker 2: I seemed I was intensely aware of living in a

50
00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:52,880
Speaker 2: stream of sensory impressions of things that were happening, that

51
00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:58,839
Speaker 2: were ivaniscent, ephemeral, that were that were just moving by.

52
00:02:58,919 --> 00:03:00,400
Speaker 2: I had this sense that there had to be something

53
00:03:00,480 --> 00:03:04,680
Speaker 2: somewhere that didn't change, or everything that was constantly changing,

54
00:03:05,280 --> 00:03:09,000
Speaker 2: could not would not have any lasting meaning. So the

55
00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:13,639
Speaker 2: underlying it was I think a kind of quest or

56
00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:18,960
Speaker 2: worry about meaning, about whether my life or anything had

57
00:03:19,000 --> 00:03:23,040
Speaker 2: any ultimate or lasting meaning. There's a Harvard study that's

58
00:03:23,200 --> 00:03:27,239
Speaker 2: been published recently about young people in the age in

59
00:03:27,320 --> 00:03:31,240
Speaker 2: the in the eighteen to thirty age group, and the

60
00:03:31,280 --> 00:03:34,880
Speaker 2: study shows showed that fifty six percent of people in

61
00:03:34,920 --> 00:03:40,520
Speaker 2: that age group currently acknowledge having doubts about whether their

62
00:03:40,560 --> 00:03:43,400
Speaker 2: lives have any lasting or enduring meaning. And I think

63
00:03:43,440 --> 00:03:50,280
Speaker 2: this was fundamentally what was bothering me. Later, I what

64
00:03:50,360 --> 00:03:53,840
Speaker 2: happened to me was there was one day when it

65
00:03:53,920 --> 00:03:57,200
Speaker 2: occurred to me that maybe these thoughts I was having

66
00:03:57,640 --> 00:03:59,600
Speaker 2: meant there was something wrong with me. And I remember

67
00:03:59,680 --> 00:04:03,120
Speaker 2: having a particular thought, which was, maybe this is what

68
00:04:03,160 --> 00:04:06,720
Speaker 2: it means to be insane, and fourteen i'd heard the

69
00:04:06,800 --> 00:04:10,200
Speaker 2: term insane, and then I remember a kind of shock,

70
00:04:10,480 --> 00:04:13,280
Speaker 2: of a surge of adrenaline. I think I had a

71
00:04:13,280 --> 00:04:17,160
Speaker 2: panic attack. And for roughly six months after that, I

72
00:04:17,240 --> 00:04:21,000
Speaker 2: was acutely aware of these thoughts, terrified of having them

73
00:04:21,040 --> 00:04:23,520
Speaker 2: because it might mean that there was something wrong with me.

74
00:04:23,880 --> 00:04:26,400
Speaker 2: And so I got into a kind of mailstrom, a

75
00:04:26,440 --> 00:04:31,840
Speaker 2: downward spiral of thinking about thinking that led nowhere good

76
00:04:32,040 --> 00:04:33,880
Speaker 2: other than a sense of kind of a dark cloud

77
00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:36,760
Speaker 2: following me around. At the same time, I was in

78
00:04:36,800 --> 00:04:40,039
Speaker 2: a full leg length, full length leg cast. I had

79
00:04:40,040 --> 00:04:42,600
Speaker 2: broken my leg in a skiing accident, and I was

80
00:04:44,160 --> 00:04:46,400
Speaker 2: I was kind of hyperactive anyway, and so I was

81
00:04:46,640 --> 00:04:51,560
Speaker 2: sort of trapped in my mind. And eventually I have

82
00:04:51,600 --> 00:04:54,000
Speaker 2: a happy, go lucky little brother who's my alter ego,

83
00:04:54,520 --> 00:04:57,440
Speaker 2: and he kind of drew me out of some of this.

84
00:04:57,640 --> 00:05:00,160
Speaker 2: I got back into school in the fall, but I'd

85
00:05:00,680 --> 00:05:04,880
Speaker 2: have these things recur, and these thoughts recur, and eventually,

86
00:05:04,920 --> 00:05:07,560
Speaker 2: for me, some of this started to resolve as I

87
00:05:07,600 --> 00:05:11,919
Speaker 2: began to read the Big fat White Catholic Family Bible

88
00:05:11,960 --> 00:05:14,360
Speaker 2: on my own and found that there were things in

89
00:05:14,400 --> 00:05:17,719
Speaker 2: the Biblical text that seemed to address some of my

90
00:05:18,040 --> 00:05:22,680
Speaker 2: metaphysical angst. And when I got to college taking philosophy classes,

91
00:05:23,200 --> 00:05:25,880
Speaker 2: I remember encountering that. Where I was in a course

92
00:05:25,920 --> 00:05:30,919
Speaker 2: on atheistic existentialism, I encounted the works of Jean Paul Sartre,

93
00:05:31,600 --> 00:05:37,200
Speaker 2: who said, paraphrasing, without an infinite universe, without an infinite

94
00:05:37,279 --> 00:05:40,760
Speaker 2: reference point, nothing finite has any lasting or enduring meaning.

95
00:05:41,360 --> 00:05:43,799
Speaker 2: And I almost jumped out of my chair when I encountered.

96
00:05:43,839 --> 00:05:45,880
Speaker 2: I that's what was bothering me. I remember talking to

97
00:05:45,920 --> 00:05:48,479
Speaker 2: my philosophy professor, and I've told him a bit about

98
00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:50,520
Speaker 2: my background with all of this. I said, maybe I

99
00:05:50,640 --> 00:05:54,760
Speaker 2: wasn't insane, Maybe I was just a philosopher. He said

100
00:05:54,800 --> 00:05:56,960
Speaker 2: to me, well, you have to be careful, he said,

101
00:05:57,000 --> 00:06:02,640
Speaker 2: because there's a fine line between philosophy and insanity. And anyway,

102
00:06:02,800 --> 00:06:06,960
Speaker 2: I did eventually pull out of it, and exposure to

103
00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:10,839
Speaker 2: biblical answers to some of those questions were very helpful.

104
00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:17,280
Speaker 2: Genesis or Exodus three, when Moses was asking who he

105
00:06:17,360 --> 00:06:25,640
Speaker 2: should tell pharaohs who had sent him, God answered, I

106
00:06:25,680 --> 00:06:28,800
Speaker 2: am that I am the eternal, self existent one. In

107
00:06:28,839 --> 00:06:30,919
Speaker 2: the Book of Hebrews. It said that Jesus Christ is

108
00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:35,000
Speaker 2: the same yesterday, today, and forever. And so there were

109
00:06:35,040 --> 00:06:37,120
Speaker 2: this this nagging thought I had that there must be

110
00:06:37,160 --> 00:06:41,719
Speaker 2: something that doesn't change was addressed in the Biblical text,

111
00:06:41,880 --> 00:06:45,000
Speaker 2: and so I began to find I think what you

112
00:06:45,120 --> 00:06:47,160
Speaker 2: might call now what I would now call, answers to

113
00:06:47,200 --> 00:06:51,440
Speaker 2: worldview questions in Biblical revelation. And that started to give

114
00:06:51,480 --> 00:06:57,080
Speaker 2: my mind some structures. And other other kids I knew

115
00:06:57,080 --> 00:07:01,839
Speaker 2: in high school were having these dramatic Christian conversion experience experiences,

116
00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:05,200
Speaker 2: and as I began to be exposed to the Biblical

117
00:07:05,680 --> 00:07:10,240
Speaker 2: text and worldview, it started to answer questions that had

118
00:07:10,240 --> 00:07:12,600
Speaker 2: the effect of making me feel normal for the first time.

119
00:07:13,440 --> 00:07:19,920
Speaker 2: No great ecstatic Damascus road thing, but just started to

120
00:07:19,920 --> 00:07:22,480
Speaker 2: give my mind structures that may help me make sense

121
00:07:22,480 --> 00:07:23,080
Speaker 2: of reality.

122
00:07:23,480 --> 00:07:25,720
Speaker 1: Thank you for sharing that and bringing us back. You

123
00:07:25,760 --> 00:07:27,960
Speaker 1: gave even more depth than I've read in some of

124
00:07:27,960 --> 00:07:29,760
Speaker 1: your books. How you made sense of that and how

125
00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:33,040
Speaker 1: it affected you. There's another event in your life that

126
00:07:33,120 --> 00:07:35,160
Speaker 1: I probably heard you share. Maybe it's in a Case

127
00:07:35,200 --> 00:07:37,920
Speaker 1: for a Creator from like two thousand and four, but

128
00:07:38,000 --> 00:07:40,400
Speaker 1: I've always been intrigued by this story. I think you're

129
00:07:40,440 --> 00:07:44,600
Speaker 1: twenty seven years old, nineteen eighty five, and it regards me.

130
00:07:44,680 --> 00:07:46,120
Speaker 2: No, you don't tell people that they're going to think

131
00:07:46,120 --> 00:07:52,160
Speaker 2: I'm orange. I was well once with my grandfather who

132
00:07:52,280 --> 00:07:59,240
Speaker 2: was taking a nineteen thirties typewriter to get serviced.

133
00:07:59,560 --> 00:08:01,200
Speaker 1: In a amazing and.

134
00:08:01,120 --> 00:08:04,800
Speaker 2: They didn't have the ribbon anymore us And I said,

135
00:08:05,200 --> 00:08:08,560
Speaker 2: I said, Grahams, they probably haven't had that for He says,

136
00:08:08,560 --> 00:08:10,640
Speaker 2: don't call me Grams. They're going to think I'm old.

137
00:08:10,720 --> 00:08:13,640
Speaker 1: He says, holy with the nineteen thirty tage writer. I

138
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:16,640
Speaker 1: love that. That's awesome. Well, we won't we won't date

139
00:08:16,640 --> 00:08:19,239
Speaker 1: anything here, but correct me if I'm among your twenty

140
00:08:19,280 --> 00:08:21,720
Speaker 1: seven twenty seven years old, nineteen eighty five. People can

141
00:08:21,720 --> 00:08:25,720
Speaker 1: do the math. February, Oh, February tell us the story.

142
00:08:25,920 --> 00:08:30,360
Speaker 2: Well, I'm working as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield

143
00:08:30,360 --> 00:08:35,400
Speaker 2: Company doing digital signal processing, which is seismic digital signal processing,

144
00:08:35,440 --> 00:08:40,079
Speaker 2: which was an early form of applied information technology. And

145
00:08:40,280 --> 00:08:45,319
Speaker 2: I hear about a talk at Southern Methodist University given

146
00:08:45,400 --> 00:08:49,480
Speaker 2: by a Harvard historian of science and an astrophysicist named

147
00:08:49,480 --> 00:08:52,800
Speaker 2: Owen Gingrich. I tend to talk, and I hear that

148
00:08:52,920 --> 00:08:55,840
Speaker 2: night about a conference the next day at the Dallas

149
00:08:55,920 --> 00:09:00,360
Speaker 2: Hilton called Christianity Challenges the University and International Content Diference

150
00:09:00,679 --> 00:09:07,079
Speaker 2: of Atheists and Theists. It sounded fascinating, deeply interested, as

151
00:09:07,120 --> 00:09:11,200
Speaker 2: I've kind of already revealed in deep worldview questions, and

152
00:09:11,320 --> 00:09:14,120
Speaker 2: especially interested in how they intersected with the sciences, because

153
00:09:14,120 --> 00:09:16,320
Speaker 2: I did a double major in college in physics and

154
00:09:16,320 --> 00:09:19,360
Speaker 2: geology and would sneak across campus whenever I could to

155
00:09:19,400 --> 00:09:24,640
Speaker 2: take philosophy courses. So I just came in off the street,

156
00:09:24,720 --> 00:09:28,280
Speaker 2: paid my money, sat down and listened, and in the

157
00:09:28,320 --> 00:09:32,679
Speaker 2: first and the conference was structured in a really interesting way.

158
00:09:32,679 --> 00:09:35,440
Speaker 2: It was going to address three big questions, the origin

159
00:09:35,480 --> 00:09:39,640
Speaker 2: of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin

160
00:09:39,679 --> 00:09:43,440
Speaker 2: and nature of human consciousness the mind body question for

161
00:09:43,520 --> 00:09:47,680
Speaker 2: lack of a better term, and it was each each

162
00:09:48,080 --> 00:09:54,880
Speaker 2: session was divided between theistic and materialists or atheistic agnostic presenters,

163
00:09:55,559 --> 00:10:00,120
Speaker 2: and there were panels with with say and the In

164
00:10:00,160 --> 00:10:05,880
Speaker 2: the first session, a very prominent, well known agnostic materialists

165
00:10:06,679 --> 00:10:11,880
Speaker 2: cosmologist astronomer Alan Sandage, rose to the podium and shocked

166
00:10:12,080 --> 00:10:15,480
Speaker 2: many people in the audience by sitting down, excuse me,

167
00:10:15,559 --> 00:10:20,640
Speaker 2: sitting down with the theists and this was unexpected. He

168
00:10:20,679 --> 00:10:23,400
Speaker 2: then proceeded to give his talk, which was about the

169
00:10:23,440 --> 00:10:29,200
Speaker 2: evidence from observational astronomy and theoretical physics for a beginning

170
00:10:30,480 --> 00:10:33,520
Speaker 2: of the universe, and at one point in his talk

171
00:10:33,559 --> 00:10:37,160
Speaker 2: he said, here is evidence for what can only be

172
00:10:37,280 --> 00:10:41,400
Speaker 2: described as a supernatural event. There's no way this could

173
00:10:41,440 --> 00:10:44,000
Speaker 2: have been predicted within the framework of physics as we

174
00:10:44,080 --> 00:10:46,320
Speaker 2: know it. And he was talking about what we call

175
00:10:46,400 --> 00:10:51,880
Speaker 2: the Big Bang or the singularity. And he then went

176
00:10:51,960 --> 00:10:55,319
Speaker 2: on to explain how this evidence, as well as the

177
00:10:55,320 --> 00:10:58,000
Speaker 2: evidence for the fine tuning of the universe verse from

178
00:10:58,000 --> 00:11:02,160
Speaker 2: the very beginning, had really rocked his world as a

179
00:11:02,400 --> 00:11:09,280
Speaker 2: scientific materialist, and that this challenged his worldview. But what

180
00:11:09,400 --> 00:11:13,640
Speaker 2: really challenged him, he said, was his own self reflection,

181
00:11:13,880 --> 00:11:18,040
Speaker 2: realizing that not only was this evidence compelling, but that

182
00:11:18,280 --> 00:11:21,480
Speaker 2: he did not want it to be true, and that

183
00:11:21,760 --> 00:11:25,360
Speaker 2: he realized that there was something in him that did

184
00:11:25,360 --> 00:11:29,200
Speaker 2: not want to follow this evidence where it led. And

185
00:11:29,400 --> 00:11:32,840
Speaker 2: he prided himself as a scientist, undoing exactly that it

186
00:11:32,960 --> 00:11:39,319
Speaker 2: was an incredibly poignant in a kind of grave There

187
00:11:39,360 --> 00:11:42,920
Speaker 2: was a gravity about him, that this was something he

188
00:11:42,960 --> 00:11:46,599
Speaker 2: had come to reluctantly. His theistic belief was something he

189
00:11:46,640 --> 00:11:51,200
Speaker 2: had come to reluctantly after much wrestling, soul searching, and

190
00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:55,439
Speaker 2: scientific evaluation. I was blown away. And in this new

191
00:11:55,440 --> 00:11:57,640
Speaker 2: film we have that you mentioned the story of everything,

192
00:11:58,080 --> 00:12:00,880
Speaker 2: we were actually able to track down that footage.

