S1: Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast
S1: and I truly hope you hear something that edifies encourage, equips, enlightens,
S1: and then gets you out there in the marketplace of ideas.
S1: But before you go, I want to tell you about
S1: this month's truth tool. It's called Have You Ever Wondered?
S1: And I absolutely love this topic because if you're like me,
S1: going out into the night sky and looking up and
S1: seeing a million stars, don't you just stop and think
S1: about God? And are you not in a moment of
S1: awe and wonder or looking out over the vast expanse
S1: of an ocean and you start thinking, what is man,
S1: that thou art mindful of him? And it makes you
S1: wonder about the magnificence of God? I think that sense
S1: of wonder was put there on purpose, and this wonderful
S1: book includes a composite of multiple authors who have written
S1: from their perspective as a scientist, or a historian, or
S1: a mathematician or an artist, on why they all have
S1: this sense of awe through the work that they do.
S1: In other words, the heavens declare the glory. And as
S1: it tells us in Romans, we are really without excuse
S1: because his handiwork is everywhere. And this book invites you
S1: to walk through the chapters written by people who all
S1: have a sense of awe and wonder when it comes
S1: to God through their various disciplines in life. It's an
S1: amazing book and it's yours. For a gift of any amount,
S1: just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58. Ask
S1: for a copy of Have You Ever Wondered? And we'll
S1: send it right off to you as my way of
S1: saying thank you, because we are listener supported radio. Or
S1: you can go online to in the market with Janet
S1: Parshall and you're also on the website, consider becoming a
S1: partial partner. Those are people who give every single month
S1: at a level of their own choosing. You always get
S1: the truth tool, but in addition to that, you get
S1: a weekly newsletter that includes my writing and an audio
S1: piece just for my partial partner. So 877 Janet 58
S1: or the website in the market with Janet parshall.org consider
S1: becoming a partial partner or asking for this month's truth tool.
S1: Have you ever wondered? And now please enjoy the broadcast. Hi, friends,
S1: this is Janet Parshall. Thanks so much for choosing to
S1: spend the next hour with us. Today's program is pre-recorded
S1: so our phone lines are not open. But thanks so
S1: much for being with us and enjoy the broadcast.
S2: Here are some of the news headlines we're watching.
S3: The conference was over. The president won a pledge.
S4: Americans worshiping government over God.
S5: Extremely rare safety move by a major 17 years.
S6: The Palestinians and Israelis negotiated a truce.
S1: Hi, friends. Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall
S1: and a very happy Thursday to you. So glad we're
S1: going to be spending the hour together.
S7: In Washington, the State Department is optimistic the cease fire
S7: will hold.
S8: There was some activity back and forth, and that has
S8: stopped and the cease fire has taken effect, and the
S8: president is pleased.
S7: In central Tehran, thousands remain defiant, shouting Death to Israel
S7: and death to America.
S9: We don't approve of the cease fire at all. We
S9: will continue fighting until we are either martyred or win.
S9: God willing, Iran will eventually own a nuclear bomb.
S7: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assessed the impact of Operation
S7: Rising Lion.
S10: For dozens of years, I promised you that Iran would
S10: not have nuclear weapons. Therefore, with all the actions that
S10: our fighters have taken, we brought to ruin Iran's nuclear program.
S10: And if anyone in Iran tries to revive this project,
S10: we will act with the same determination and the same
S10: strength to put an end to any such attempt.
S7: President Trump emphasized to reporters, the U.S. and Israel stopped
S7: Iran's nuclear program.
S11: They're not going to have enrichment and they're not going
S11: to have enough. The last thing on Iran's mind right
S11: now is their weapons.
S7: However, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization announced it
S7: has begun building a new uranium enrichment facility and said
S7: of the regime's nuclear program, our plan is not to
S7: allow any interruption. With the cease fire holding, Israel is
S7: turning its attention back to the war in Gaza. The
S7: IDF announced seven soldiers were killed in a Hamas attack
S7: on an armored personnel carrier. Also, the U.S. backed Gaza
S7: Humanitarian Foundation is asking the UN to stop fighting its
S7: effort to feed Gaza's civilians and condemn Hamas killing of
S7: several of its humanitarian workers two weeks ago. Chairman Reverend
S7: Johnny Moore wrote to the UN silence in the face
S7: of such violence is not impartiality or neutrality. It is abandonment.
S7: In just a few weeks, the GFW has distributed more
S7: than 40 million meals to hungry Gazans. Chris Mitchell, CBN news, Jerusalem.
S1: So many in our culture today are spiritually curious but
S1: hesitant about religion. That's why I've chosen. Have you ever
S1: wondered is this month's truth to explore how everyday experiences
S1: might be the signpost pointing to deeper biblical truths? As
S1: for your copy of have you ever wondered when you
S1: give a gift of any amount to in the market,
S1: call eight 7758, that's eight 7758 or go to in
S1: the market with Janet Parshall.
S12: After President Trump left the G-7 summit in Canada a
S12: day early last week, it was learned he had received
S12: a message from Iran that if the U.S. attacked Iran's
S12: nuclear facilities, the regime could activate sleeper cells to launch
S12: terror attacks in the United States. The FBI says assets
S12: are fully engaged to prevent an attack, and Homeland Security
S12: is warning of a heightened threat environment but saying little else.
S13: What information do we know right now in regards to
S13: those sleeper cells? How is DHS tracking and following up
S13: and seeking information in regards?
S14: I can't necessarily share that with you, but I will
S14: tell you that we are continuing to evaluate every single
S14: threat and to proactively go after them before they do
S14: anything or take any activity.
