1
00:00:00,200 --> 00:00:04,600
Speaker 1: Now here's a highlight from Coast to Coast AM on iHeartRadio.

2
00:00:04,840 --> 00:00:07,760
Speaker 2: I want to talk about viewpoint discrimination. And I thought

3
00:00:08,240 --> 00:00:11,440
Speaker 2: maybe the entry way into a show like this that

4
00:00:11,560 --> 00:00:15,880
Speaker 2: tries to not discriminate viewpoints, that tries to bring out

5
00:00:16,200 --> 00:00:20,759
Speaker 2: as many different viewpoints as possible, as silly or as

6
00:00:20,960 --> 00:00:23,880
Speaker 2: crazy or as wild as it seems to one person,

7
00:00:24,320 --> 00:00:26,479
Speaker 2: there could be a lot of legitimacy to it, so

8
00:00:26,600 --> 00:00:29,280
Speaker 2: you try to hear them out. Maybe that's the right

9
00:00:29,320 --> 00:00:32,599
Speaker 2: way to start, because in your career you found that

10
00:00:32,800 --> 00:00:36,000
Speaker 2: viewpoint discrimination is a mute point and non starter for

11
00:00:36,040 --> 00:00:40,000
Speaker 2: so many different points that you could make that are

12
00:00:40,040 --> 00:00:43,320
Speaker 2: scientific that kind of shut the door before you even

13
00:00:43,360 --> 00:00:46,200
Speaker 2: get into the house. And I love that there's shows

14
00:00:46,280 --> 00:00:49,519
Speaker 2: like this where you can talk about anything. And I'm

15
00:00:49,560 --> 00:00:52,680
Speaker 2: hoping that more people just get to the idea that

16
00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:54,680
Speaker 2: even if it's something they don't believe, they're open to

17
00:00:54,720 --> 00:00:57,000
Speaker 2: the idea without shutting it out altogether.

18
00:00:58,120 --> 00:00:58,360
Speaker 1: Yeah.

19
00:00:58,400 --> 00:01:03,560
Speaker 3: Absolutely. There's a method of reasoning that scientists use called

20
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:09,840
Speaker 3: the method of multiple competing hypotheses, where scientists evaluate competing

21
00:01:09,920 --> 00:01:14,200
Speaker 3: hypotheses by their ability usually to explain the data well

22
00:01:14,360 --> 00:01:18,720
Speaker 3: or to predict new outcomes well and The key to

23
00:01:18,760 --> 00:01:20,720
Speaker 3: that method is you've got to be open to the

24
00:01:20,760 --> 00:01:24,760
Speaker 3: competing hypotheses. If you exclude some from consideration at the outset,

25
00:01:25,440 --> 00:01:28,720
Speaker 3: your conclusion is going to be compromised, and you may

26
00:01:28,760 --> 00:01:31,480
Speaker 3: not you may not get to the right answer if

27
00:01:31,520 --> 00:01:35,959
Speaker 3: you've excluded some possible answers from consideration. And we find

28
00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:39,839
Speaker 3: this this is one of the dynamics of the debate

29
00:01:39,880 --> 00:01:47,280
Speaker 3: about biological origins and cosmological origins for that matter. If

30
00:01:47,319 --> 00:01:50,960
Speaker 3: you decide in advance, as many scientists have done over

31
00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:53,080
Speaker 3: the last hundred and fifty years, that they must that

32
00:01:53,160 --> 00:01:57,520
Speaker 3: you must limit yourself to strictly materialistic explanations for everything,

33
00:01:58,080 --> 00:02:01,200
Speaker 3: irrespective of the evidence, irrespect of the kind of question

34
00:02:01,320 --> 00:02:07,160
Speaker 3: your answer are asking. You may be eliminating from consideration

35
00:02:07,240 --> 00:02:10,639
Speaker 3: one of the answers that's actually the provides the best explanation.

36
00:02:10,840 --> 00:02:13,200
Speaker 3: So we'll talk more about it, I'm sure in the show.

37
00:02:13,320 --> 00:02:17,080
Speaker 3: But one of the key evidences of intelligent design in

38
00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:20,160
Speaker 3: the living world is the presence of the digital code

39
00:02:20,160 --> 00:02:22,760
Speaker 3: that's at the foundation of life in the DNA molecule.