193
00:12:00,920 --> 00:12:02,080
Speaker 1: I was stunned when I saw it.

194
00:12:02,640 --> 00:12:05,160
Speaker 2: We had tried many times, couldn't find it, And through

195
00:12:05,160 --> 00:12:08,319
Speaker 2: a very weird serendipity, one of our staff writers wrote

196
00:12:08,320 --> 00:12:13,240
Speaker 2: an article about Charles Thaxton's new book, and that elicited

197
00:12:13,280 --> 00:12:16,120
Speaker 2: a response from someone who had been at the conference,

198
00:12:16,120 --> 00:12:19,040
Speaker 2: who was on the media team who had filmed this,

199
00:12:19,800 --> 00:12:21,800
Speaker 2: and through that lead, we were able to find the

200
00:12:21,800 --> 00:12:24,800
Speaker 2: footage of sandage, and that footage is now in the

201
00:12:24,840 --> 00:12:27,040
Speaker 2: trailer to the film as well as the film, where

202
00:12:27,080 --> 00:12:29,240
Speaker 2: he's saying, and you know, I was. That was one

203
00:12:29,240 --> 00:12:32,800
Speaker 2: of the things that I vividly remembered from city. Oh yeah,

204
00:12:33,000 --> 00:12:38,959
Speaker 2: this senior, very seasoned, scientific figure staring into the camera saying,

205
00:12:39,320 --> 00:12:42,440
Speaker 2: here is evidence for what can only be described as

206
00:12:42,480 --> 00:12:45,640
Speaker 2: a super natural event. And there was a kind of

207
00:12:45,679 --> 00:12:50,360
Speaker 2: beat between super and natural. It was obviously supernatural. Because

208
00:12:50,880 --> 00:12:53,640
Speaker 2: you can't invoke nature to explain the origin of nature.

209
00:12:53,720 --> 00:12:57,000
Speaker 2: You can't explain physics to explain the origin of physics.

210
00:12:57,000 --> 00:12:59,679
Speaker 2: Before there is any physics, This has there has to

211
00:12:59,760 --> 00:13:02,800
Speaker 2: be something outside the universe to explain where the universe

212
00:13:02,840 --> 00:13:05,400
Speaker 2: had come from, had come from if it in fact

213
00:13:05,800 --> 00:13:10,320
Speaker 2: originated a finite time ago, where at that point we

214
00:13:10,360 --> 00:13:12,520
Speaker 2: get matterspace, time and energy coming into existence.

215
00:13:13,240 --> 00:13:16,199
Speaker 1: So from age fourteen at least you're interested in these

216
00:13:16,240 --> 00:13:20,200
Speaker 1: big questions in life and something infinite. But at twenty seven,

217
00:13:20,240 --> 00:13:22,319
Speaker 1: even though you were working as a scientist and had

218
00:13:22,360 --> 00:13:26,040
Speaker 1: training in it, you weren't trying to become an apologist

219
00:13:26,120 --> 00:13:29,520
Speaker 1: or an advocate of intelligent design. You're just living your life,

220
00:13:29,600 --> 00:13:32,160
Speaker 1: if I understand correctly, and this kind of lit a

221
00:13:32,200 --> 00:13:34,280
Speaker 1: fire in the trajectory of your life.

222
00:13:34,080 --> 00:13:39,000
Speaker 2: I had come to Christian faith ultimately through philosophical arguments

223
00:13:39,000 --> 00:13:42,640
Speaker 2: that persuaded me. I had an extended period where I

224
00:13:42,720 --> 00:13:47,280
Speaker 2: was convinced that Christianity was true, and like Sandidge, did

225
00:13:47,320 --> 00:13:50,760
Speaker 2: not want it to be true. It imposed certain restrictions

226
00:13:50,840 --> 00:13:56,559
Speaker 2: on lifestyle, and I was not in favor of that,

227
00:13:57,240 --> 00:14:01,360
Speaker 2: and I there was just I was constant battle. So

228
00:14:01,440 --> 00:14:05,120
Speaker 2: many of my friends had these really dramatic conversions, and

229
00:14:05,160 --> 00:14:09,640
Speaker 2: for me it was a protracted experience from late adolescens

230
00:14:09,720 --> 00:14:11,720
Speaker 2: and it wasn't until the first year out of college

231
00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:16,400
Speaker 2: that I really settled. And it was soon after that

232
00:14:16,400 --> 00:14:21,080
Speaker 2: that I realized that I began to pray that God

233
00:14:21,120 --> 00:14:23,800
Speaker 2: would use me in a specific way to do something.

234
00:14:24,160 --> 00:14:27,080
Speaker 2: I thought it had something to do with my philosophical interests.

235
00:14:27,080 --> 00:14:29,760
Speaker 2: I was very taken by the kind of approach that

236
00:14:29,800 --> 00:14:33,120
Speaker 2: the people at LaBrie, in particular Osgennis and Francis Schaeffer,

237
00:14:33,160 --> 00:14:36,480
Speaker 2: had taken. I met them at a conference in nineteen

238
00:14:36,480 --> 00:14:39,120
Speaker 2: eighty three, a couple of years before this eighty five conference. Yeah,

239
00:14:39,560 --> 00:14:42,360
Speaker 2: and so I was thinking I wanted to go back

240
00:14:42,360 --> 00:14:46,359
Speaker 2: to grad school in something related to science and philosophy,

241
00:14:46,400 --> 00:14:48,200
Speaker 2: and so I ended up going back in the philosophy

242
00:14:48,240 --> 00:14:51,480
Speaker 2: of science, history and pilosopher science. But it was after

243
00:14:51,600 --> 00:14:55,240
Speaker 2: I had been exposed to these early proponents of intelligent design.

244
00:14:55,280 --> 00:14:57,560
Speaker 2: And at the conference, the other thing that was just

245
00:14:58,480 --> 00:15:01,080
Speaker 2: world rocking, if you will, was the panel on the

246
00:15:01,120 --> 00:15:03,880
Speaker 2: origin of life was the next one up, and there

247
00:15:03,960 --> 00:15:08,040
Speaker 2: a similar thing happened where a very well known proponent

248
00:15:08,200 --> 00:15:13,880
Speaker 2: of chemical evolutionary theory, which is essentially the materialistic account

249
00:15:13,920 --> 00:15:18,400
Speaker 2: of how life arose from simpler chemicals in a prebiotic

250
00:15:18,480 --> 00:15:21,680
Speaker 2: soup or environment the first life to we're talking about

251
00:15:21,680 --> 00:15:23,640
Speaker 2: the origin of the cell, the origin of the simplest,

252
00:15:23,760 --> 00:15:26,520
Speaker 2: first simplest life. One of the proponents of that theory

253
00:15:26,600 --> 00:15:32,640
Speaker 2: named Dean Kenyon, announced at this conference in his talk

254
00:15:33,320 --> 00:15:38,600
Speaker 2: that he was now persuaded that some sort of intelligent

255
00:15:38,720 --> 00:15:42,680
Speaker 2: cause or design was necessary to explain the origin of life,

256
00:15:42,720 --> 00:15:48,200
Speaker 2: and he repudiated his own very popular theory of chemical evolution,

257
00:15:48,320 --> 00:15:51,760
Speaker 2: which was at that time expressed in a best selling

258
00:15:52,040 --> 00:15:55,360
Speaker 2: graduate level text on what's called chemical evolutionary theory. His

259
00:15:55,360 --> 00:16:00,400
Speaker 2: book was called Biochemical Predestination, and this was e equally

260
00:16:00,720 --> 00:16:04,680
Speaker 2: compelling testimony. We found that footage as well, where Kenyon

261
00:16:04,800 --> 00:16:07,640
Speaker 2: is saying, great, I don't think you have to fall

262
00:16:07,800 --> 00:16:11,680
Speaker 2: off the edge of the rational universe to embrace a

263
00:16:11,720 --> 00:16:15,480
Speaker 2: frankly theistic understanding of the origin of life. And in

264
00:16:15,520 --> 00:16:19,000
Speaker 2: the talk he said, because of the information bearing properties

265
00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:22,560
Speaker 2: of DNA, it was now, in his opinion, time for

266
00:16:22,640 --> 00:16:27,400
Speaker 2: the philosophers to reopen the question, the natural theological question,

267
00:16:27,520 --> 00:16:30,120
Speaker 2: the question of whether or not nature is pointing to

268
00:16:30,160 --> 00:16:34,320
Speaker 2: the existence of God. This was stunning, coming right on

269
00:16:34,360 --> 00:16:37,400
Speaker 2: the heels of the testimony that morning of Alan Sandidge,

270
00:16:37,840 --> 00:16:40,360
Speaker 2: and so I was really struck in the by the

271
00:16:40,640 --> 00:16:45,360
Speaker 2: by the import the sense of the whole conference that

272
00:16:45,400 --> 00:16:50,040
Speaker 2: the theist, the intellectual initiative in these conversations was on

273
00:16:50,200 --> 00:16:53,640
Speaker 2: the side of the theistic scientists and the theistic philosophers

274
00:16:53,640 --> 00:16:56,040
Speaker 2: as well. It's the first place I encountered William Land

275
00:16:56,080 --> 00:17:00,600
Speaker 2: Craig and Alvin Planiga, who were on the Afternoon on Consciousness.

276
00:17:00,600 --> 00:17:03,320
Speaker 2: So yeah, it kind of lit a fire in me.

277
00:17:03,840 --> 00:17:07,240
Speaker 2: I met Faxton, one of the key scientific authors on

278
00:17:07,280 --> 00:17:10,359
Speaker 2: the Origin of Life panel. He began to mentor me,

279
00:17:11,200 --> 00:17:14,040
Speaker 2: and a year later I was off to grad school

280
00:17:14,080 --> 00:17:16,240
Speaker 2: in Cambridge, thinking that I would like to do something

281
00:17:16,520 --> 00:17:19,720
Speaker 2: on the origin of life question. Not yet fully convinced

282
00:17:19,760 --> 00:17:22,280
Speaker 2: of their argument for intelligence, they called it an argument

283
00:17:22,320 --> 00:17:25,640
Speaker 2: for intelligent cause they hadn't coined the term intelligent design yet.

284
00:17:26,560 --> 00:17:31,199
Speaker 2: But I left with kind of a burning question that

285
00:17:31,240 --> 00:17:34,200
Speaker 2: could the evidence from DNA, the evidence of the information

286
00:17:34,240 --> 00:17:38,240
Speaker 2: bearing properties of DNA, in fact, provide the basis of

287
00:17:38,280 --> 00:17:42,280
Speaker 2: a rigorous scientific reformulation of the design argument. And that

288
00:17:42,480 --> 00:17:45,560
Speaker 2: was I was chewing on that all through my four

289
00:17:45,640 --> 00:17:46,560
Speaker 2: years in Cambridge.

290
00:17:46,760 --> 00:17:50,520
Speaker 1: It's amazing you have the footage from Sandidge and from

291
00:17:50,600 --> 00:17:54,840
Speaker 1: Kenyon in this nineteen eighty five conference, because it's easier

292
00:17:54,840 --> 00:17:57,320
Speaker 1: for us today to miss how significant that was because

293
00:17:57,320 --> 00:18:00,880
Speaker 1: we have so many streams of information get things out.

294
00:18:00,960 --> 00:18:04,320
Speaker 1: This was like a big conference. People came together, huge

295
00:18:04,359 --> 00:18:07,080
Speaker 1: announcements that in many ways was kind of signaling what

296
00:18:07,280 --> 00:18:10,240
Speaker 1: was yet to come in the intelligent design movement and beyond.

297
00:18:11,119 --> 00:18:12,640
Speaker 1: I want to get to this film, but I think

298
00:18:12,640 --> 00:18:15,600
Speaker 1: it might be interesting for people if we first start

299
00:18:15,600 --> 00:18:18,160
Speaker 1: with because in the three people you mentioned, with Kenyon,

300
00:18:18,600 --> 00:18:21,879
Speaker 1: with yourself, and with Sandage, there was kind of a

301
00:18:21,920 --> 00:18:26,720
Speaker 1: recognition that there's evidence pointing towards God or design, but

302
00:18:26,920 --> 00:18:31,320
Speaker 1: a resistance to it. So if we go back to

303
00:18:31,440 --> 00:18:35,000
Speaker 1: kind of say the beginning of maybe in the twentieth century,

304
00:18:35,560 --> 00:18:39,000
Speaker 1: what was the standard view about the universe, and why

305
00:18:39,200 --> 00:18:42,320
Speaker 1: is this discovery of information in the cell and the

306
00:18:42,400 --> 00:18:46,080
Speaker 1: universe having a beginning so unexpected and so surprising.

307
00:18:46,359 --> 00:18:51,520
Speaker 2: That's a very good question. Yeah, in the late nineteenth century. Well,

308
00:18:51,520 --> 00:18:53,160
Speaker 2: here's the way I tell the story in the Return

309
00:18:53,200 --> 00:18:56,520
Speaker 2: of the God hypothesis. It's a rise fall rise plot structure,

310
00:18:56,520 --> 00:19:01,400
Speaker 2: if you will. Science modern science begins in a decidedly

311
00:19:01,520 --> 00:19:08,040
Speaker 2: Judeo Christian milieu in Western Europe, and you have influences

312
00:19:08,119 --> 00:19:12,280
Speaker 2: on the early scientists that come directly from the Hebrew Bible,

313
00:19:13,040 --> 00:19:19,520
Speaker 2: the notion of a law governed physical realm, the notion

314
00:19:19,680 --> 00:19:22,919
Speaker 2: of physical laws being something that's implicit in many of

315
00:19:22,920 --> 00:19:25,480
Speaker 2: the Biblical texts in the Old Testament that the early

316
00:19:25,520 --> 00:19:28,159
Speaker 2: scientists were drawing on. You have the idea of the

317
00:19:28,160 --> 00:19:34,880
Speaker 2: intelligibility of nature, that we humans can understand the order

318
00:19:35,320 --> 00:19:38,160
Speaker 2: and the design built into nature because our minds were

319
00:19:38,160 --> 00:19:41,000
Speaker 2: made in the in the image of the same rational

320
00:19:41,080 --> 00:19:46,640
Speaker 2: creator who built design and rationality and lawful order into

321
00:19:46,680 --> 00:19:49,600
Speaker 2: the world. You have the idea that the order is contingent.

322
00:19:50,000 --> 00:19:53,600
Speaker 2: It's contingent on the choice that the Creator made. So

323
00:19:53,640 --> 00:19:57,840
Speaker 2: we have we can't just simply deduce what the order is.

324
00:19:57,880 --> 00:19:59,800
Speaker 2: We have to go out and investigate it for our

325
00:20:00,400 --> 00:20:03,600
Speaker 2: and look and see how God did it. To have

326
00:20:03,680 --> 00:20:08,040
Speaker 2: this combination of presuppositions about the relationship between God and

327
00:20:08,080 --> 00:20:12,640
Speaker 2: the natural world that give rise to a fruitful, mathematically

328
00:20:14,680 --> 00:20:18,639
Speaker 2: guided empirical science that we call the scientific revolution. It's

329
00:20:18,680 --> 00:20:22,560
Speaker 2: a fascinating story and the early figures in modern science.