S12: This week, federal immigration agents have arrested 11 Iranians here illegally.
S12: One arrested in Alabama was an Iranian Army sniper. Another
S12: in Houston was carrying a loaded pistol. Counterterrorism expert Barak
S12: Seener in London says Iran, defeated on the battlefield, may
S12: see a sleeper cell attack as the only way it
S12: can hurt the United States.
S15: The entire identity of Iran is a terrorist state. The
S15: reach is As global um. It attempted to conduct a
S15: proxy attack in the UK, in Sweden, in Argentina, Cyprus, Thailand.
S12: And he believes Iran took full advantage of the Biden
S12: administration's open border policies, in which millions of illegal migrants
S12: entered the U.S..
S15: Hundreds, if not thousands of Iranian nationals passed through the
S15: doors of the United States.
S12: CBN's Chuck Holton has reported from Panama's Darien Gap, where
S12: migrants must cross on their way to the United States.
S12: And he says he encountered many Iranian men.
S16: Every Iranian that I met in the Darien Gap was
S16: a military age male, and I didn't meet any Iranian
S16: women at all. They mostly spoke English, so they were
S16: well educated. And none of them were with their families.
S12: Last year, the Justice Department uncovered an Iranian plot to
S12: kill Donald Trump before the election. Washington also knows that
S12: a Hezbollah sleeper cell called unit 910 is operating in
S12: the United States, ready to carry out Iran's orders. Iran, though,
S12: may also take a different route a cyber attack. The
S12: Commission on the National Defense Strategy warned senators last year
S12: that the United States is unprepared for a devastating cyber
S12: attack that will bring life in towns and cities across
S12: America to a standstill.
S17: The public is essentially clueless about the massive cyber attacks
S17: that could be launched any day by our adversaries, not
S17: just nation states, but rogue actors as well.
S12: Iran in the past has hacked into water systems in
S12: several states and could use what it's learned to attack
S12: America's critical infrastructure, including internet power, transportation, and financial systems,
S12: in an effort to make almost everything from phones to
S12: gas pumps to cash machines to traffic lights suddenly stop working.
S18: We're in a cyber cold war today. We've got vulnerabilities
S18: with air traffic radar systems. We've got vulnerabilities in our
S18: 911 systems.
S12: The potential targets for Iran are numerous, and defending everything
S12: will be difficult. Dale Hurd CBN news.
S1: Well that was kind of like drinking from a fire
S1: hose wasn't it. I just gave you a whole bunch
S1: of news from the Middle East with Chris Mitchell talking
S1: about Iran and Israel and whether or not the cease
S1: fire will hold. And Dale Hurd and the concern of
S1: Iran's sleeper cells. So you know what? Just think on
S1: these things. Remember that God's in charge. Interesting time to
S1: be alive. Pray for those in authority. Pray for the
S1: innocent people in Iran and in Israel. And just remember
S1: that all of this is an indication that he is
S1: coming again. His return is imminent. One day closer than
S1: we were yesterday. And I don't know about you, but
S1: I go to bed every night saying, even so, come,
S1: Lord Jesus, we got lots to talk about. Stick around.
S1: We'll continue right after this. So many in our culture
S1: today are spiritually curious but hesitant about religion. That's why
S1: I've chosen. Have you ever wondered is this month's truth
S1: tool explore how everyday experiences might be the signpost pointing
S1: to deeper biblical truths. As for your copy of have
S1: you ever wondered when you give a gift of any
S1: amount to in the market, call 877 58, that's eight
S1: 7758 or go to in the market with Janet Parshall. Oh,
S1: have I been looking forward to this conversation. So put
S1: on your thinking caps because we're going to think critically
S1: and we're going to think biblically. First, I want to
S1: take a little bit of time here to introduce our guest,
S1: because I think he's an absolutely fascinating. Yes, yes, unbelievably gifted,
S1: but a fascinating gentleman. Doctor Casey Luskin is back on
S1: the air with us. He's a scientist and an attorney. Now,
S1: either one of those two career paths could have taken
S1: up your entire life. This gentleman pursues both. And I
S1: want to flesh this out a little bit because again,
S1: I'm going to use the word fascinating. Scientists and attorney.
S1: He's got grad degrees in science and law, so that
S1: makes him an expert in both the scientific and the
S1: legal dimensions of the debate over evolution. So let me
S1: tell you what his curriculum vitae says. He's got a
S1: PhD in geology from the University of Johannesburg, as in
S1: South Africa, where he specialized in paleomagnetism and the early
S1: plate tectonic history of South Africa. Not everybody does that,
S1: by the way. That's pretty impressive. He's earned a law
S1: degree from the University of San Diego. And guess what?
S1: He focused on First Amendment law. Kind of special to
S1: us on this program and education law and environmental law.
S1: Not one three areas of expertise. His undergrad degrees are
S1: in earth sciences from the University of California, San Diego,
S1: where he studied evolution extensively at the graduate and undergrad
S1: levels and conducted geological research at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
S1: He has been a California licensed attorney since 2005, and
S1: he practices primarily. If you didn't know this area exists,
S1: it does. And cases there in the area of evolution,
S1: education in public schools and defending academic freedom for scientists
S1: who face discrimination because of their support for intelligent design.
S1: So his role at the Discovery Institute, and that's where
S1: he joins us from. He works as an associate director
S1: of the center for Science and Culture, where he helps
S1: direct ID 3.0 research program and assist and defend scientists,
S1: educators and students who seek to freely study, research and
S1: teach about the scientific debate over Darwinism and intelligent design. Now,
S1: I don't usually read a bio in its entirety, but
S1: I just want you to know that we have on
S1: our side, ladies and gentlemen, people who are academically gifted,
S1: who have all of the acumen necessary to engage intelligently
S1: in this debates. We are not contrary to an initial
S1: impression made by the Washington Post. Poor, uneducated and easy
S1: to command. Far from it. And the credentials in this
S1: particular case before the jury of our peers has to
S1: be that these are people who are learned, they've done
S1: their homework, they understand the science. And our peer reviewed,
S1: multiple degreed published and out there in the academic arenas.
S1: I say that because this is not science for dummies, okay?
S1: This is people who really and truly think this through.
S1: And one of the reasons why I'm such an ardent
S1: supporter of the Discovery Institute is because it really is
S1: this panoply of thinkers, intellectuals, scientists, people who are in
S1: the humanities. It's just this great group of people that
S1: remind us that there is a strong intersection between faith
S1: and public policy, faith and science, faith and critical thinking.
S1: And KC really is exemplary of that. KC, I do
S1: want to get into this challenge to Charles Darwin, but
S1: I got to back up a little bit because you
S1: are in many ways a Renaissance man. So the amalgamation
S1: between science and law to me is I'll use the
S1: word for the 19th time. Absolutely fascinating. What's your problem?
S1: You couldn't pick a major? Or did you want to
S1: see the two pulled together?
S19: I did have that problem, Janet. And. Wow, you really
S19: talked me up so much. Now, I hope I don't,
S19: you know, defeat your expectations here. Uh, but but, yeah,
S19: I mean, I did have the problem of trying to
S19: pick a major. I was one of those students where
S19: I finally picked a major when they forced you to.
S19: And you had so many credits that they said, hey,
S19: if you don't pick a major, we're kicking you out.
S19: So I chose Earth Sciences because that allowed me to
S19: study chemistry, biology and physics and computer science all in
S19: one major. And those are all things I enjoyed. So.
S19: So yeah, it was one of those kind of guys.
S1: Wow. But then the law I mean, this is something
S1: I know a little something about. And you decided to
S1: have a focus on First Amendment. Explain that to me.
S19: Well, yeah, I mean, I originally Janet, I went to
S19: law school because I just thought I needed to get
S19: a job. You know, I had this degree in earth sciences. Well,
S19: what can you do with that? You can go dig
S19: for oil in the desert. And I really didn't want
S19: to do that at that stage of my 23 year
S19: old life. So I decided to go to law school
S19: to get a job. But as I as I started
S19: going to law school, I. I realized there are so
S19: many important issues that intersect with the law. Originally, I
S19: wanted to do environmental law, which is a very important issue.
S19: But beyond that, you know, things that pertain to our
S19: worldviews and what students learn in the classroom. I began
S19: to realize that the law really intersects with some very
S19: important aspects of society. And so I specialized in First
S19: Amendment law because I was really concerned about what students
S19: are learning in public schools and how they were being
S19: indoctrinated on the topic of evolution. So that sort of
S19: led me down the path that I'm on today of
S19: dealing with the teaching of evolution in public schools and
S19: defending scientists. Yeah.
S1: Wow. Wow. Now and again, I want to thank you
S1: from the bottom of my heart for the gift of
S1: the time that you're giving me. I get the opportunity
S1: to ask a few follow up questions because of the
S1: gift of your time. And I'm fully cognizant that I
S1: can't replace it. So, Casey, that really does mean a
S1: lot to me. So let me go back to something
S1: in your journey, which is I get it, you want
S1: to put bread on the table. Law might be a
S1: good way to do it, but somewhere along that part
S1: of your Pilgrim's Progress, you had this aha phenomenon moment
S1: where you realized that there really was a crush against
S1: academic freedom, that you had to toe the line on
S1: this particular area of scientific investigation, or you were going
S1: to pay a price for it. Well, how did that
S1: evidence start to manifest itself in your journey? When did
S1: you begin to say, Uh-Oh, there's a pushback here.
S19: Well, yeah. So it started for me, actually, when I
S19: was an undergraduate student at UC San Diego. UC San
S19: Diego was one of the largest public universities for biology
S19: research in the country. And I was taking all these
S19: courses in evolution because that was just a topic that
S19: interested me. I was fascinated with the study of our origins,
S19: and I wanted to learn about it. And meanwhile, I
S19: was in my own time. I was reading books by people.
S19: I know you're going to recognize these names, Janet. People
S19: like Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells. And I was
S19: realizing that there's this fascinating scientific debate going on over
S19: our origins between proponents of intelligent design. Those are all
S19: proponents of intelligent design for those who are not aware.
S19: And then also about what I was learning about evolution
S19: in my coursework at UC San Diego, and I realized
S19: that there's really this fascinating debate going on between intelligent
S19: design theorists and evolutionary scientists. But this debate was being
S19: completely left out of all of my science classes, really,
S19: I would say professors were either just completely unaware of
S19: this debate, or in some cases, they were sort of
S19: deliberately censoring it from the students and not allowing us
S19: to talk about this. So when I was an undergraduate
S19: at UC San Diego, I started a student club to
S19: help students to talk about this issue of where do
S19: we come from? And is it the result of evolution
S19: or intelligent design? We call this little club the Idea
S19: Club intelligent Design, evolution awareness. And that helped me then
S19: to realize that we need a venue, a way for
S19: students to learn about this. And that played into my
S19: desire in law school to help students be exposed.
S1: Wow, Casey, I have to tell you, that's an absolutely
S1: brilliant story of understanding the intersection between the two and
S1: really creating the opportunity for open dialogue and even to
S1: the scientific side, scientific exploration of all ideas. Follow the
S1: evidence where it leads. Doctor Casey Luskin is with us.