330
00:20:22,920 --> 00:20:30,159
Speaker 2: Robert Boyle, John Ray, Isaac Barrow, Isaac Newton, Galileo, for

331
00:20:30,200 --> 00:20:33,439
Speaker 2: all his problems with the Catholic Church Kepler. All of

332
00:20:33,480 --> 00:20:38,720
Speaker 2: these figures are deeply Christian, and they are doing science

333
00:20:38,840 --> 00:20:43,240
Speaker 2: for discernibly Christian reasons, Judeo Christian reasons. Some of those

334
00:20:43,280 --> 00:20:47,360
Speaker 2: influences come out of the late Medieval Catholic the medieval

335
00:20:47,400 --> 00:20:51,600
Speaker 2: period with Catholic philosophers who are developing methods of isolating

336
00:20:51,680 --> 00:20:55,080
Speaker 2: variables and ways of investigating nature. Some of them have

337
00:20:55,119 --> 00:20:58,720
Speaker 2: to do with assumptions that come out of the Reformation about,

338
00:20:59,440 --> 00:21:03,959
Speaker 2: for example, not only the intelligibility of nature and are

339
00:21:04,000 --> 00:21:06,080
Speaker 2: being made in the image of God, but also the

340
00:21:06,080 --> 00:21:09,760
Speaker 2: depravity of man, that our minds can lead us astray.

341
00:21:09,880 --> 00:21:13,520
Speaker 2: We're prone to jumping to conclusions, and so we have

342
00:21:13,600 --> 00:21:17,240
Speaker 2: to test our ideas against nature. So there's these, I

343
00:21:17,320 --> 00:21:22,040
Speaker 2: think three great theological strains that lead to the scientific revolution,

344
00:21:22,440 --> 00:21:27,159
Speaker 2: a Judaic strain, Catholic strain, and a Reformed Protestant strain.

345
00:21:28,119 --> 00:21:32,280
Speaker 2: But in any case, it's a Judaeo Christian milieu. And

346
00:21:32,320 --> 00:21:36,119
Speaker 2: not only do the early scientists start doing science for

347
00:21:36,240 --> 00:21:42,119
Speaker 2: decidedly Judaeo Christian biblical reasons, they are discovering things that

348
00:21:42,200 --> 00:21:47,520
Speaker 2: reinforce that conclusion. In particular, they are discovering evidences of design,

349
00:21:48,040 --> 00:21:50,720
Speaker 2: and you have Newton making design arguments based on the

350
00:21:50,760 --> 00:21:54,960
Speaker 2: fine tuning of the planetary orbits. He has an elegant

351
00:21:55,000 --> 00:21:58,600
Speaker 2: design argument based on not only the structure and design

352
00:21:58,720 --> 00:22:01,359
Speaker 2: of the eye, in which the eye seems to be

353
00:22:01,440 --> 00:22:05,760
Speaker 2: designed with a priest, but with knowledge of the way

354
00:22:05,880 --> 00:22:09,720
Speaker 2: light works, and there's a correspondence between the two that

355
00:22:09,880 --> 00:22:14,879
Speaker 2: strikes him with great impact. Boyle has design arguments, Robert Boyle,

356
00:22:14,960 --> 00:22:18,719
Speaker 2: the great chemist. And these design arguments continue right up

357
00:22:18,720 --> 00:22:22,240
Speaker 2: into the nineteenth century, with figures like William Hewle and

358
00:22:22,280 --> 00:22:27,680
Speaker 2: the Bridgewater Treatises, and with even the great James Clark Maxwell.

359
00:22:29,000 --> 00:22:31,360
Speaker 2: But in the late nineteenth century there's a shift that's

360
00:22:31,400 --> 00:22:34,720
Speaker 2: beginning to take place, and you get figures like Darwin

361
00:22:35,440 --> 00:22:38,199
Speaker 2: and Marx, and then in the early twentieth century Freud,

362
00:22:38,640 --> 00:22:42,040
Speaker 2: and you have a kind of gradual shift in the

363
00:22:42,080 --> 00:22:47,040
Speaker 2: worldview orientation of science away from its original Judeo Christian

364
00:22:47,080 --> 00:22:52,680
Speaker 2: founding into a more materialistic framework. Lots of figures Huxley,

365
00:22:54,119 --> 00:22:58,520
Speaker 2: Verschau and Germany Heckel, So you get this rise of

366
00:22:58,560 --> 00:23:03,919
Speaker 2: scientific material and the default way of thinking in the

367
00:23:03,960 --> 00:23:07,439
Speaker 2: early part of the twentieth century is one in which,

368
00:23:07,800 --> 00:23:11,040
Speaker 2: first of all, from the standpoint of scientific origins, we

369
00:23:11,160 --> 00:23:15,960
Speaker 2: can explain pretty much everything. There's a big scientific there's

370
00:23:15,960 --> 00:23:19,159
Speaker 2: a big materialistic story that you can tell. Laplace in

371
00:23:19,200 --> 00:23:24,280
Speaker 2: the early nineteenth century comes up with the nebular hypothesis

372
00:23:24,320 --> 00:23:26,600
Speaker 2: to explain the origin of the solar system as a

373
00:23:26,640 --> 00:23:30,880
Speaker 2: result of the law of gravity acting on nebular gases. Alone,

374
00:23:31,280 --> 00:23:35,199
Speaker 2: you get explanations of the origin of the great geological

375
00:23:35,240 --> 00:23:39,440
Speaker 2: features as a result of slow, gradual and purely naturalistic processes.

376
00:23:39,720 --> 00:23:43,679
Speaker 2: Darwin comes along with his account of the origin of

377
00:23:43,720 --> 00:23:48,320
Speaker 2: new forms of life by the natural selection random variation process,

378
00:23:48,760 --> 00:23:51,480
Speaker 2: and that idea is extended with figures like Huxley and

379
00:23:51,520 --> 00:23:53,879
Speaker 2: hexel Heckle to explain even the origin of the first life.

380
00:23:53,960 --> 00:23:56,080
Speaker 2: So by the end of the nineteenth century you can

381
00:23:56,119 --> 00:24:00,240
Speaker 2: explain virtually everything as the result of slow, gradual materialistic

382
00:24:01,400 --> 00:24:06,119
Speaker 2: and then there becomes as as Laplace is rumored to

383
00:24:06,160 --> 00:24:07,720
Speaker 2: have said, we don't know if he actually said it,

384
00:24:08,680 --> 00:24:12,119
Speaker 2: sire seer of no need of hypothesis, no need of

385
00:24:12,160 --> 00:24:14,600
Speaker 2: the god hypothesis. By the beginning of the twentieth century,

386
00:24:14,640 --> 00:24:17,159
Speaker 2: you can explain the origin of everything as a result

387
00:24:17,280 --> 00:24:20,159
Speaker 2: of undirected natural process and that becomes a kind of

388
00:24:20,160 --> 00:24:24,800
Speaker 2: default way of thinking, and so based on that materialistic worldview,

389
00:24:25,480 --> 00:24:29,600
Speaker 2: you would expect the universe to be eternal and self

390
00:24:29,640 --> 00:24:34,280
Speaker 2: existent and therefore not exhibiting any need for an external creator.

391
00:24:34,760 --> 00:24:38,680
Speaker 2: You would expect life to be, as Thomas Henry Huxley

392
00:24:39,200 --> 00:24:44,400
Speaker 2: and Heckel both said, to be a simple, homogeneous globule

393
00:24:44,440 --> 00:24:48,200
Speaker 2: of undifferentiated protoplasm. If life is very simple in its

394
00:24:48,560 --> 00:24:51,960
Speaker 2: protoplasmic essence, as was thought in the eighteen sixties and seventies,

395
00:24:52,520 --> 00:24:55,639
Speaker 2: then it would be it becomes very easy to explain

396
00:24:55,680 --> 00:24:58,480
Speaker 2: its origin as a result of a few simple chemical reactions.

397
00:24:58,960 --> 00:25:02,320
Speaker 2: People don't remember that Darwin didn't explain the origin of

398
00:25:02,359 --> 00:25:07,600
Speaker 2: the first life that was left so called chemical evolutionary theorists.

399
00:25:07,960 --> 00:25:11,919
Speaker 2: Heckel and Huxley were the first two such scientists, and

400
00:25:11,960 --> 00:25:14,800
Speaker 2: they thought this was a no brainer. It was not

401
00:25:14,840 --> 00:25:18,280
Speaker 2: going to be hard because they assumed incorrectly that life was,

402
00:25:18,359 --> 00:25:21,119
Speaker 2: in its essence extremely simple. As we learn more about

403
00:25:21,160 --> 00:25:25,639
Speaker 2: the complexity of life, and indeed the way in which

404
00:25:25,720 --> 00:25:33,280
Speaker 2: even simple living cells so called contain digital nanotechnology, the

405
00:25:33,320 --> 00:25:36,919
Speaker 2: whole story shifted dramatically. The complexity of the cell, the

406
00:25:36,920 --> 00:25:41,080
Speaker 2: discovery of digital code in the interior of every cell

407
00:25:41,119 --> 00:25:45,399
Speaker 2: of every living organism, including even simple one celled organisms,

408
00:25:45,880 --> 00:25:49,320
Speaker 2: was a shocking discovery from the standpoint of what was

409
00:25:49,400 --> 00:25:53,639
Speaker 2: presupposed by nineteenth century scientific materialists, and the discovery that

410
00:25:53,680 --> 00:25:57,280
Speaker 2: the universe had a beginning likewise, did not comport well

411
00:25:57,640 --> 00:26:01,080
Speaker 2: with the default assumption of an eternal, self existent universe,

412
00:26:01,640 --> 00:26:05,920
Speaker 2: which was also important for sustaining the scientific materialist worldview.

413
00:26:06,680 --> 00:26:09,320
Speaker 1: That is the best synopsis to that story. I think

414
00:26:09,359 --> 00:26:14,040
Speaker 1: I've heard Steve moving from a Judeo Christian oriented worldview

415
00:26:14,119 --> 00:26:16,760
Speaker 1: with the development of science and assumptions about what we

416
00:26:16,800 --> 00:26:20,760
Speaker 1: would find as we probe nature, the introduction of this

417
00:26:20,920 --> 00:26:25,399
Speaker 1: materialistic worldview of what we would expect, and then the

418
00:26:25,480 --> 00:26:28,080
Speaker 1: twentieth century is kind of the story of not finding

419
00:26:28,200 --> 00:26:31,720
Speaker 1: what the materialist thought that we would expect. And the

420
00:26:31,880 --> 00:26:34,560
Speaker 1: argument that you make in this movie, which we'll come

421
00:26:34,600 --> 00:26:38,160
Speaker 1: to and you portray, is that the evidence is arguably

422
00:26:38,280 --> 00:26:41,800
Speaker 1: stronger than ever that the theist got it right. Let's

423
00:26:41,840 --> 00:26:44,439
Speaker 1: talk about a couple of the surprising things that happened

424
00:26:44,480 --> 00:26:46,359
Speaker 1: in each one of these, and each of these we

425
00:26:46,400 --> 00:26:48,240
Speaker 1: could go into depth. You've written a whole book with

426
00:26:49,000 --> 00:26:53,479
Speaker 1: incredible detail on this but one of the key as well, right, No,

427
00:26:53,560 --> 00:26:55,680
Speaker 1: there's not too many. It's very readable, by the way.

428
00:26:55,920 --> 00:26:58,160
Speaker 1: But let's talk about a couple of discoveries. We'll come

429
00:26:58,200 --> 00:27:01,040
Speaker 1: back to the DNA. But one of the key figures

430
00:27:01,080 --> 00:27:03,560
Speaker 1: discovering the origin of universe, of course, is the figure

431
00:27:03,600 --> 00:27:06,400
Speaker 1: of Einstein, one of the greatest scientists of all time.

432
00:27:07,280 --> 00:27:10,440
Speaker 1: Talk a little bit about his role in terms of

433
00:27:10,560 --> 00:27:15,680
Speaker 1: us challenging this materialistic worldview that said they're being eternally universe.

434
00:27:15,760 --> 00:27:18,920
Speaker 2: Yeah, when I lecture and tell this story, I don't

435
00:27:18,920 --> 00:27:23,160
Speaker 2: reveal his name right away. Important discovery was made by

436
00:27:23,200 --> 00:27:25,400
Speaker 2: this German scientists with very bad air.

437
00:27:25,840 --> 00:27:27,520
Speaker 1: Everyone knows who I'm talking about that and they know.

438
00:27:28,320 --> 00:27:34,840
Speaker 2: So. Einstein was known for his theories of relativity, theories

439
00:27:34,880 --> 00:27:40,040
Speaker 2: special relativity and then general relativity, and the theory of

440
00:27:40,119 --> 00:27:45,080
Speaker 2: general relativity was a new theory of gravity, gravitational attraction,

441
00:27:45,720 --> 00:27:50,480
Speaker 2: and his idea was that massive bodies actually warp or

442
00:27:50,640 --> 00:27:56,520
Speaker 2: bend the space or space time associated with them, so

443
00:27:56,560 --> 00:27:59,720
Speaker 2: the space around them such that excuse me, I'm going

444
00:27:59,760 --> 00:28:00,880
Speaker 2: to get a little water here.

445
00:28:00,920 --> 00:28:03,960
Speaker 1: I just know you're goodding, got it right there?