S1: For the rest of the hour, we're going to get
S1: to Intelligent Design and a fellow by the name of
S1: Charles Darwin in a minute, but more about Casey's journey
S1: when we return. We're visiting with Doctor Casey Luskin. He
S1: is the associate director of the center for Science and
S1: Culture at the Discovery Institute. And we're going to get
S1: to Charles Darwin and the wager and its intersection with
S1: intelligent Design in a minute. Absolutely fascinating. But I just
S1: want you to understand the lay of the land. These
S1: are so there are so many people who hold a
S1: worldview that says, wait a minute. I don't think the
S1: evidence leads to where Darwinian posture of the origin of species,
S1: I just I don't think the evidence leads to that end.
S1: You could have a boatload of initials after your name.
S1: And if you are at certain areas of of academic pursuit.
S1: And my husband has represented these people in. Casey knows
S1: this as well. They'll just shut you out. They won't
S1: let you get published. You don't get tenure at a university.
S1: It is the new modern witchhunt which raises, even though
S1: I appeal to you as both a scientist and an attorney, Casey,
S1: why the dreaded anathema of intelligent design in what should
S1: be a pursuit for scientific substantiation based on where the
S1: evidence leads? This is all theory. Why would you completely
S1: hack one theory out and say, drink the Kool-Aid? You
S1: must subscribe to this.
S19: What you're asking, Janet, is a very important question. It's
S19: also a complicated sociological question. In fact, the famous historian
S19: of science, Thomas Kuhn, he found that historically, when a
S19: new paradigm comes up to challenge a reigning paradigm, he
S19: says that scientists are typically intolerant of these new ideas
S19: that challenge the reigning paradigm within scientific fields. And this
S19: is fairly, you know, not too hard to understand. Basically,
S19: scientists invest their entire careers on particular ideas, particular paradigms
S19: that sort of govern their fields. And so they've invested
S19: papers that they've published research, they've done instruments that they've
S19: done their entire reputations upon these ideas. And so when
S19: some new idea comes in to challenge those reigning paradigms,
S19: it's often treated with some contempt. And this is exactly
S19: what is going on with intelligent design and Darwinian evolution
S19: right now. Neo-darwinian evolution, for better or for worse, is
S19: the reigning paradigm within biology for how life arose and
S19: and diversified to all the forms we see today. Intelligent
S19: design is coming in and saying, actually, there are other
S19: scientific ways to look at this question that are not mechanistic,
S19: that are not naturalistic. We can actually use our understanding
S19: of what intelligent agents to do, can do to better
S19: understand how we can explain the complexity of biology. And
S19: so you have all these evolutionary scientists who say, no, no, no, no, no,
S19: we've staked our careers on this evolutionary model. But then
S19: with the whole ID evolution debate, you have this additional
S19: component that worldviews are coming into play because we're getting
S19: this very, sort of personal, very emotional topic of where
S19: do we come from? And what does this mean for
S19: me personally, in my own worldview, that I hold and
S19: the way I live my life? So it's a lot
S19: more than just typical sort of scientific sociology going on here.
S19: You also have a lot of worldviews that are coming
S19: into play. It's very difficult for people to accept new
S19: ideas and be tolerant to them. So unfortunately, as you said, Janet,
S19: we've seen a lot of intolerance and persecution of pro-id
S19: scientists in academia. We tell many, many stories of this.
S1: Yeah, true. And Casey, you are so deeply involved in this.
S1: And I mean, it really is awful to know that
S1: someone has worked arduously to advance their career scientifically and
S1: academically and simply because of the worldview. And I'm so
S1: thrilled that you used that word. We talk about that
S1: all the time on this broadcast. It's about developing. We
S1: try to develop through this program a biblio centric worldview.
S1: But worldviews are not all accepted in the marketplace of ideas.
S1: And so these scientists, these academicians don't get their papers published.
S1: They don't get tenure granted simply because of a worldview
S1: that they hold, which is egregious to me because it
S1: really defies and denies. It seems to me the whole
S1: idea of scientific pursuit. As a lawyer, you understand that
S1: Lady Justice is blindfolded. She holds above her head the
S1: scales of justice, and the evidence tips the scale one
S1: way or the other. There's a paradigm parallel here with science.
S1: You are looking at where the evidence leads based on
S1: the evidence that's pursued through scientific investigation. What we're seeing
S1: in this blind allegiance to Darwinism is don't trouble me
S1: with the facts. Don't mess with my mind and what
S1: the evidence might be. I need this worldview concretized secured
S1: and never challenged because it will impact me in all
S1: the ways you just brilliantly described. That means science has
S1: taken a step backward, not forward, doesn't it?
S19: That's exactly right. Look, I personally am a big fan
S19: of science. I think science is a great tool that
S19: can help us to understand the world that we live in.
S19: But as you said, science is supposed to be sort
S19: of blind. It's supposed to be neutral. That's the great.
S19: That's one of the great things about science. It's whatever
S19: their worldview, their personal religious views or non-religious views or
S19: whatever they are, the evidence is publicly available to everyone.
S19: We can all see the evidence and see what it's saying.
S19: And so science is supposed to be sort of this
S19: neutral arbiter of truth. But unfortunately, science is also an
S19: endeavor run by human beings, and human beings are not
S19: always perfectly objective robots. Uh, as much as we would
S19: like them to be, we just aren't. And so people
S19: get into political situations where, I mean, this is true
S19: in every field of science. And if you think that, yes,
S19: it's not true that this is sort of a wake
S19: up call. Scientists are human beings, and they're very capable
S19: of engaging in politics and maneuvers to sort of marginalize
S19: certain ideas that they don't like. And we see this
S19: throughout scientific fields, even the fields that are totally non-ideological.