446
00:28:06,840 --> 00:28:12,840
Speaker 2: That's better. So, so the idea is that gravity bends

447
00:28:13,840 --> 00:28:18,080
Speaker 2: this space around massive bodies, such that if you, for example,

448
00:28:18,160 --> 00:28:21,600
Speaker 2: would pass light by a massive body, it would adopt

449
00:28:21,600 --> 00:28:24,800
Speaker 2: a certain curvature in response. So you could you could

450
00:28:24,800 --> 00:28:30,200
Speaker 2: detect this curvature of space in the trajectory of radiation

451
00:28:30,440 --> 00:28:32,960
Speaker 2: or matter passing by a massive body, and that was

452
00:28:32,960 --> 00:28:39,680
Speaker 2: actually confirmed experimentally by Eddington. And so so this creates

453
00:28:39,720 --> 00:28:46,880
Speaker 2: a kind of upon reflection, an understanding, an implication about

454
00:28:46,880 --> 00:28:49,720
Speaker 2: the origin of the universe, because as Einstein is thinking

455
00:28:49,720 --> 00:28:52,360
Speaker 2: about that, he realizes that if gravity is the only

456
00:28:53,280 --> 00:28:56,960
Speaker 2: force operating in the universe, and if it's causing space

457
00:28:57,080 --> 00:29:02,440
Speaker 2: to bend in around it, then everything would congeal into

458
00:29:02,520 --> 00:29:06,320
Speaker 2: one great glump. That each massive body would cause space

459
00:29:06,400 --> 00:29:09,959
Speaker 2: to congeal around it, and those those in turn would

460
00:29:10,200 --> 00:29:14,080
Speaker 2: create more curvature that would cause those those glomps to

461
00:29:14,120 --> 00:29:17,640
Speaker 2: glump further, and eventually everything would would congeal into a

462
00:29:17,720 --> 00:29:20,760
Speaker 2: kind of giant black hole with no empty space in

463
00:29:20,800 --> 00:29:24,200
Speaker 2: the universe. But we don't live in that kind of

464
00:29:24,200 --> 00:29:26,560
Speaker 2: a universe. We live in a universe where there's empty

465
00:29:26,560 --> 00:29:30,440
Speaker 2: space between massive bodies, you and me, for example, And

466
00:29:30,520 --> 00:29:34,280
Speaker 2: so it followed that there must be a kind of

467
00:29:34,560 --> 00:29:37,200
Speaker 2: anti gravity force at work as well. There must be

468
00:29:37,200 --> 00:29:41,520
Speaker 2: something counteracting gravity to account for the empty space, which

469
00:29:41,560 --> 00:29:45,040
Speaker 2: means that there must be some an outward pushing force

470
00:29:46,000 --> 00:29:52,160
Speaker 2: in opposition to gravity, which suggests a dynamic universe which

471
00:29:52,200 --> 00:29:57,320
Speaker 2: is expanding because there's something pushing the universe outward. Einstein

472
00:29:57,360 --> 00:30:02,640
Speaker 2: doesn't like that conclusion very much, and so in positing

473
00:30:02,680 --> 00:30:07,280
Speaker 2: this anti gravity force, which he called the cosmological constant,

474
00:30:07,280 --> 00:30:11,440
Speaker 2: the constantly pushing outward force missus creating space in the cosmos,

475
00:30:11,920 --> 00:30:17,960
Speaker 2: that's the name, he decides to tinker a little bit

476
00:30:18,760 --> 00:30:22,800
Speaker 2: to jerrymander the equations, and he assigns a value for

477
00:30:22,880 --> 00:30:30,560
Speaker 2: the cosmological constant that exactly balances the inward pull of gravity,

478
00:30:30,640 --> 00:30:33,520
Speaker 2: so that he can show that the outward push and

479
00:30:33,560 --> 00:30:38,480
Speaker 2: the inward pull are kind of equi poised, they're in

480
00:30:38,640 --> 00:30:42,520
Speaker 2: perfect balance, so that he can portray the universe as

481
00:30:42,560 --> 00:30:48,240
Speaker 2: being neither expanding outward from a beginning, nor inward towards

482
00:30:48,280 --> 00:30:52,840
Speaker 2: a conclusion towards a big crunch. And then he has

483
00:30:52,880 --> 00:30:55,600
Speaker 2: a big sigh of relief and presents to the world

484
00:30:56,320 --> 00:31:00,800
Speaker 2: a picture of a static universe, a steady state. But

485
00:31:00,920 --> 00:31:04,880
Speaker 2: a problem arises, and that is two physicists begin to

486
00:31:04,920 --> 00:31:09,720
Speaker 2: work with his equations freedmen in Russia and especially the

487
00:31:10,280 --> 00:31:17,960
Speaker 2: French physicist Lemetra, and Lemetra shows that taken on its face,

488
00:31:18,720 --> 00:31:22,480
Speaker 2: the universe is even with the fine tuning, that the

489
00:31:22,640 --> 00:31:31,240
Speaker 2: cosmological constant and the gravitational force gravitational attraction do not

490
00:31:31,880 --> 00:31:34,480
Speaker 2: mean that the universe will stay static, that very small

491
00:31:34,560 --> 00:31:39,920
Speaker 2: perturbations in matter will result in a disequilibrium, either an

492
00:31:39,960 --> 00:31:45,120
Speaker 2: expansion or a contraction. But then beyond that this now

493
00:31:45,120 --> 00:31:52,080
Speaker 2: we're entering into the nineteen twenties, there's already evidence, and

494
00:31:52,240 --> 00:31:56,040
Speaker 2: Hubble finds more out in California of an expanding universe.

495
00:31:56,640 --> 00:32:00,560
Speaker 2: Of the light that's coming from the distant galaxies is

496
00:32:00,600 --> 00:32:03,480
Speaker 2: suggesting that those galaxies are moving away from us in

497
00:32:03,560 --> 00:32:07,280
Speaker 2: every quadrant of the night sky. Einstein finally gets put

498
00:32:07,320 --> 00:32:09,960
Speaker 2: into the picture by Arthur Eddington on a visit to

499
00:32:10,000 --> 00:32:13,760
Speaker 2: Cambridge University in nineteen twenty nine. Eddington doesn't like the

500
00:32:13,760 --> 00:32:16,280
Speaker 2: beginning of the universe concept either, but he says, look,

501
00:32:16,440 --> 00:32:18,200
Speaker 2: you know, you've got to go out to Mount Wilson

502
00:32:18,680 --> 00:32:22,520
Speaker 2: and look at what Hubbell was finding. There's famous newsreel

503
00:32:22,520 --> 00:32:25,600
Speaker 2: footage which we have in the film, which is amazing

504
00:32:28,000 --> 00:32:32,400
Speaker 2: of Einstein peering through Hubble's telescope and then so fast.

505
00:32:32,440 --> 00:32:35,960
Speaker 2: Two utes later, he announces to The New York Times

506
00:32:36,000 --> 00:32:38,920
Speaker 2: in a media interview, he said that Hubble and his

507
00:32:39,040 --> 00:32:44,680
Speaker 2: colleague Hummerson have established that the universe is not static

508
00:32:45,520 --> 00:32:50,320
Speaker 2: and is expanding, and therefore, by implication, had a beginning.

509
00:32:50,360 --> 00:32:53,600
Speaker 2: He later says his fiddling with the value of the

510
00:32:53,600 --> 00:32:58,440
Speaker 2: cosmological constant was the greatest blunder of my life. He said,

511
00:32:58,840 --> 00:33:00,600
Speaker 2: I misquoted him in the book, by the way, I

512
00:33:00,640 --> 00:33:08,920
Speaker 2: said I had the quote as the greatest blunder of

513
00:33:08,920 --> 00:33:11,760
Speaker 2: my scientific career, but he was actually more emphatic than that.

514
00:33:11,760 --> 00:33:14,280
Speaker 1: That's even more dramatic, because your life includes your career

515
00:33:14,560 --> 00:33:18,280
Speaker 1: and relationships and investments, whatever else you want to throw

516
00:33:18,320 --> 00:33:19,680
Speaker 1: into it. Okay, so in a minute, I'm going to

517
00:33:19,720 --> 00:33:22,680
Speaker 1: have you tell the story of the discovery of information

518
00:33:22,840 --> 00:33:25,840
Speaker 1: that challenged this notion that Darwin and others thought that

519
00:33:25,880 --> 00:33:29,400
Speaker 1: he'd be very simple. But maybe catch us up because again,

520
00:33:29,440 --> 00:33:31,600
Speaker 1: you go into in your book, you go into the film,

521
00:33:31,720 --> 00:33:34,960
Speaker 1: there's the oscillating universe and the steady state theory, but

522
00:33:35,040 --> 00:33:37,720
Speaker 1: there's still a book that came out twenty twenty five

523
00:33:37,920 --> 00:33:41,960
Speaker 1: called Battle of the Big Bang. We're a century later

524
00:33:42,120 --> 00:33:44,640
Speaker 1: and people are still debating.

525
00:33:44,600 --> 00:33:49,640
Speaker 2: They'restein, you know, they're trying to re formulate, they're trying

526
00:33:49,640 --> 00:33:52,840
Speaker 2: to accommodate the evidence that seems on its face to

527
00:33:53,040 --> 00:33:57,640
Speaker 2: point to a beginning within an infinite universe framework or

528
00:33:57,640 --> 00:34:01,440
Speaker 2: formulation or model. And one of the things I like

529
00:34:01,520 --> 00:34:03,280
Speaker 2: to tell people is that there's no evidence for an

530
00:34:03,320 --> 00:34:06,760
Speaker 2: infinite universe, but there are plenty of models that try

531
00:34:06,880 --> 00:34:10,920
Speaker 2: to accommodate the evidence for a finite universe within a

532
00:34:10,920 --> 00:34:14,160
Speaker 2: different framework. And that's where, you know, the cleverness of

533
00:34:14,200 --> 00:34:19,920
Speaker 2: physicists and mathematicians can come in. But I think it

534
00:34:20,000 --> 00:34:24,680
Speaker 2: might be helpful too for your audience to understand why

535
00:34:24,760 --> 00:34:28,000
Speaker 2: the beginning, Why the evidence for a beginning is so

536
00:34:28,200 --> 00:34:34,400
Speaker 2: troubling from the standpoint of materialism, because especially within Einstein's

537
00:34:34,400 --> 00:34:37,640
Speaker 2: physics of general relativity, but also because of other pointers

538
00:34:37,640 --> 00:34:40,799
Speaker 2: and indicators of the beginning. The sense is not that

539
00:34:41,680 --> 00:34:45,920
Speaker 2: we have a beginning of an expansion and that you

540
00:34:46,080 --> 00:34:49,560
Speaker 2: had matter there sitting from eternity past waiting to expand,

541
00:34:49,840 --> 00:34:54,520
Speaker 2: but rather the I think the best explanation of many

542
00:34:54,560 --> 00:34:58,720
Speaker 2: lines of evidence is that the universe itself began to exist,

543
00:34:58,719 --> 00:35:01,520
Speaker 2: that we have an or and of matter, space, time,

544
00:35:01,600 --> 00:35:06,120
Speaker 2: and energy before which there are independent of which we

545
00:35:07,040 --> 00:35:09,520
Speaker 2: can't really say it before, right, because if time is beginning,

546
00:35:10,520 --> 00:35:13,120
Speaker 2: independent of which, there's no matter there to do the causing.

547
00:35:13,560 --> 00:35:17,560
Speaker 2: So on its face, the evidence for a beginning suggests

548
00:35:17,920 --> 00:35:23,400
Speaker 2: the inability of materialism as an explanatory system to offer

549
00:35:23,640 --> 00:35:26,520
Speaker 2: an adequate cause. And you need to look for something

550
00:35:26,560 --> 00:35:29,440
Speaker 2: that transcends the domains of matter, space, time, and energy.

551
00:35:29,880 --> 00:35:33,600
Speaker 2: So that's the worry, that's the thing that bothers the materialists.

552
00:35:33,960 --> 00:35:38,240
Speaker 2: And so finding a way to portray our universe as

553
00:35:38,280 --> 00:35:43,880
Speaker 2: just the latest manifestation of some earlier stage of matter

554
00:35:43,920 --> 00:35:47,520
Speaker 2: and energy in some earlier eon of space and time

555
00:35:48,400 --> 00:35:54,400
Speaker 2: has been a constant kind of has presented itself with

556
00:35:54,480 --> 00:35:57,240
Speaker 2: a constant appeal to people that hold a materialistic worldview.

557
00:35:57,719 --> 00:35:59,600
Speaker 1: And the key piece, and you developed this again in

558
00:35:59,640 --> 00:36:02,640
Speaker 1: your book, because that if there's something beyond matter, space

559
00:36:02,800 --> 00:36:07,240
Speaker 1: and time, like the laws of logic or mathematical numbers

560
00:36:07,280 --> 00:36:11,000
Speaker 1: or principles, they don't have causal power to do anything.

561
00:36:11,600 --> 00:36:14,560
Speaker 1: That's where a mind comes into play. And I think

562
00:36:14,600 --> 00:36:17,480
Speaker 1: the interesting thing here is it's not just Christians or

563
00:36:17,520 --> 00:36:21,600
Speaker 1: Theists arguing this part of the resistance to accepting the

564
00:36:21,680 --> 00:36:26,360
Speaker 1: data that we've pointed out in Sandage, Kenyan, Einstein, yourself,

565
00:36:26,400 --> 00:36:28,920
Speaker 1: and so many others is this awareness that if the

566
00:36:29,000 --> 00:36:33,160
Speaker 1: universe had a beginning, it points towards a cause outside

567
00:36:33,360 --> 00:36:37,200
Speaker 1: of the universe, which is uncomfortable for our lives and

568
00:36:37,239 --> 00:36:40,360
Speaker 1: how we live and purpose and all these other big questions.

569
00:36:41,000 --> 00:36:43,399
Speaker 1: Drawing that home is huge. And you guys make those

570
00:36:43,440 --> 00:36:47,040
Speaker 1: connections in the film as well. Let me shift if I, oh,

571
00:36:47,120 --> 00:36:47,919
Speaker 1: were you gonna say something?

572
00:36:48,040 --> 00:36:49,960
Speaker 2: Say One of the other scientists at this nineteen eighty

573
00:36:50,000 --> 00:36:54,040
Speaker 2: five conference that I tended was Robert Jastro, who at

574
00:36:54,040 --> 00:36:55,719
Speaker 2: that point recently.

575
00:36:55,360 --> 00:36:57,560
Speaker 1: I didn't know he was there a book called.

576
00:36:57,280 --> 00:37:03,080
Speaker 2: God and the Astronomers, and he was an agnostic like

577
00:37:03,120 --> 00:37:08,200
Speaker 2: sand It's both agnostic Jews in their in their early careers.

578
00:37:08,480 --> 00:37:08,680
Speaker 1: Uh.

579
00:37:09,480 --> 00:37:14,320
Speaker 2: Jastro remained agnostic to the end, but saw the evidence

580
00:37:14,440 --> 00:37:18,320
Speaker 2: was pointing to he said he We have an interview

581
00:37:18,360 --> 00:37:20,000
Speaker 2: with him in the film where he's being interviewed by

582
00:37:20,040 --> 00:37:23,839
Speaker 2: Hugh Downs of of uh you know ABC News fame

583
00:37:23,920 --> 00:37:28,200
Speaker 2: from from years ago and and and Hugh Downs puts

584
00:37:28,200 --> 00:37:31,160
Speaker 2: it to him, is there is there? You say, this

585
00:37:31,200 --> 00:37:37,440
Speaker 2: has theological implications that there's the news sciences is pointing

586
00:37:37,600 --> 00:37:41,319
Speaker 2: to a theological conclusion. He's and and he says, is

587
00:37:41,320 --> 00:37:43,920
Speaker 2: there a way around that? And and Jastro pauses, and

588
00:37:43,960 --> 00:37:47,000
Speaker 2: he says, if there is, I can't see it.

589
00:37:47,280 --> 00:37:48,160
Speaker 1: That's amazing.

590
00:37:48,239 --> 00:37:50,759
Speaker 2: And I talked about you know, you talked about these

591
00:37:50,800 --> 00:37:54,960
Speaker 2: mathematical a prior mathematical state as part of the explanation.

592
00:37:55,160 --> 00:38:01,080
Speaker 2: And there is a popular infinite universe cosmology called quant cosmology,

593
00:38:01,400 --> 00:38:07,520
Speaker 2: and it posits a prior mathematical state, an ensemble of

594
00:38:07,840 --> 00:38:13,839
Speaker 2: possible universes represented quantum mechanically, but essentially it's a mathematical

595
00:38:13,880 --> 00:38:18,480
Speaker 2: representation of possible states of affairs. And out of that

596
00:38:18,520 --> 00:38:22,839
Speaker 2: mathematical representation comes matter, space, time, and energy. Now that's

597
00:38:22,920 --> 00:38:27,160
Speaker 2: really weird because as Alexander Valinkann, one of the proponents

598
00:38:27,160 --> 00:38:32,080
Speaker 2: of quantum cosmology himself, has asked, he said, well, if

599
00:38:32,400 --> 00:38:36,120
Speaker 2: before there was a universe, we and before there were

600
00:38:36,120 --> 00:38:39,520
Speaker 2: these laws of physics. Before the universe, all we had

601
00:38:39,560 --> 00:38:45,080
Speaker 2: with these mathematical laws and laws are conceptual. Are we

602
00:38:45,200 --> 00:38:47,920
Speaker 2: really saying that before the universe there was a mind

603
00:38:48,000 --> 00:38:53,040
Speaker 2: because concepts exist in minds, right, So even the attempt

604
00:38:53,040 --> 00:38:55,879
Speaker 2: to get around the beginning of the universe with new

605
00:38:55,920 --> 00:39:02,359
Speaker 2: models from cosmology. This one quantum cosmology inadvertently and repeatedly

606
00:39:02,800 --> 00:39:11,560
Speaker 2: reaffirmed and inadvertently affirmed I think a theistic conclusion. They

607
00:39:11,640 --> 00:39:13,240
Speaker 2: affirmed theism on other grounds.