S19: Anybody who's a scientist that listening to this right now
S19: knows what I'm saying is true. They've all experienced this.
S19: Science can be highly political, and unfortunately, sometimes views don't
S19: get the hearing they deserve. The evidence is not weighed
S19: as it should be within the scientific community. It's just
S19: just the way it is.
S1: Absolutely. And if you don't mind, I love the richness
S1: of this conversation. So let me dig a little bit deeper,
S1: because really, I want our friends to learn how to
S1: think critically and biblically. So there's a continuum here not
S1: to go on a rabbit trail, but to take exactly
S1: the framework that you just identified. And I want to
S1: pick it up and drop it over another section of
S1: a current cultural debate that allegedly involves science. And that
S1: is our inability nowadays to identify who is a man
S1: and who is a woman, based on scientific evidence x
S1: x x y. Now, because of the confusion, as you
S1: so rightly noted before, of politics, of an agenda, of
S1: a particular worldview, I don't bother me with the facts.
S1: My worldview needs to be advanced at any cost, ever.
S1: Not only is that bad science, it's situational ethics, and
S1: it makes science step backwards rather than step forward. Now, Casey,
S1: I could do the rest of the hour on this
S1: with you. What a wonderful conversation. But I want to
S1: go back to Charles Darwin and a challenge that you
S1: at Discovery Institute just put out. And some of the
S1: theories that old Mr. Darwin held and whether or not
S1: there is an intersection, did he stumble on one an
S1: intelligent design. We'll talk about that when we return. Jesus
S1: told us to go into the world and not run
S1: away from it, and he didn't say it would be easy.
S1: In the market with Janet Parshall is a program designed
S1: to come alongside and walk with you into the marketplace
S1: of ideas. Partial partners are those friends who support our
S1: program on a regular monthly basis. They know the mandate
S1: of influencing and occupying until he comes. So why don't
S1: you become part of the inner circle of support? Call
S1: 877 Janet 58 or go to in the market with
S1: Janet Parshall. Oh, what a treat and a joy to
S1: spend time with doctor Casey Luskin. He is the associate
S1: director of the center for Science and Culture at the
S1: Discovery Institute. I have links all over my info page
S1: so you can learn more. If you don't know about
S1: the Discovery Institute or you are missing something. Get to
S1: know these people. Wonderful work that they do. They are
S1: influencing the culture in such a profoundly important way. Casey,
S1: as I noted earlier, is both a geologist and an
S1: attorney by training, and that makes him a real expert
S1: when it comes to this intersection between science and the
S1: legal dimensions of the debate over evolution. So, Casey, you
S1: put a piece out through discovery called what? Actually, it
S1: showed up in Evolution News, where basically the title was
S1: most intriguing. Intelligent design passes the Dawkins test. Now, okay,
S1: so Richard Dawkins is out there, uh, subscribing to the
S1: idea that he doesn't believe in the concept of intelligent
S1: design and yet put out a kind of wager in
S1: some respect. Now, for those of us who do not
S1: have all of the initials after their name like you do,
S1: move slowly through this one. So tell me, first of all,
S1: for people who don't know about Dawkins and The God
S1: Delusion and his work, um, why did he decide that
S1: there would be? Why did you decide that a challenge
S1: had to be put before Dawkins on this particular subject
S1: of intelligent design?
S19: Yeah, sure. Janet. So I'm sure that many listeners have
S19: heard of Richard Dawkins. He's one of the world's most
S19: famous evolutionary biologists and also an outspoken and aggressive advocate
S19: for atheism. You mentioned his book, The God Delusion. It
S19: was very much a came out in 2006. It was
S19: a very aggressive book against belief in God, against the
S19: biblical God and all those things. So at Discovery Institute,
S19: we've been reviewing Dawkins work for many years and also
S19: keeping up with the scientific literature. And we recently discovered
S19: that he has put out a very clear test for
S19: determining whether evolution or intelligent design is true. And we
S19: were talking earlier about science, how you're supposed to be
S19: able to, you know, weigh the evidence objectively. Well, how
S19: I just do that. Well, typically, when scientists will weigh
S19: the evidence, they will make. See, if a theory is
S19: making predictions that you can test. And Dawkins is actually
S19: laid out a clear prediction for evolution and also a
S19: clear prediction for intelligent design. But the problem for Dawkins
S19: is that it turns out that the prediction did not go,
S19: I believe as he expected, as he as he expected.
S19: And the data actually fulfills a clear prediction that he
S19: laid out for intelligent design, rather than the prediction that
S19: he laid out for evolution. So the test that he
S19: laid out is like this. He said that if Darwinian
S19: evolution is correct, then every gene in a group of
S19: organisms in their DNA will give approximately the same tree
S19: of life. Okay. When you see those evolutionary trees in
S19: textbooks or on PBS Nova documentaries that show how different
S19: organisms are related, what they do is they will sequence
S19: the genes of organisms and compare those genes, and based
S19: upon which organisms have more similar genes, they will group
S19: them closer or more further apart on those trees. So
S19: what Dawkins said is that every gene in a group
S19: of organisms will give you approximately the same tree of life,
S19: or even the perfect congruency between different trees of life.
S19: But if idea is correct, on the other hand, he
S19: said that the designer could have picked and chosen the
S19: best proteins for each job in each organism. And in
S19: that case, he says that the genes would not all
S19: give you the same tree of life. You would not
S19: get consistency. When you look at one gene, it might
S19: give you a different tree of life rather than each
S19: gene giving you the same tree of life. So it's
S19: a simple test that Dawkins has set up two competing
S19: predictions for evolution, one for intelligent design, and he says
S19: that evolution predicts perfect congruency among different representations of the
S19: tree of life. And he says this evidence is so powerful,
S19: his words that it proves evolution is true. On the
S19: other hand, he gives sort of conflicts between these different
S19: trees of life based upon different genes as the prediction
S19: of intelligent design, or what he actually calls the alternative
S19: to evolution. So this is sort of the test that
S19: Dawkins has laid out for us.
S1: So you write about this in your article. You say
S1: that in his 2009 book, The Greatest Show on Earth
S1: The Evidence for evolution. This is really where he said
S1: he has he from his perspective, this is extremely powerful
S1: evidence for evolution. But as you point out, he comes
S1: up with a kind of conflicted result. Here. Talk to
S1: me about this.
S19: So yeah, so I don't know if Dawkins actually will
S19: acknowledges what the data really says, but Dawkins says basically
S19: that if intelligent design is correct, then different genes should
S19: give you different versions of the tree of life. And
S19: if evolution is correct, then essentially every gene should give
S19: you the same version of the life. Well, anybody who
S19: has studied the field of evolutionary systematics, which is the
S19: field that basically constructs these evolutionary trees, or as they're
S19: often called, phylogenetic trees, everybody who works in this field
S19: knows that conflicts between different trees is very, very common.
S19: And then in fact, one gene will give you one
S19: version of the tree of life, and another gene will
S19: give you a very different or conflicting version of the
S19: tree of life. And we actually dug up some very
S19: recent scientific papers, um, to, to document this. So here's
S19: a paper in a book titled phylogenetics in the Genomic ERA.
S19: It says conflicting phylogenetic signals between genes is commonplace. Or
S19: a paper in proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, uh,
S19: says an immediate challenge is to address pervasive conflict observed
S19: in whole genome data or phylogenetic conflict, where genes disagree
S19: about the tree of life is common across genomes and
S19: throughout the tree of life. So this is all, you know,
S19: statements coming from the mainstream scientific literature. And basically what's
S19: happening is you are not getting consistency among the genetic
S19: code of different organisms. That fits what we would expect
S19: if common ancestry is true, the idea that all living
S19: organisms is related. Essentially, we're finding that there are conflicts
S19: between different trees because there are similarities and differences popping
S19: up in the genomes of organisms that is not being
S19: predicted by this idea of common ancestry. So basically, Dawkins
S19: prediction for evolution has failed. And instead that he gave
S19: for intelligent design has turned out to be correct.
S1: Well, okay, so much to unpack. Now. Again, this is
S1: this is talking to me science for dummies. So let
S1: me if I can break this down, I thought one
S1: of the hallmarks of Darwinism was randomness. So if you're
S1: going to look and I want you to break down
S1: the tree of life and just put skin on that,
S1: show me what that would look like as something I
S1: could see with my eyes. In other words, rather than
S1: going into the atmospherics of genomes and DNA patterns, etc.,
S1: tell me what that would look like if Darwinism was right.
S1: If Dawkins's idea is that you would see this replicated pattern,
S1: as opposed to an intelligent designer who picks and chooses
S1: the proteins that comes out with a different outcome, where's
S1: randomness in that first off?
S19: Well, maybe Janet, we could back up a little bit
S19: and I could explain how these evolutionary trees are constructed,
S19: and that might help to understand why this prediction is
S19: so important for evolution, why it doesn't work. So when
S19: you see these evolutionary trees in textbooks or scientific papers,
S19: or as I said, PBS Nova documentaries, they can be
S19: constructed in one of two ways. You can compare the
S19: body structure of an organism, you know, its skeletal traits
S19: or the organs that it has or, or some of
S19: the abilities that it has. Can it use echolocation to
S19: find food? Does it have two eyes or or six eyes?
S19: How many legs does it have? You can use the
S19: body structures of an organisms. Or the second way you
S19: can build these trees is you can compare gene sequences. Essentially,
S19: we're talking about the sequence of nucleotide bases in the
S19: DNA or the sequences of amino acids in proteins. And
S19: those organisms with more similar gene sequence are said to
S19: be more closely related. Now, the problem is, is that
S19: genes don't always give you the same tree. In other words,
S19: you get similarities between organisms that are not predicted if
S19: they all shared a common ancestor. Let me give you
S19: a hypothetical example that I think will explain this.
S1: Okay, good.
S19: Let's say that you, your sister and your next door
S19: neighbor all did that 23 and me chromosome test. Okay.
S19: I'm sure we've all heard of that. And you get
S19: back the sequences of your genes. So you look at
S19: one gene. Let's say it's the gene for cytochrome c
S19: a very important bodies. And this gene tells you exactly
S19: what you and your sister and your next door neighbor
S19: might expect. Essentially, what the what the 23 Andme test
S19: shows is that your gene sequence is more similar to
S19: that of your sister than it is between you and
S19: your next door neighbor, right? Because you're more closely related
S19: to your sister. So you would expect that your gene
S19: sequence is going to be more similar between you and
S19: her than between you and your next door neighbor, who
S19: you're probably related to. If you go very far back,
S19: but you're not really closely related to your next door neighbor.