608
00:39:13,320 --> 00:39:17,120
Speaker 1: And so oh, it's so amazing. I've so many more

609
00:39:17,200 --> 00:39:19,879
Speaker 1: questions for you in cosmology. But let's shift to tell

610
00:39:19,920 --> 00:39:24,360
Speaker 1: the story you focus on fine tuning also in the film,

611
00:39:24,760 --> 00:39:27,719
Speaker 1: but the origin of life, especially your work on signature

612
00:39:27,719 --> 00:39:30,839
Speaker 1: in the cell. You've been one of the most outspoken

613
00:39:31,040 --> 00:39:34,840
Speaker 1: advocates and a kind of design from the origin of life.

614
00:39:35,640 --> 00:39:38,520
Speaker 1: Take us to that story, akin to like the Einstein

615
00:39:38,600 --> 00:39:41,239
Speaker 1: story that was so startling. Of course, this is in

616
00:39:41,280 --> 00:39:44,600
Speaker 1: the nineteen fifties. What was that like and what do

617
00:39:44,600 --> 00:39:48,080
Speaker 1: you think comes out of the discovery of DNA being

618
00:39:48,080 --> 00:39:49,480
Speaker 1: at the root of life?

619
00:39:49,760 --> 00:39:54,920
Speaker 2: Einstein I think changed his view by the nineteen thirties,

620
00:39:55,160 --> 00:39:58,239
Speaker 2: and then that change of view for many scientists was

621
00:39:58,600 --> 00:40:01,279
Speaker 2: confirmed by the discovery of the cosmic background radiation in

622
00:40:01,360 --> 00:40:04,839
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty five, which put was the kind of vinyl

623
00:40:04,920 --> 00:40:08,239
Speaker 2: nail in the coffin of the steady state universe. But

624
00:40:08,320 --> 00:40:13,680
Speaker 2: then in origin of life research that the assumption is

625
00:40:14,320 --> 00:40:16,000
Speaker 2: that we're going to be able to explain the origin

626
00:40:16,040 --> 00:40:19,680
Speaker 2: of life pretty easily, essentially Darwinian on a kind of

627
00:40:19,760 --> 00:40:23,640
Speaker 2: Darwinian or quasi Darwinian basis, And the assumption is that

628
00:40:23,680 --> 00:40:28,919
Speaker 2: the cell is in the eighteen seventies and eighties, it's

629
00:40:28,960 --> 00:40:33,399
Speaker 2: a simple, homogeneous globular plasm. But then as we learn

630
00:40:33,400 --> 00:40:35,960
Speaker 2: more and more about the complexity of cell that discovery

631
00:40:36,239 --> 00:40:38,719
Speaker 2: explaining its origin gets more and more difficult. So in

632
00:40:38,800 --> 00:40:42,160
Speaker 2: nineteen fifty seven, nineteen fifty three, in the nineteen fifties,

633
00:40:42,400 --> 00:40:44,360
Speaker 2: you get Watson and crirec they ellucinate the structure of

634
00:40:44,360 --> 00:40:47,000
Speaker 2: the DNA molecule. In a parallel track, you've got all

635
00:40:47,040 --> 00:40:50,960
Speaker 2: these scientists also working at Cambridge University on proteins. They're

636
00:40:51,000 --> 00:40:54,400
Speaker 2: discovering the complexity of the of proteins and all the

637
00:40:54,440 --> 00:40:57,759
Speaker 2: amazing jobs they do inside the cell. Then they start

638
00:40:57,800 --> 00:41:00,200
Speaker 2: to put it together that the information in DNA is

639
00:41:00,239 --> 00:41:03,839
Speaker 2: providing the instructions for building these protein machines, and Crick

640
00:41:03,880 --> 00:41:06,960
Speaker 2: in nineteen fifty seven, having elucidated the structure of DNA

641
00:41:07,360 --> 00:41:13,719
Speaker 2: with Watson, realizes that the four chemicals along the interior

642
00:41:13,800 --> 00:41:17,640
Speaker 2: of the chemical subunits, along the interior of the DNA molecule,

643
00:41:17,840 --> 00:41:21,720
Speaker 2: the so called nucleotide bases are functioning like alphabetic characters

644
00:41:21,719 --> 00:41:24,560
Speaker 2: in a written text, or like digital characters in a

645
00:41:24,560 --> 00:41:27,280
Speaker 2: section of machine code, like zeros and ones and computer

646
00:41:27,360 --> 00:41:32,279
Speaker 2: code that they are literally coding. They're providing instructions to

647
00:41:32,440 --> 00:41:35,799
Speaker 2: the cell for building the proteins and protein machines that

648
00:41:35,920 --> 00:41:39,719
Speaker 2: keep every living organism alive. And this, he calls the

649
00:41:39,760 --> 00:41:47,560
Speaker 2: sequence hypothesis, that the DNA isn't just a complex biomacromolecule,

650
00:41:47,640 --> 00:41:51,200
Speaker 2: it's not just a chemical system. It's a chemical system

651
00:41:51,239 --> 00:41:57,560
Speaker 2: that contains information. And then that starts to percolate into

652
00:41:57,600 --> 00:42:01,399
Speaker 2: the consciousness of people thinking about biological origins, and they

653
00:42:01,440 --> 00:42:04,960
Speaker 2: realize that now to explain the origin of life, you've

654
00:42:05,000 --> 00:42:07,640
Speaker 2: got to explain the origin of what we find inside life,

655
00:42:08,120 --> 00:42:12,839
Speaker 2: which by the nineteen sixties people are realizing is digital information,

656
00:42:13,680 --> 00:42:19,279
Speaker 2: nanomachines and a complex information processing system in which the

657
00:42:19,360 --> 00:42:23,360
Speaker 2: nanomachines are helping process the information that builds the nanomachines

658
00:42:23,520 --> 00:42:28,080
Speaker 2: and everything else. The origin of life problem gets it's

659
00:42:28,120 --> 00:42:31,680
Speaker 2: immeasurably more difficult at that point. By the nineteen eighties,

660
00:42:31,719 --> 00:42:34,160
Speaker 2: there's a lot of people acknowledging this, and a very

661
00:42:34,200 --> 00:42:36,880
Speaker 2: important book gets written, called The Mystery of Life's Origin

662
00:42:37,360 --> 00:42:42,040
Speaker 2: that's published in nineteen nineteen eighty four. It comes out

663
00:42:42,040 --> 00:42:47,440
Speaker 2: with a mainstream secular scientific publisher called Philosophical Library, and

664
00:42:47,520 --> 00:42:50,040
Speaker 2: it gets a lot of really strong reviews from scientists

665
00:42:50,040 --> 00:42:52,240
Speaker 2: who are working on origin of life. But it's written

666
00:42:52,239 --> 00:42:57,520
Speaker 2: by three guys Charles Kenyon, Roger Olson and Walter Bradley,

667
00:42:58,040 --> 00:43:01,320
Speaker 2: who are early proponents of the idea of intelligent design,

668
00:43:01,719 --> 00:43:03,560
Speaker 2: even before it has the name intelligent design.

669
00:43:03,600 --> 00:43:06,080
Speaker 1: They have a set Charles Kenyon or Charles Saxton.

670
00:43:06,160 --> 00:43:10,000
Speaker 2: I'm so sorry, Charles Thaxton, Yeah, my mentor now I'll

671
00:43:10,080 --> 00:43:13,120
Speaker 2: keep going. So anyway, I meet these guys at the

672
00:43:13,120 --> 00:43:17,080
Speaker 2: eighty five conference and it happens that that that Faxton

673
00:43:17,320 --> 00:43:19,640
Speaker 2: lives in the same city as I do, and so

674
00:43:20,160 --> 00:43:23,839
Speaker 2: having heard Kenyon, having heard them speak, I become fascinated

675
00:43:23,880 --> 00:43:26,640
Speaker 2: with this because, as I mentioned, I was working in

676
00:43:27,760 --> 00:43:34,160
Speaker 2: on with an early form of digital information technology in

677
00:43:34,239 --> 00:43:37,440
Speaker 2: my work in seismic digital processing.

678
00:43:38,680 --> 00:43:40,839
Speaker 1: Excuse me, no, you're good.

679
00:43:41,280 --> 00:43:44,800
Speaker 2: And that's that's where my interest in the original life germinates.

680
00:43:45,160 --> 00:43:47,560
Speaker 2: And a year later I go off to Cambridge and

681
00:43:47,680 --> 00:43:49,839
Speaker 2: decide I'd like to work on this for my first

682
00:43:49,880 --> 00:43:53,920
Speaker 2: my master's degree thesis and then my PhD. I was

683
00:43:53,920 --> 00:43:56,800
Speaker 2: in an interdisciplinary program in the history and philosophy of science,

684
00:43:57,200 --> 00:43:59,680
Speaker 2: and I did my PhD in origin of black biology.

685
00:44:00,640 --> 00:44:03,359
Speaker 1: Would you say it's fair to stay in these two

686
00:44:03,480 --> 00:44:09,400
Speaker 1: realms that a certain materialistic mindset, we discover really the

687
00:44:09,440 --> 00:44:12,720
Speaker 1: opposite when we start looking at the scientific evidence in

688
00:44:12,800 --> 00:44:16,320
Speaker 1: the twentieth century. That's true for the universe not being eternal,

689
00:44:16,400 --> 00:44:19,400
Speaker 1: but having a beginning. That's true for life not being simple,

690
00:44:19,760 --> 00:44:25,440
Speaker 1: but pointing towards intelligence. Today what we find is increased

691
00:44:25,840 --> 00:44:29,719
Speaker 1: model still to explain the origin of life without information,

692
00:44:30,520 --> 00:44:34,040
Speaker 1: still to explain the origin of the universe without a mind.

693
00:44:34,520 --> 00:44:37,239
Speaker 1: But are those running out of steam? Like, how would

694
00:44:37,239 --> 00:44:40,200
Speaker 1: you state where we're at today in the debate on

695
00:44:40,239 --> 00:44:41,080
Speaker 1: those two issues.

696
00:44:41,200 --> 00:44:46,640
Speaker 2: There's a interesting work in the history of science on

697
00:44:46,680 --> 00:44:52,120
Speaker 2: this on describing the features of a degenerative or a

698
00:44:52,160 --> 00:44:56,759
Speaker 2: more productive research program. And one of the features of

699
00:44:56,800 --> 00:45:02,040
Speaker 2: a degenerative research program is the deliferation of models and

700
00:45:02,080 --> 00:45:04,600
Speaker 2: the inability of the community to settle on any one.

701
00:45:05,480 --> 00:45:09,680
Speaker 2: And you're finding this both in this debate about cosmology.

702
00:45:09,920 --> 00:45:18,080
Speaker 2: We're getting a proliferation now having rejected Einstein's cosmological tinkering,

703
00:45:18,160 --> 00:45:21,440
Speaker 2: having rejected the steady state model, having rejected the oscillating

704
00:45:21,520 --> 00:45:26,200
Speaker 2: universe model, having overcome various objections to the Big Bang

705
00:45:26,239 --> 00:45:30,080
Speaker 2: in the nineteen nineties because of the discovery of some

706
00:45:30,120 --> 00:45:33,680
Speaker 2: of the features of the cosmic background radiation by George

707
00:45:33,680 --> 00:45:40,040
Speaker 2: Smoot and others, with one after another empirical confirmations of

708
00:45:40,080 --> 00:45:42,719
Speaker 2: the idea of the Big Bang in the beginning of

709
00:45:42,719 --> 00:45:50,120
Speaker 2: the universe, we still have cosmologists, theoretical physicists formulating these

710
00:45:50,880 --> 00:45:57,279
Speaker 2: increasingly convoluted and baroque cosmological models, models with lots of

711
00:45:57,320 --> 00:46:01,200
Speaker 2: moving parts, lots of ad hoc hypotheses, lots of purely

712
00:46:01,960 --> 00:46:06,640
Speaker 2: pure theoretical postulates that are invented solely for the purpose

713
00:46:06,719 --> 00:46:10,200
Speaker 2: of making the infinite universe cosmological model work. And so

714
00:46:10,440 --> 00:46:13,120
Speaker 2: I think there is there are features of these models

715
00:46:13,480 --> 00:46:18,279
Speaker 2: that I think suggest that what we're seeing is not

716
00:46:18,440 --> 00:46:23,640
Speaker 2: a constructive development in cosmological thinking, but more of a

717
00:46:23,680 --> 00:46:28,000
Speaker 2: degenerate research program. People are groping for something that will

718
00:46:28,000 --> 00:46:32,960
Speaker 2: preserve the infinite universe, and we've seen we don't want

719
00:46:33,000 --> 00:46:35,880
Speaker 2: to traffic in motive mongering, but we shouldn't be naive

720
00:46:36,000 --> 00:46:40,640
Speaker 2: either about the depth of conviction among many physicists, cosmologists,

721
00:46:40,760 --> 00:46:44,040
Speaker 2: leading scientists, and also in origin of life research the

722
00:46:44,040 --> 00:46:48,359
Speaker 2: depth of their scientific materialist convictions. So there's this need

723
00:46:48,400 --> 00:46:55,720
Speaker 2: to to model something, anything, that will preserve that infinite universe.

724
00:46:55,920 --> 00:46:58,879
Speaker 2: And the same thing is happening in the debate about

725
00:46:58,880 --> 00:47:02,120
Speaker 2: the origin of life, where in spite of the inability

726
00:47:02,280 --> 00:47:06,680
Speaker 2: of undirected materialistic processes to account for the origin of information,

727
00:47:07,600 --> 00:47:10,960
Speaker 2: the information needed to build life, we still have a

728
00:47:11,000 --> 00:47:20,800
Speaker 2: proliferation of new models and what are called prebiotic simulation experiments,

729
00:47:20,840 --> 00:47:23,440
Speaker 2: where people are trying to show that, yes, we can

730
00:47:23,480 --> 00:47:27,040
Speaker 2: get chemistry on its own, unaided by intelligence, to move

731
00:47:27,040 --> 00:47:31,280
Speaker 2: in a life friendly direction. And what those experiments invariably show,

732
00:47:31,520 --> 00:47:33,560
Speaker 2: which is I think kind of ironic, is that to

733
00:47:33,600 --> 00:47:40,719
Speaker 2: the extent that they succeed by producing molecular outcomes that

734
00:47:40,800 --> 00:47:45,960
Speaker 2: are in some way life relevant, they only succeed because

735
00:47:45,960 --> 00:47:51,799
Speaker 2: of extensive intelligent investigator interference. Yet the experiments are called

736
00:47:51,840 --> 00:47:54,799
Speaker 2: simulation experiments. So Jim Tour and I have just written

737
00:47:54,840 --> 00:47:57,240
Speaker 2: an article for a volume coming out with the Cambridge

738
00:47:57,280 --> 00:48:02,800
Speaker 2: University Press in which we ask the question, what exactly

739
00:48:02,840 --> 00:48:05,960
Speaker 2: are we simulating? What's crezy question because I think what's

740
00:48:06,000 --> 00:48:09,080
Speaker 2: being simulated is clearly the need for intelligence to generate

741
00:48:09,880 --> 00:48:12,600
Speaker 2: information that's necessary to building life.