S19: So let's say you take another gene sequence. This is
S19: for another gene in our bodies called beta globin, and
S19: this gene shows something you didn't expect. This time, your
S19: gene sequence is much more similar to your next door
S19: neighbor's gene sequence than it is to your sister's. So
S19: even though you're supposed to be much more closely related
S19: to your sister than you are to your next door neighbor,
S19: somehow when you look at this gene, it makes it
S19: look like you are more closely related to your next
S19: door neighbor than to your sister. So I'm making this up.
S19: But now let's say let's talk about real world data.
S19: Now imagine that you have used scientific tools to sequence hundreds,
S19: if not thousands of genes across many different species of organisms.
S19: And you've now done a similar kind of analysis on
S19: the macro scale. And according to Darwinism, all of those
S19: species are related through common ancestry. Okay. What you see
S19: is over and over is that one gene gives you
S19: one version of the relationships between those organisms. One version
S19: of the tree of life. And a different gene gives
S19: you a very different or conflicting version of how those
S19: organisms are related or, you know, the tree of life. Again,
S19: this is exactly what Dawkins says evolution does not predict.
S19: But it's what intelligent design does predict. And yet this
S19: is what we find. We find that we that organisms,
S19: when you sequence their genes and you try to organize,
S19: organize them into an evolutionary tree, it does not fit
S19: with a nice, neat evolutionary tree. It's kind of like
S19: you might call it a mess. Okay. Now, you mentioned randomness. Well,
S19: it's true that mutations in evolution are random. But what
S19: is not random are the lines event. Okay. Every organism
S19: is supposedly related according to evolution through a line of
S19: descent tracing back to a common ancestor. And there's only
S19: one way that all of these different organisms are related.
S19: If you go back, you know you're supposedly related not
S19: just to every human on earth, but also to your
S19: pet dog or cat, also to the birds in the
S19: trees and the fungus that are growing on the bottom
S19: of your foot. And the tree of life unfolded in
S19: only one way. So you should be able to see
S19: that tree of life when we sequenced genes, and there
S19: should be a consistent tree and we get total inconsistency.
S19: When you look at different genes and the way they're
S19: sequenced and the way they paint a picture of this
S19: tree of life, it's not what Darwinian evolution predicts.
S1: Casey, that was a brilliant way to understand that distinctiveness.
S1: So when we come back, I want to talk more
S1: about Dawkins. Now, remember when we talked quickly about his biography?
S1: Remember he wrote this book that rocked the globe was
S1: a bestseller called The God Delusion. Now, here's where I
S1: also find a parallel between Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins.
S1: We'll talk about that with Doctor Casey Luskin right after this.
S1: Have you ever wondered why music moves us so deeply,
S1: or why beauty takes our breath away? My Truth Tool
S1: this month is a thought provoking book that explores those
S1: moments of wonder we all encounter. It's called Have You
S1: Ever Wondered? Consider how ordinary aspects of life point to
S1: the extraordinary biblical truths. Ask for your copy of. Have
S1: you ever wondered when you give a gift of any
S1: amount in the market, call eight 7758. That's eight 7758
S1: or go to in the market with Janet Parshall for
S1: a fascinating conversation with Doctor Casey Luskin, who's the associate
S1: director of the center for Science and Culture at the
S1: Discovery Institute. By the way, I've got a link to
S1: this article so that you can read it in its
S1: entirety on our information page, and I want you to
S1: check that out. So we were talking before about his
S1: seminal book, The God Delusion, which caused people around the
S1: globe to literally start talking. But just like Darwin set
S1: out to disprove God and he makes this clear, I
S1: think more in the Descent of Man than the Origin
S1: of Species. But I find it interesting that Dawkins likewise
S1: has a marked animus against God. In talking about this
S1: idea of the tree of Life, he says, and you
S1: wrote about this in your article and two interviews. He
S1: did 1 in 2009 and 1 in 2010. The only
S1: alternative to it being a family tree is that the
S1: intelligent designer deliberately set out to deceive us, and the
S1: most underhanded and devious manner. Hmm. An anthropological argument to
S1: a God he doesn't believe in. Then in 2010, he says,
S1: the only way you could get out of saying that
S1: that proves that evolution is true is by saying that
S1: the intelligent designer God here identifies him, deliberately, set out
S1: to lie to us, deliberately set out to deceive us. Okay.
S1: Methinks he doth protest too much. So his animus toward
S1: a god he allegedly doesn't believe in, I find to
S1: be very interesting. But more importantly, he's subscribing. Motive. Now
S1: this is where worldview comes in, not scientific deliberation. Talk
S1: to me about this.
S19: Yeah. I mean, absolutely. Janet, Richard Dawkins has his own worldview. Um,
S19: in that delusion, he called the God of the Bible
S19: a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser,
S19: a misogynistic, homophobic, racist. infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious,
S19: malevolent bully. I can't even say it. I mean, it's
S19: just so, so clearly Dawkins has his own views about God.
S19: And if you think that that does not affect, you know,
S19: the way that he approaches science. Well. I'm sorry. He's
S19: a human being. I'm not. This is nothing to single
S19: out for special criticism. All of us have our own
S19: worldviews that color the way that we interpret things. And
S19: Dawkins is certainly not alone in having a worldview, but
S19: he has a worldview, and we should understand that. It's
S19: a pretty strong worldview. So, I mean, I'm look, I'm
S19: not against singling out Dawkins here for special criticism. It's
S19: just more to make the broader point that scientists are
S19: human beings and that these things come into play when
S19: people interpret this data. Um, and so Richard Dawkins, I
S19: don't think that he has ever acknowledged to my knowledge
S19: that his prediction for evolution and intelligent design that we're
S19: talking about here today, that, you know, these evolutionary trees
S19: are conflicting. I don't know if he's ever actually acknowledged
S19: that his prediction for evolution failed. I certainly hope he would,
S19: because I think that a scientist should acknowledge what the
S19: data really says. Um, but I don't know if will
S19: his worldview let him do that? I hope it does.