742
00:48:13,040 --> 00:48:15,719
Speaker 1: It is interesting I get asked more frequently now than

743
00:48:15,760 --> 00:48:17,960
Speaker 1: maybe five years ago, like, what if we're just living

744
00:48:18,080 --> 00:48:21,640
Speaker 1: in some kind of simulation, And of course if we are,

745
00:48:21,840 --> 00:48:26,640
Speaker 1: that points towards an intelligent design and a simulator. Of course,

746
00:48:26,680 --> 00:48:29,200
Speaker 1: the next question is what's the evidence we live in

747
00:48:29,239 --> 00:48:32,880
Speaker 1: a simulation which would take us Aside from this conversation,

748
00:48:33,000 --> 00:48:35,560
Speaker 1: By the way, people watching or listening to this.

749
00:48:36,120 --> 00:48:38,080
Speaker 2: The simulation hypothesis is an ID.

750
00:48:38,719 --> 00:48:40,160
Speaker 1: It's a kind of intelligent design.

751
00:48:40,200 --> 00:48:43,000
Speaker 2: It's implying a master programmer for life and the universe.

752
00:48:43,120 --> 00:48:46,759
Speaker 1: That's exactly right. It's amazing how many people logic.

753
00:48:46,440 --> 00:48:50,000
Speaker 2: Ount and just rename your master programmer with a word

754
00:48:50,040 --> 00:48:50,799
Speaker 2: that starts with a G.

755
00:48:50,960 --> 00:48:53,600
Speaker 1: And you know it's all and you've got it. So

756
00:48:53,640 --> 00:48:56,600
Speaker 1: we're gonna come live on Tuesday. By the way, I

757
00:48:56,640 --> 00:48:58,600
Speaker 1: think I'll have one of your colleagues from Discovery here,

758
00:48:59,040 --> 00:49:02,200
Speaker 1: a good chance it'll be Brian Miller to take tough

759
00:49:02,320 --> 00:49:05,799
Speaker 1: questions on cosmology. So we're not getting into all of this.

760
00:49:05,920 --> 00:49:08,560
Speaker 1: But if you're like, what about the oscillating model, what

761
00:49:08,600 --> 00:49:13,040
Speaker 1: about the multiverse. There's objections you haven't considered. We're gonna

762
00:49:13,040 --> 00:49:16,480
Speaker 1: come back Tuesday Live, four thirty Pacific. Stander time. Take

763
00:49:16,480 --> 00:49:20,279
Speaker 1: your question, so write them in here and we'll address them.

764
00:49:20,520 --> 00:49:22,520
Speaker 1: I want to ask you a few questions about the movie.

765
00:49:23,440 --> 00:49:26,560
Speaker 1: You know, I've been tracking at least about two decades. Gosh.

766
00:49:26,600 --> 00:49:29,680
Speaker 1: The book that I co wrote with Dempsky, Understand Intelligence Design,

767
00:49:29,840 --> 00:49:33,080
Speaker 1: was two thousand and eight, so almost twenty years ago.

768
00:49:33,560 --> 00:49:35,920
Speaker 1: And so when I saw this film A Theory of Everything,

769
00:49:36,000 --> 00:49:39,080
Speaker 1: I was familiar with a lot of the arguments. But

770
00:49:39,400 --> 00:49:41,120
Speaker 1: two things, well, a few things shoot out to me.

771
00:49:41,200 --> 00:49:43,759
Speaker 1: Number one is the quality of it really blew me away,

772
00:49:43,800 --> 00:49:46,600
Speaker 1: hence it'll be in theaters. Second is the clips that

773
00:49:46,640 --> 00:49:49,240
Speaker 1: you showed. These are stories I've heard about for years.

774
00:49:49,280 --> 00:49:52,080
Speaker 1: I was like, wow, they've got live footage of this.

775
00:49:52,440 --> 00:49:55,399
Speaker 1: And third, it's also updated, kind of telling us right

776
00:49:55,440 --> 00:49:58,400
Speaker 1: where the debate is at today. So I don't want

777
00:49:58,440 --> 00:50:00,440
Speaker 1: to steal your thunder, but tell us what's you unique

778
00:50:00,520 --> 00:50:01,520
Speaker 1: about this film?

779
00:50:02,080 --> 00:50:05,480
Speaker 2: Exactly? And easy, easy slip of the tongue to make.

780
00:50:05,520 --> 00:50:08,399
Speaker 2: Because there was a biopic by Hawking about Hawking's life

781
00:50:08,440 --> 00:50:11,640
Speaker 2: called Theory of Everything. Our film is the story of everything.

782
00:50:11,960 --> 00:50:12,759
Speaker 1: Did I say theory?

783
00:50:12,920 --> 00:50:13,160
Speaker 2: You did?

784
00:50:13,200 --> 00:50:15,880
Speaker 1: I did? I did? Oh my goodness, I wrote it

785
00:50:15,920 --> 00:50:19,399
Speaker 1: down in my notes, A story of everything looking for.

786
00:50:19,320 --> 00:50:21,880
Speaker 2: The wrong film. Although the Hawking pick is is great

787
00:50:22,040 --> 00:50:28,200
Speaker 2: and it's it's fascinating. Yeah. Uh. One of the things

788
00:50:28,239 --> 00:50:30,880
Speaker 2: that we did in the film. You can't answer, especially

789
00:50:30,920 --> 00:50:34,080
Speaker 2: in a film, every objection to the main argument, of

790
00:50:34,160 --> 00:50:37,080
Speaker 2: course you're making. But we tried in each chapter of

791
00:50:37,120 --> 00:50:41,720
Speaker 2: the film to address the most common objection to the

792
00:50:41,719 --> 00:50:45,560
Speaker 2: theistic argument that we were presenting. The film does two things.

793
00:50:45,600 --> 00:50:49,680
Speaker 2: It tells it's got a long arc story arc about

794
00:50:49,719 --> 00:50:53,799
Speaker 2: the rediscovery of the scientific evidence that has theistic implications.

795
00:50:53,800 --> 00:50:58,239
Speaker 2: It's the film is nothing nothing less than it does

796
00:50:58,280 --> 00:51:00,440
Speaker 2: nothing less than tell the story of the scientific discovery

797
00:51:00,480 --> 00:51:02,879
Speaker 2: of God, or at least the evidence pointing to God.

798
00:51:03,200 --> 00:51:06,360
Speaker 2: And it does so in three movements or three chapters.

799
00:51:06,520 --> 00:51:09,960
Speaker 2: It first tells the story of the cosmological evidence that

800
00:51:10,000 --> 00:51:13,520
Speaker 2: the universe had a beginning, but it also addresses the

801
00:51:13,560 --> 00:51:19,600
Speaker 2: objection to that that comes from something like Hawking's idea

802
00:51:19,600 --> 00:51:22,040
Speaker 2: of quantum cosmology. Now, as you and I have been

803
00:51:22,040 --> 00:51:26,000
Speaker 2: talking about, there are numerous there's a proliferation of numerous

804
00:51:26,200 --> 00:51:29,840
Speaker 2: infinite universe cosmologies, and we couldn't possibly deal with all

805
00:51:29,880 --> 00:51:31,160
Speaker 2: of them in the film, but we took on the

806
00:51:31,200 --> 00:51:36,520
Speaker 2: most prominent one and showed that it too had theistic implications.

807
00:51:36,600 --> 00:51:40,640
Speaker 2: So that's one of the rhetorical moves I make in

808
00:51:40,719 --> 00:51:43,880
Speaker 2: Return of the God hypothesis is to show that either

809
00:51:44,000 --> 00:51:46,480
Speaker 2: the if you accept that the universe is best, we

810
00:51:46,520 --> 00:51:49,040
Speaker 2: can tell how at the beginning, that has a theistic implication.

811
00:51:49,320 --> 00:51:54,560
Speaker 2: But if you deny that and model an infinite universe cosmology,

812
00:51:55,040 --> 00:51:58,520
Speaker 2: the model that you are using to the model you're

813
00:51:58,680 --> 00:52:03,400
Speaker 2: advancing it's self, invariably will have a theistic implication. Typically

814
00:52:03,440 --> 00:52:07,120
Speaker 2: it's unexplained fine tuning. But what the movie does is

815
00:52:07,160 --> 00:52:12,120
Speaker 2: it tells these three stories of discovery, the discovery that

816
00:52:12,160 --> 00:52:15,280
Speaker 2: the universe had a beginning the universe, of the story

817
00:52:15,400 --> 00:52:18,719
Speaker 2: of the universe that the universe was finally tuned from

818
00:52:18,719 --> 00:52:22,000
Speaker 2: the beginning, and that's the story of Fred Hoyle, which

819
00:52:22,040 --> 00:52:26,839
Speaker 2: is fascinating. Then the story of the discovery of the

820
00:52:26,880 --> 00:52:30,560
Speaker 2: inner workings of the cell, in particular the discovery of

821
00:52:30,600 --> 00:52:34,480
Speaker 2: the digital nanotechnology inside the cell and how that is

822
00:52:34,560 --> 00:52:37,839
Speaker 2: pointing to intelligent design. And in each one of these

823
00:52:37,880 --> 00:52:41,359
Speaker 2: movements or stories within the story of everything. We tell

824
00:52:41,400 --> 00:52:45,800
Speaker 2: the story of one or more scientists whose metaphysical world

825
00:52:45,920 --> 00:52:49,760
Speaker 2: was rocked by these discoveries and who ended up changing

826
00:52:50,600 --> 00:52:55,120
Speaker 2: changing his mind about the big questions. Einstein and Sandidge

827
00:52:55,160 --> 00:52:58,680
Speaker 2: in the discussion of the origin of the universe, Fred

828
00:52:58,719 --> 00:53:01,319
Speaker 2: Hoyle and the discussion of the fine tuning, and Dean

829
00:53:01,440 --> 00:53:04,839
Speaker 2: Kenyon in the discussion of the origin of life. So

830
00:53:05,280 --> 00:53:09,160
Speaker 2: the film is it is densely scientific, but it's full

831
00:53:09,200 --> 00:53:11,680
Speaker 2: of great stories, and so we weave the stories and

832
00:53:11,719 --> 00:53:14,000
Speaker 2: the evidence together to make something that I think is

833
00:53:14,480 --> 00:53:15,719
Speaker 2: very watchable.

834
00:53:15,360 --> 00:53:19,320
Speaker 1: And oh, for sure, it totally is. So we started

835
00:53:19,320 --> 00:53:21,920
Speaker 1: with your story of when you were fourteen, and then

836
00:53:21,960 --> 00:53:23,840
Speaker 1: we kind of jumped to when you were twenty seven.

837
00:53:23,920 --> 00:53:26,160
Speaker 1: That was nineteen eighty five. You made a reference to

838
00:53:27,040 --> 00:53:31,040
Speaker 1: interacting with certain thinkers around nineteen eighty three. I mean,

839
00:53:31,120 --> 00:53:35,480
Speaker 1: we're forty years plus removed from that that you've been

840
00:53:35,480 --> 00:53:39,279
Speaker 1: a part of this intelligent design movement. What do you

841
00:53:39,320 --> 00:53:41,560
Speaker 1: think if you went back, like if you were able

842
00:53:41,600 --> 00:53:44,200
Speaker 1: to show a film to yourself in the early eighties

843
00:53:44,680 --> 00:53:46,719
Speaker 1: of where the evidence is today and kind of what

844
00:53:46,719 --> 00:53:49,759
Speaker 1: you're doing and the state of the debate, how do

845
00:53:49,800 --> 00:53:52,560
Speaker 1: you think you would have reacted at that time.

846
00:53:53,760 --> 00:53:57,120
Speaker 2: I was thinking about this yesterday actually really, because every

847
00:53:57,200 --> 00:54:00,319
Speaker 2: day there are challenges with this work. Some of them

848
00:54:00,320 --> 00:54:05,279
Speaker 2: are involved having to thread needles, and it can be

849
00:54:05,360 --> 00:54:09,439
Speaker 2: very tough. But I was encouraging myself by thinking if

850
00:54:09,480 --> 00:54:13,000
Speaker 2: I had thought, you know, forty years ago, that we

851
00:54:13,040 --> 00:54:16,200
Speaker 2: would be to the place where we are now, I

852
00:54:16,200 --> 00:54:18,480
Speaker 2: don't think. I don't think i'd believed it, and I

853
00:54:18,520 --> 00:54:21,400
Speaker 2: had no I just was taking, you know, taking the

854
00:54:21,440 --> 00:54:23,440
Speaker 2: next step. At every point I was I wanted to

855
00:54:23,480 --> 00:54:28,279
Speaker 2: do this kind of work. I was I'd like the

856
00:54:28,320 --> 00:54:31,759
Speaker 2: work I did as a practicing scientist, but I was

857
00:54:31,880 --> 00:54:35,800
Speaker 2: always interested in the questions that the intersection between science

858
00:54:35,800 --> 00:54:38,360
Speaker 2: and philosophy. So doing a PhD in the history and

859
00:54:38,360 --> 00:54:40,759
Speaker 2: philosophy of science was perfect for me. Doing it on

860
00:54:40,800 --> 00:54:43,560
Speaker 2: a big question like the origin of life was even better.

861
00:54:44,080 --> 00:54:48,560
Speaker 2: And then meeting people like Doug Acts and Pill Daisy

862
00:54:48,680 --> 00:54:52,920
Speaker 2: and Paul Nelson early in my career, Philip Johnson early

863
00:54:53,000 --> 00:54:56,200
Speaker 2: on kind of a group of like minded people kind

864
00:54:56,200 --> 00:55:01,680
Speaker 2: of congealed and connected, Jonathan Wells part of the and

865
00:55:01,719 --> 00:55:04,920
Speaker 2: then one thing just seemed to lead to another, and

866
00:55:04,960 --> 00:55:09,840
Speaker 2: now our database of friendly id scientists at the Discovery

867
00:55:09,840 --> 00:55:15,160
Speaker 2: Institute numbers about three thousand, and there's just incredible momentum.

868
00:55:15,160 --> 00:55:20,440
Speaker 2: We're attracting amazing talent. We have a theatrical release film

869
00:55:20,680 --> 00:55:24,319
Speaker 2: telling the stories of these great scientific discoveries and many

870
00:55:24,400 --> 00:55:29,960
Speaker 2: of our key figures. We've published over two hundred and

871
00:55:29,960 --> 00:55:34,279
Speaker 2: seventy five books and our account our account of peer

872
00:55:34,280 --> 00:55:38,280
Speaker 2: reviewed scientific articles is now over three hundred and thirty.

873
00:55:38,719 --> 00:55:40,839
Speaker 2: I problished one of the first in two thousand and

874
00:55:40,880 --> 00:55:43,719
Speaker 2: four and got one of our now colleagues, Richard Sternberg,

875
00:55:43,760 --> 00:55:45,360
Speaker 2: in a huge amount of hot water. He was the

876
00:55:45,480 --> 00:55:51,040
Speaker 2: editor sorry at the Smithsonian Institution, and since then the

877
00:55:51,120 --> 00:55:54,960
Speaker 2: number of peer reviewed articles advancing the theory of intelligent

878
00:55:55,000 --> 00:55:58,399
Speaker 2: design has just grown exponentially year by year. So this

879
00:55:58,480 --> 00:56:02,320
Speaker 2: is a growing research program, and there's growing cultural awareness

880
00:56:03,160 --> 00:56:06,200
Speaker 2: of the scientific case for the existence of a designing

881
00:56:06,280 --> 00:56:09,600
Speaker 2: intelligence of some kind. And even as I have argued

882
00:56:09,960 --> 00:56:15,000
Speaker 2: a designing intelligence who has the attributes that Jews and Christians,

883
00:56:15,000 --> 00:56:18,320
Speaker 2: for example, have traditionally assigned to God the return of

884
00:56:18,320 --> 00:56:21,800
Speaker 2: a God hypothesis, and we have many, many figures in

885
00:56:21,840 --> 00:56:24,360
Speaker 2: the culture now that are getting wind of this. We're

886
00:56:24,360 --> 00:56:28,080
Speaker 2: citing our work as a factor in their conversions or

887
00:56:28,120 --> 00:56:29,959
Speaker 2: in their consideration of a god question.

888
00:56:30,520 --> 00:56:32,960
Speaker 1: It's pretty remark Want I read the book Minding Cosmos Now,

889
00:56:32,960 --> 00:56:36,720
Speaker 1: I think fifteen years ago that Nagel would cite intelligent design,

890
00:56:36,760 --> 00:56:39,440
Speaker 1: and that was fifteen years ago. But when you were

891
00:56:39,480 --> 00:56:42,080
Speaker 1: coming in and we're chatting about how we both have

892
00:56:42,239 --> 00:56:46,040
Speaker 1: different public ministries and occasionally people will just recognize us.

893
00:56:46,040 --> 00:56:49,320
Speaker 1: But of course you've been on Rogan and somebody people

894
00:56:49,360 --> 00:56:53,680
Speaker 1: recognize you from that pretty consistently. What gives you confidence

895
00:56:53,800 --> 00:56:56,359
Speaker 1: of how this from a cultural level? So it's one

896
00:56:56,360 --> 00:57:01,160
Speaker 1: thing to make the arguments from science for origin of

897
00:57:01,200 --> 00:57:04,840
Speaker 1: life and cosmology, But on a cultural level, do you

898
00:57:04,960 --> 00:57:09,239
Speaker 1: sense a difference now than maybe four decades ago and

899
00:57:09,280 --> 00:57:11,359
Speaker 1: an interest in these questions undeniable?

900
00:57:11,400 --> 00:57:14,280
Speaker 2: It's a shift that's taking place. Just go back two decades.

901
00:57:16,360 --> 00:57:18,640
Speaker 2: We had a court trial in two thousand and five.

902
00:57:19,560 --> 00:57:21,560
Speaker 2: I say we It wasn't really ours. It was a

903
00:57:21,600 --> 00:57:26,120
Speaker 2: small school district in Dover, Pennsylvania, but the people in

904
00:57:26,160 --> 00:57:29,520
Speaker 2: the good people of this small school district wanted students

905
00:57:29,560 --> 00:57:32,120
Speaker 2: to be exposed to the theory of intelligent design and

906
00:57:32,120 --> 00:57:34,160
Speaker 2: wanted teachers to read a statement about a book that

907
00:57:34,240 --> 00:57:36,800
Speaker 2: was in the library. We told them, this probably wasn't

908
00:57:36,800 --> 00:57:39,360
Speaker 2: the right way to go. We asked not to be

909
00:57:39,440 --> 00:57:44,200
Speaker 2: included in the court in the trial. We weren't, but

910
00:57:44,440 --> 00:57:48,520
Speaker 2: it went against the school district, and people on the

911
00:57:48,560 --> 00:57:52,080
Speaker 2: other side of the darwin id argument were saying it's

912
00:57:52,120 --> 00:57:56,240
Speaker 2: over after dover. Meanwhile, the New Atheists were in their heyday.

913
00:57:56,360 --> 00:58:04,000
Speaker 2: They had plastered across London buses slogans like God probably

914
00:58:04,120 --> 00:58:07,600
Speaker 2: does not exist, so relax and enjoy your life. Isn't

915
00:58:07,640 --> 00:58:09,680
Speaker 2: maybe quite as reassuring as they wanted it to be

916
00:58:09,800 --> 00:58:13,240
Speaker 2: with the proviso of probably there. But the New atheists

917
00:58:13,280 --> 00:58:16,720
Speaker 2: predicated their argument for the non existence of God or

918
00:58:16,760 --> 00:58:21,080
Speaker 2: the likely non existence of God on science, and I

919
00:58:21,120 --> 00:58:25,040
Speaker 2: think they massively overplayed their hand. And I think many

920
00:58:25,080 --> 00:58:29,880
Speaker 2: of the evidences that I cite in the Return of

921
00:58:29,880 --> 00:58:33,840
Speaker 2: the God hypothesis were already well in circulation, but they

922
00:58:33,880 --> 00:58:39,800
Speaker 2: were fairly effectively ignored in books like The God Delusion

923
00:58:39,840 --> 00:58:45,080
Speaker 2: by Richard Dawkins. And Dawkins also very strongly predicated his

924
00:58:45,200 --> 00:58:48,200
Speaker 2: argument for God's non existence on the success of Darwinian

925
00:58:48,280 --> 00:58:53,200
Speaker 2: theory or neo excuse me, neo Darwinian theory. He's famous

926
00:58:53,240 --> 00:58:56,120
Speaker 2: for saying that Darwin made it possible to be an

927
00:58:56,160 --> 00:59:05,280
Speaker 2: intellectually fulfilled atheist. In twenty sixteen, I attended a conference

928
00:59:05,560 --> 00:59:12,000
Speaker 2: convened by the Royal Society, arguably the world's most venerable

929
00:59:12,040 --> 00:59:16,480
Speaker 2: and august scientific body, convened by a group of evolutionary

930
00:59:16,480 --> 00:59:22,640
Speaker 2: biologists who were completely dissatisfied with the contemporary textbook theory

931
00:59:22,760 --> 00:59:26,120
Speaker 2: of evolution known as neo Darwinism. They were looking for

932
00:59:26,200 --> 00:59:33,280
Speaker 2: a new theory of evolution that would affirm some mechanism

933
00:59:33,440 --> 00:59:37,800
Speaker 2: that could compensate for the perceived lack of creative power

934
00:59:37,840 --> 00:59:41,600
Speaker 2: associated with the mutation selection natural selection mechanism that we

935
00:59:41,640 --> 00:59:44,280
Speaker 2: all learn about when we learn about evolution in our

936
00:59:44,360 --> 00:59:49,440
Speaker 2: high school and college classes. That standard neo Darwinian theory

937
00:59:49,520 --> 00:59:52,840
Speaker 2: is the theory that Richard Dawkins his long affirms, going

938
00:59:52,880 --> 00:59:55,040
Speaker 2: all the way back to his book The Blind Watchmaker.

939
00:59:55,560 --> 01:00:00,400
Speaker 2: So he predicates his case for atheism on an on

940
01:00:00,440 --> 01:00:04,400
Speaker 2: a failing theory of evolution that even people in evolutionary

941
01:00:04,400 --> 01:00:09,160
Speaker 2: biology are increasingly rejecting. And so I think, I think

942
01:00:09,240 --> 01:00:14,880
Speaker 2: these scientific developments the spotlighting, highlighting and enhancing of the

943
01:00:14,920 --> 01:00:18,760
Speaker 2: case for theism based on the fine tuning argument, based

944
01:00:18,800 --> 01:00:22,720
Speaker 2: on the evidence from cosmology, based on the information argument

945
01:00:24,520 --> 01:00:27,040
Speaker 2: played a role in showing that there was a positive

946
01:00:27,080 --> 01:00:32,880
Speaker 2: case for God from science, and the refutation or increasing

947
01:00:32,920 --> 01:00:39,120
Speaker 2: skepticism even among people in evolutionary biology about the creative

948
01:00:39,200 --> 01:00:44,600
Speaker 2: power of the neo Darwinian mechanism undermined the key playing

949
01:00:44,720 --> 01:00:50,320
Speaker 2: in Dawkins's scientific argument for atheism. So I think those

950
01:00:50,360 --> 01:00:53,160
Speaker 2: things have played a role in this cultural shift that

951
01:00:53,200 --> 01:00:56,680
Speaker 2: we're seeing. The cultural shift is everywhere. You're seeing really

952
01:00:56,800 --> 01:01:00,640
Speaker 2: unexpected figures who are at least raising and surfacing the

953
01:01:00,640 --> 01:01:07,640
Speaker 2: God question. You think of Jordan Peterson and his He

954
01:01:07,680 --> 01:01:11,280
Speaker 2: isn't saying publicly whether he is or is not. He's

955
01:01:11,360 --> 01:01:15,200
Speaker 2: not a joiner, but you know he's increasingly highlighting the

956
01:01:15,240 --> 01:01:21,560
Speaker 2: psychological wisdom of the Biblical text. And you have the

957
01:01:21,600 --> 01:01:24,160
Speaker 2: shift in the thinking of a figure like Joe Rogan,

958
01:01:24,200 --> 01:01:30,080
Speaker 2: who's investigating the deep questions. You think about Larry Sanger,

959
01:01:30,120 --> 01:01:36,000
Speaker 2: who's the founder of Wikipedia, is a public Christian conversion

960
01:01:36,320 --> 01:01:38,760
Speaker 2: and in his memoirs cites some of the works of

961
01:01:39,120 --> 01:01:42,280
Speaker 2: people in the ID movement is influencing him. Charles Murray,

962
01:01:42,320 --> 01:01:45,960
Speaker 2: the social scientists, the same thing. In that case, my

963
01:01:46,080 --> 01:01:48,240
Speaker 2: phone blew up the day he had an article in

964
01:01:48,240 --> 01:01:51,440
Speaker 2: the Wall Street Journal talking about his new book, Taking

965
01:01:51,480 --> 01:01:52,840
Speaker 2: Religion Seriously because.

966
01:01:52,600 --> 01:01:53,760
Speaker 1: Apparently he's fascinating.

967
01:01:54,080 --> 01:01:57,760
Speaker 2: He quoted, he quoted Return of the God Hypothesis several times,

968
01:01:58,120 --> 01:02:00,479
Speaker 2: and on and on. I could go in the UK

969
01:02:00,920 --> 01:02:04,280
Speaker 2: figures who were part of the new atheist movement, like Ion,

970
01:02:04,800 --> 01:02:09,520
Speaker 2: Hersi Ali, who have now become very prominent, outspoken Christians.

971
01:02:10,440 --> 01:02:14,040
Speaker 2: So there's a cultural shift taking place. I think this

972
01:02:14,120 --> 01:02:16,560
Speaker 2: whole question of meaning that we were talking about earlier

973
01:02:17,040 --> 01:02:19,680
Speaker 2: is also a driver for this. That young people and

974
01:02:19,800 --> 01:02:23,400
Speaker 2: serious senior intellectuals are This is one of Ion's arguments.

975
01:02:23,400 --> 01:02:26,440
Speaker 2: He said that that atheism, for her is a failed worldview.

976
01:02:26,440 --> 01:02:30,240
Speaker 2: It cannot answer these basic human questions about about the

977
01:02:30,280 --> 01:02:35,720
Speaker 2: meaning of life. It offers no satisfactory answer there. So

978
01:02:35,720 --> 01:02:37,840
Speaker 2: so yes, I think there's a shift coming. I think

979
01:02:37,920 --> 01:02:41,959
Speaker 2: our film is beautifully positioned to raise and perhaps even

980
01:02:42,040 --> 01:02:45,680
Speaker 2: answer some of those deep questions about where everything came

981
01:02:45,720 --> 01:02:48,520
Speaker 2: from and whether or not there is evidence for a

982
01:02:48,600 --> 01:02:51,680
Speaker 2: person such as God to quote to use the Nagel phrasing.

983
01:02:54,320 --> 01:02:56,960
Speaker 2: And so I'm very excited to see what the reaction

984
01:02:57,040 --> 01:03:00,520
Speaker 2: to it might be given the cultural moment that we're in.

985
01:03:01,120 --> 01:03:03,360
Speaker 1: Let's take a look at a clip from the film

986
01:03:03,360 --> 01:03:05,120
Speaker 1: that I have one last question for you.

987
01:03:05,160 --> 01:03:08,240
Speaker 2: Absolutely, thank you. Bill Gates says, the DNA is like

988
01:03:08,240 --> 01:03:10,920
Speaker 2: a software program, only much more complex than any we've

989
01:03:10,920 --> 01:03:14,800
Speaker 2: ever created. What do we know about the origin of software?

990
01:03:15,200 --> 01:03:17,560
Speaker 2: It always comes from a mind, from a programmer. In fact,

991
01:03:17,600 --> 01:03:20,280
Speaker 2: whenever we see information and we trace it back to

992
01:03:20,320 --> 01:03:22,920
Speaker 2: its source, whether we're looking at a section of software

993
01:03:22,920 --> 01:03:26,160
Speaker 2: code or a hieroglyphic inscription, or a paragraph in a book,

994
01:03:26,600 --> 01:03:29,080
Speaker 2: or information embedded in a radio signal, if we trace

995
01:03:29,120 --> 01:03:32,280
Speaker 2: the information back to its ultimate source, we always come

996
01:03:32,320 --> 01:03:35,320
Speaker 2: to a mind, not a material process. So the discovery

997
01:03:35,320 --> 01:03:38,200
Speaker 2: of information in a digital or alphabetic form at the

998
01:03:38,240 --> 01:03:41,920
Speaker 2: foundation of life in molecules like DNA and RNA, is

999
01:03:42,000 --> 01:03:45,960
Speaker 2: a powerful indicator of a designing intelligence playing a role

1000
01:03:46,000 --> 01:03:48,440
Speaker 2: in the origin of that information and therefore in the

1001
01:03:48,480 --> 01:03:49,480
Speaker 2: origin of life itself.

1002
01:03:50,080 --> 01:03:53,560
Speaker 1: So what's your hope for how people will use this film?

1003
01:03:54,800 --> 01:04:00,200
Speaker 2: Well often said that you don't want to just each

1004
01:04:00,280 --> 01:04:07,400
Speaker 2: to the choir, right, and so, but I think the

1005
01:04:07,520 --> 01:04:12,160
Speaker 2: choir in this case people of theistic leanings, people God

1006
01:04:12,240 --> 01:04:16,560
Speaker 2: believing that maybe is still seventy percent of the American public.

1007
01:04:17,120 --> 01:04:21,960
Speaker 2: I think we'll find this film very reassuring and confidence building.

1008
01:04:22,520 --> 01:04:24,920
Speaker 2: One of the things that I've told my students is

1009
01:04:24,920 --> 01:04:27,320
Speaker 2: that it's okay to have just a little bit of swagger.