S19: But really, that's not for me to say.
S1: Well, you took me exactly where I wanted to go, Casey.
S1: Which is okay. Now. He's been, in the words of
S1: the great Bard, hoisted on his own petard so the
S1: evidence doesn't support his declaration. So now he he either
S1: has to pretend he never made it. And unfortunately or fortunately,
S1: in the world in which we live, everything is out
S1: there on the internet. And once it's there, it doesn't
S1: have a shelf life. There's no carbon dating, it's there forevermore.
S1: So he cannot deny that he made this observation, that
S1: he posited this challenge, and the challenge didn't come back
S1: the way he wanted it to. So to the best
S1: of your knowledge, in reading his papers and doing his
S1: research as he merely sidestepped the outcome.
S19: I mean, I have never seen Dawkins circle back around
S19: to this particular topic. We were hoping that he might
S19: respond to my article, uh, which thank you for linking
S19: to that. It's titled, uh, Intelligent Design Passes the Dawkins
S19: Test because we think it does. And we asked Richard
S19: Dawkins at the end, you know, well, how are you
S19: going to respond to this? Will you admit that your
S19: prediction has failed for evolution but succeeded for intelligent design?
S19: Or will you say that maybe this prediction was not
S19: a good way of testing between evolution and ID, I
S19: don't know. We were hoping that he would respond. He
S19: has not responded yet. Um, I mean, Dawkins is now
S19: I think he's in his, uh, early 80s, possibly like
S19: around 82 years old or so. So I'm not sure
S19: if he's engaged with the science. And this is really
S19: an issue that we've seen in the last 10 or
S19: 15 years where we're finding all of these, these evolutionary
S19: trees that are conflicting with each other. Um, I'm not
S19: sure how closely Dawkins follows the literature, but as you said,
S19: it was 2009 that he wrote his book, The Greatest
S19: Show on Earth, and that book was supposed to lay
S19: out the best evidence for evolution that Dawkins knew about,
S19: and that was part of the place where he laid
S19: out this test. So, yeah, I don't know what Dawkins
S19: is going to say, Janet. All I can say is
S19: that this is what the evidence says and the evidence
S19: fulfils Dawkins prediction for intelligent design.
S1: Wow. So just as a sidebar story, because I have
S1: the luxury of picking your well-educated brains for a minute,
S1: Stephen Gould doesn't call it a tree of life anymore.
S1: He's referring to it as a bush. Is that an
S1: internal debate in the camp of the evolutionists?
S19: Yeah. So? So Stephen Jay Gould passed away a number
S19: of years ago, but certainly many scientists. And I think
S19: Gould would have been one of them, would have recognized
S19: that we don't have this nice, neat tree of life.
S19: You've heard we've heard people call it the bush of
S19: life or the network of life or the tangled thicket
S19: of life. Um, I don't have the ability to put
S19: a picture up on a on a radio show audio show,
S19: but you can see some of the diagrams in scientific papers,
S19: and they don't look like a tree. They look like
S19: a tangled thicket. And what this means, basically, is that
S19: similarity is popping up between living organisms and places, that
S19: it was not predicted by common ancestry. I mean, that's
S19: exactly what it means. So this idea that you can
S19: explain the distribution of traits and genes and body parts
S19: between different organisms. By appealing to their common ancestry, I
S19: think that a very large percentage of scientists today recognize
S19: that you can't do that, okay, that common ancestry is
S19: not explaining the data very well. Now, they have lots
S19: of other ways of trying to explain away the data
S19: without losing common ancestry. Um, we call these epicycles. Like
S19: in the geocentric model of the solar system. You would
S19: appeal to these epicycles to explain why, you know, you
S19: could still keep the earth at the center of the
S19: solar system. But I think what this shows is that
S19: common ancestry and Darwinian evolution are a theory in crisis,
S19: and we ought to be seriously questioning whether or not
S19: they're the best explanations for biology that we have today.
S1: Wow, what a brilliant answer. One last question, and it
S1: takes us full circle. How do you encourage your fellow
S1: academicians who subscribe to an intelligent design worldview on the
S1: origin of species, knowing it might cost them their job
S1: to mitigate the heckler's veto? What do you tell them
S1: to do?
S19: Well, in a couple of seconds. Uh, keep in touch
S19: with Discovery Institute. You can go to discovery.org or evolution.
S19: Org and if you do find yourself in trouble, reach
S19: out to us. We've helped many scientists to overcome and
S19: face these discrimination cases, and there's a lot of great
S19: people who have been through this. You're not alone. Know
S19: that you're not crazy if you think that people are
S19: discriminating against you. It's happened many times. You're among good company.
S19: Reach out to us. We'd be happy to help you.
S1: And I'm telling you, Casey is an absolute treasure in
S1: this particular area. Academic freedom. Right? The ability to investigate
S1: and see where the evidence leads. Casey also said that
S1: I do have a link to his article, Intelligent Design
S1: Passes the Dawkins Test. It's right there on our information page.
S1: Read it and then pass it on to a friend
S1: who subscribes to the idea of the Tree of Life
S1: and the evolutionist idea, and just talk about how, in fact,
S1: the evidence doesn't necessarily point that way and get to
S1: know the Discovery Institute, these brilliant learned people winsomely entering
S1: into the halls of academia and I think leaving a
S1: profound impact. Thank you to Doctor Casey Luskin and new friends.
S1: We'll see you next time.