1010
01:04:28,320 --> 01:04:32,960
Speaker 2: That we've had this cultural insecurity among Christians and other

1011
01:04:33,600 --> 01:04:37,919
Speaker 2: believers of God in God, you know, the scientific materialism

1012
01:04:37,920 --> 01:04:40,440
Speaker 2: and the assumption that all the smart people are atheists

1013
01:04:40,480 --> 01:04:43,920
Speaker 2: or agnostics or materialists, I think has made people who

1014
01:04:44,000 --> 01:04:49,280
Speaker 2: believe in God very culturally intellectually first and culturally insecure.

1015
01:04:49,760 --> 01:04:52,000
Speaker 2: And I think the case for God is extremely strong.

1016
01:04:52,120 --> 01:04:55,080
Speaker 2: I agree, and I think it's okay to have a

1017
01:04:55,120 --> 01:04:56,880
Speaker 2: little spring in your step and to feel a little

1018
01:04:56,920 --> 01:05:01,480
Speaker 2: confident intellectually in what you believe in. Therefore, culturally, in

1019
01:05:01,520 --> 01:05:03,800
Speaker 2: asserting the reality of God is something that we need

1020
01:05:03,840 --> 01:05:08,640
Speaker 2: to reckon with. We're not talking about a theocracy, but

1021
01:05:08,800 --> 01:05:12,720
Speaker 2: I think our theistic beliefs have played such an important

1022
01:05:12,800 --> 01:05:15,320
Speaker 2: role in the founding of our country. We're celebrating that

1023
01:05:15,400 --> 01:05:18,280
Speaker 2: this two hundred and fiftieth year, we hold these truths

1024
01:05:18,280 --> 01:05:21,280
Speaker 2: to be self evident, that all men are created and

1025
01:05:21,360 --> 01:05:24,600
Speaker 2: now by their creator, with certain and alienable rights. This

1026
01:05:24,720 --> 01:05:28,680
Speaker 2: whole notion of intrinsic human dignity that was crucial to

1027
01:05:28,720 --> 01:05:33,000
Speaker 2: the notion of human rights was derivative of a Judeo

1028
01:05:33,120 --> 01:05:37,200
Speaker 2: Christian worldview that affirmed the reality of God. It's okay

1029
01:05:37,240 --> 01:05:40,040
Speaker 2: to get back to that and to re embrace that.

1030
01:05:40,080 --> 01:05:41,880
Speaker 2: It is a great year to re embrace that as

1031
01:05:41,920 --> 01:05:46,160
Speaker 2: we're celebrating the importance of that belief in our own

1032
01:05:46,240 --> 01:05:50,720
Speaker 2: understanding of our human dignity being made in God's image

1033
01:05:50,840 --> 01:05:53,200
Speaker 2: and the rights that flow from that which are essential

1034
01:05:53,240 --> 01:05:56,640
Speaker 2: to our system. So I think that's one take home.

1035
01:05:57,720 --> 01:06:00,400
Speaker 2: So I want the choir to be encouraged. But I

1036
01:06:00,440 --> 01:06:02,200
Speaker 2: also I think this is a film you can take

1037
01:06:02,640 --> 01:06:08,080
Speaker 2: your skeptical, non believing, non theistic, non Christian friends to.

1038
01:06:08,200 --> 01:06:10,520
Speaker 2: You will not be embarrassed, and it will give people

1039
01:06:10,560 --> 01:06:13,160
Speaker 2: a lot of food for thought. We get a lot

1040
01:06:13,200 --> 01:06:16,280
Speaker 2: of mail from people who encounter our work who have

1041
01:06:16,800 --> 01:06:19,840
Speaker 2: had a profound shift in worldview. I've gotten a lot

1042
01:06:19,840 --> 01:06:23,160
Speaker 2: of mail around return of the God hypothesis from long

1043
01:06:23,240 --> 01:06:30,080
Speaker 2: time agnostic physicists or deeply skeptical of religion biologists who

1044
01:06:30,080 --> 01:06:34,000
Speaker 2: have who have changed their thinking. I will tell you

1045
01:06:34,040 --> 01:06:36,640
Speaker 2: that the information argument is the one that time and

1046
01:06:36,680 --> 01:06:39,000
Speaker 2: time again just makes people stop.

1047
01:06:38,760 --> 01:06:40,760
Speaker 1: And think, Really, that's interesting.

1048
01:06:40,800 --> 01:06:45,880
Speaker 2: Well, Bill Gates says, DNA is a software program, but

1049
01:06:45,960 --> 01:06:49,680
Speaker 2: much more complex than any we've ever created. Richard Dawkins

1050
01:06:49,680 --> 01:06:53,120
Speaker 2: has knowledge that DNA is like a machine code. Well,

1051
01:06:53,120 --> 01:06:55,720
Speaker 2: what do we know about machine code and software? It

1052
01:06:55,840 --> 01:06:58,320
Speaker 2: comes from a mind. In fact, whenever we see information

1053
01:06:59,000 --> 01:07:01,280
Speaker 2: and we trace it back it source, we always come

1054
01:07:01,280 --> 01:07:04,560
Speaker 2: to a mind, not a not an undirected material process.

1055
01:07:04,640 --> 01:07:08,320
Speaker 2: So the discovery that that at the foundation of life

1056
01:07:08,360 --> 01:07:11,840
Speaker 2: there is code, there is information, really should make you

1057
01:07:11,880 --> 01:07:15,200
Speaker 2: stop and think. And and that's one of the key

1058
01:07:15,400 --> 01:07:18,920
Speaker 2: is the final of the three key arguments and discoveries

1059
01:07:18,920 --> 01:07:20,160
Speaker 2: that we address in the film.

1060
01:07:20,240 --> 01:07:22,720
Speaker 1: Well, there's a lot of good films on intelligence design

1061
01:07:22,800 --> 01:07:24,840
Speaker 1: making this case, but I can't think of one that

1062
01:07:25,440 --> 01:07:28,520
Speaker 1: is better than this one, or probably matches it in

1063
01:07:28,600 --> 01:07:31,600
Speaker 1: terms of the quality the interviews, the people you got.

1064
01:07:31,680 --> 01:07:34,480
Speaker 1: John Lennox is in there, I mean all the experts

1065
01:07:34,480 --> 01:07:36,320
Speaker 1: tours in their tours in there.

1066
01:07:36,680 --> 01:07:40,919
Speaker 2: We have we have interviews with people who don't necessarily

1067
01:07:41,280 --> 01:07:44,800
Speaker 2: affirm intelligent design, but just have some great scientific expertise

1068
01:07:44,840 --> 01:07:50,280
Speaker 2: to offer, like the University of California, San Diego astrophysicist

1069
01:07:50,360 --> 01:07:55,520
Speaker 2: Brian Keating, who's a friend that I've met at several conferences.

1070
01:07:55,520 --> 01:07:58,040
Speaker 2: I've been on his podcast, and he gives some great

1071
01:07:58,080 --> 01:08:03,480
Speaker 2: testimony about the the details of the discoveries in cosmology,

1072
01:08:03,520 --> 01:08:06,800
Speaker 2: particularly about the steady state universe and why it was rejected.

1073
01:08:08,200 --> 01:08:11,720
Speaker 2: So yeah, some really great, great figures. There's I think

1074
01:08:11,760 --> 01:08:15,720
Speaker 2: twenty two different oh philosophers who make an appearance in

1075
01:08:15,720 --> 01:08:20,400
Speaker 2: the film. We tell the story without a narrator and

1076
01:08:20,560 --> 01:08:26,000
Speaker 2: without a host, more in the manner of the film

1077
01:08:26,800 --> 01:08:29,960
Speaker 2: The Big Short if you ever saw it, I did. Yeah,

1078
01:08:30,120 --> 01:08:33,479
Speaker 2: the financial crisis, yep, there you had the principles in

1079
01:08:33,600 --> 01:08:36,120
Speaker 2: the story telling the story of what happened. Now they

1080
01:08:36,400 --> 01:08:38,320
Speaker 2: in that case it was told by actors because it

1081
01:08:38,360 --> 01:08:41,360
Speaker 2: was a it was a theatrical reenactment of what happened.

1082
01:08:41,439 --> 01:08:43,719
Speaker 2: In this case, it's scientists who have who have played

1083
01:08:43,720 --> 01:08:46,840
Speaker 2: a role in the in the scientific discussions in one

1084
01:08:46,840 --> 01:08:49,240
Speaker 2: way or another. So we let them tell the story

1085
01:08:49,240 --> 01:08:51,920
Speaker 2: and it creates a little faster pace and I think

1086
01:08:51,920 --> 01:08:53,760
Speaker 2: people will find it engaging. Well.

1087
01:08:53,800 --> 01:08:55,479
Speaker 1: I loved it so much that we're doing a three

1088
01:08:55,520 --> 01:08:58,280
Speaker 1: part series here on the podcast on the YouTube channel

1089
01:08:58,680 --> 01:09:01,640
Speaker 1: Have You talking about Cosmology? And we hit on the

1090
01:09:01,640 --> 01:09:04,519
Speaker 1: information argument a little bit. Have Doug Ax, who of

1091
01:09:04,560 --> 01:09:06,560
Speaker 1: course is one of my colleagues here he's one of

1092
01:09:06,600 --> 01:09:10,599
Speaker 1: the experts in the world on the possibility that time

1093
01:09:10,680 --> 01:09:13,719
Speaker 1: and chance could make something as complex as a protein.

1094
01:09:14,200 --> 01:09:17,080
Speaker 1: And Jay Richards to come on and talk about fine

1095
01:09:17,080 --> 01:09:19,880
Speaker 1: tuning and after each of these interviews, so we're posting

1096
01:09:19,920 --> 01:09:23,759
Speaker 1: this one on Friday. Tuesday, we will go live here

1097
01:09:24,240 --> 01:09:27,880
Speaker 1: in studio four thirty Pacific Standard time to take the

1098
01:09:27,920 --> 01:09:32,160
Speaker 1: toughest questions that people write in with an expert, So

1099
01:09:32,240 --> 01:09:34,639
Speaker 1: dougle By here live. We have some the other week's

1100
01:09:34,640 --> 01:09:37,800
Speaker 1: experts from Discovery like Brian Miller coming on, might bring

1101
01:09:37,840 --> 01:09:41,599
Speaker 1: another talbot professor on. But believer or skeptic, if you've

1102
01:09:41,640 --> 01:09:45,040
Speaker 1: heard this, you have questions about cosmology for this one

1103
01:09:45,040 --> 01:09:48,200
Speaker 1: in particular, and whether or not the evidence points towards

1104
01:09:48,200 --> 01:09:50,759
Speaker 1: the universe haven't a beginning as we've hit on here.

1105
01:09:50,920 --> 01:09:54,080
Speaker 1: For example, we didn't even go into the multiverse. Put

1106
01:09:54,120 --> 01:09:55,240
Speaker 1: your questions below.

1107
01:09:55,400 --> 01:09:57,600
Speaker 2: I would like to talk about the multiverse, Sean, but

1108
01:09:58,960 --> 01:10:00,280
Speaker 2: maybe we're on a time we.

1109
01:10:00,360 --> 01:10:02,400
Speaker 1: You and I did a full deep dive on that.

1110
01:10:02,560 --> 01:10:05,360
Speaker 1: Could we could link to that a full a full hour,

1111
01:10:05,439 --> 01:10:07,439
Speaker 1: but we'll have folks come back. We'll make a point

1112
01:10:07,479 --> 01:10:10,880
Speaker 1: to talk about that on Tuesday. But do two things

1113
01:10:10,960 --> 01:10:13,360
Speaker 1: Number one see the film, share it with a friend,

1114
01:10:13,400 --> 01:10:17,519
Speaker 1: and I would echo that definitely with unbelievers who are open,

1115
01:10:17,640 --> 01:10:20,320
Speaker 1: will not be offended, will not be put off, will

1116
01:10:20,360 --> 01:10:24,479
Speaker 1: be intrigued to think about these things in a new way.

1117
01:10:23,600 --> 01:10:29,280
Speaker 2: It's a sermon on tape, and we address these these

1118
01:10:29,320 --> 01:10:32,760
Speaker 2: common objections to the design or theistic arguments. We have

1119
01:10:32,800 --> 01:10:36,400
Speaker 2: a little section on the multiverse, and in response, the

1120
01:10:36,479 --> 01:10:39,880
Speaker 2: multiverse is offered as a response to the fine tuning argument,

1121
01:10:40,200 --> 01:10:43,599
Speaker 2: and we show in the film that the multiverse form

1122
01:10:43,680 --> 01:10:49,000
Speaker 2: the formulations of the multiverse themselves presupposed prior unexplained fine tuning,

1123
01:10:49,040 --> 01:10:50,519
Speaker 2: so you never quite get away from it, but we

1124
01:10:50,640 --> 01:10:54,840
Speaker 2: do take that objection seriously and take it head on. Well.

1125
01:10:54,880 --> 01:10:58,679
Speaker 1: Friends, check out the story of Everything. Join us Tuesday Live,

1126
01:10:58,760 --> 01:11:02,000
Speaker 1: four thirty Pacific stand time to take questions and challenges

1127
01:11:02,040 --> 01:11:05,800
Speaker 1: from this interview, and make sure you hit subscribe while

1128
01:11:05,800 --> 01:11:08,760
Speaker 1: you're at it. Doctor Stephen Meyer, thanks for coming all

1129
01:11:08,800 --> 01:11:10,920
Speaker 1: the way down from Discovery up in Seattle to be

1130
01:11:11,000 --> 01:11:14,840
Speaker 1: here with us at Talvischool Theology, Biola University. Thanks for

1131
01:11:14,880 --> 01:11:17,519
Speaker 1: spearheading a great film and just love your work and

1132
01:11:17,640 --> 01:11:18,679
Speaker 1: appreciate your friendship.

1133
01:11:18,920 --> 01:11:22,040
Speaker 2: I appreciate yours and I appreciate the invitation and the conversation,

1134
01:11:22,200 --> 01:11:22,680
Speaker 2: so thank you.

1135
01:11:23,080 --> 01:11:25,800
Speaker 1: Hey friends, if you enjoyed this show, please hit that

1136
01:11:25,880 --> 01:11:28,839
Speaker 1: fall button on your podcast app. Most of you tuning

1137
01:11:28,880 --> 01:11:31,240
Speaker 1: in haven't done this yet and it makes a huge

1138
01:11:31,240 --> 01:11:34,000
Speaker 1: difference in helping us reach and equit more people and

1139
01:11:34,040 --> 01:11:38,439
Speaker 1: build community. And please consider leaving a podcast review. Every

1140
01:11:38,640 --> 01:11:41,759
Speaker 1: review helps. Thanks for listening to The Sean McDowell Show,

1141
01:11:41,880 --> 01:11:45,720
Speaker 1: brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University,

1142
01:11:45,760 --> 01:11:49,040
Speaker 1: where we have on campus and online programs and apologetic

1143
01:11:49,120 --> 01:11:52,400
Speaker 1: spiritual information, marriage and family, Bible, and so much more.

1144
01:11:52,479 --> 01:11:55,479
Speaker 1: We would love to train you to more effectively live, teach,

1145
01:11:55,560 --> 01:11:58,360
Speaker 1: and defend the Christian faith today and we will see

1146
01:11:58,439 --> 01:12:00,280
Speaker 1: you in the next episode. Ups