40
00:02:23,400 --> 00:02:26,320
Speaker 3: Our local hero in the Seattle area, Bill Gates, as

41
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:29,760
Speaker 3: the DNA's like a software program, but much more complex

42
00:02:29,800 --> 00:02:33,320
Speaker 3: than any we've ever written. We know that software comes

43
00:02:33,320 --> 00:02:36,040
Speaker 3: from programmers, and so if we have something like that

44
00:02:36,120 --> 00:02:38,959
Speaker 3: at the foundation of life, it's at least a reasonable

45
00:02:38,960 --> 00:02:41,360
Speaker 3: thing to consider that maybe there was a master programmer

46
00:02:41,400 --> 00:02:44,200
Speaker 3: for life, that is an intelligence behind it. But that

47
00:02:44,639 --> 00:02:48,280
Speaker 3: answer has been excluded from consideration by a convention that

48
00:02:48,320 --> 00:02:49,680
Speaker 3: many scientists have accepted.

49
00:02:50,200 --> 00:02:51,520
Speaker 1: Whether that has a.

50
00:02:51,440 --> 00:02:54,359
Speaker 3: Big fancy name, it's called methodological naturalism, but it's the

51
00:02:54,400 --> 00:02:58,280
Speaker 3: idea that you have to explain everything materialistically, even if

52
00:02:58,280 --> 00:03:01,200
Speaker 3: you're looking at something that in any realm of experience

53
00:03:01,240 --> 00:03:02,320
Speaker 3: would point to a mind.

54
00:03:03,760 --> 00:03:05,919
Speaker 2: Yeah, and there's a lot of things I think topic

55
00:03:06,000 --> 00:03:09,720
Speaker 2: matter on this show that people would hear and the

56
00:03:09,840 --> 00:03:13,880
Speaker 2: experiences people have had, and they would say, I believe

57
00:03:13,919 --> 00:03:17,600
Speaker 2: that even if there is no way to scientifically prove it,

58
00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:21,840
Speaker 2: because they may have a gut feeling. Sure, I understand that.

59
00:03:22,440 --> 00:03:24,080
Speaker 2: But I think a lot of ways people look at

60
00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:27,000
Speaker 2: God that way and they'll say, Okay, there's a certain

61
00:03:27,160 --> 00:03:32,400
Speaker 2: flaw in thinking that you could describe the creation of

62
00:03:32,440 --> 00:03:37,840
Speaker 2: the universe and you would have to include a higher

63
00:03:37,920 --> 00:03:40,240
Speaker 2: being in order to explain that. So there's a flaw

64
00:03:40,240 --> 00:03:42,880
Speaker 2: in your scientific thinking that way. So how do you

65
00:03:42,960 --> 00:03:47,680
Speaker 2: explain the universe in that God is not a flaw.

66
00:03:48,920 --> 00:03:54,040
Speaker 3: Well, the concept of God is the concept of an

67
00:03:54,280 --> 00:04:01,080
Speaker 3: entity that has intelligence, volition, in fact, feel logically, people

68
00:04:01,120 --> 00:04:06,800
Speaker 3: think Theologians think that the capabilities that we have as

69
00:04:06,840 --> 00:04:10,280
Speaker 3: human agents reflect those of our creator. This is the

70
00:04:10,880 --> 00:04:13,480
Speaker 3: classic idea of being made in the image of God,

71
00:04:13,560 --> 00:04:17,640
Speaker 3: the imago dey. And so we know something about the

72
00:04:18,440 --> 00:04:26,240
Speaker 3: attributes of agents, persons who have the ability to choose,

73
00:04:26,279 --> 00:04:29,480
Speaker 3: the ability to think, the ability to reason. And there

74
00:04:29,480 --> 00:04:31,839
Speaker 3: are certain things that we know from our experience that

75
00:04:31,880 --> 00:04:35,800
Speaker 3: we know that minds can do that undirected material processes

76
00:04:35,839 --> 00:04:39,120
Speaker 3: can't do. And so if we see things in nature

77
00:04:39,200 --> 00:04:46,159
Speaker 3: that have the attributes that are associated with the mind,

78
00:04:46,360 --> 00:04:51,840
Speaker 3: with the causal powers, if you will, of intelligent agents,

79
00:04:52,240 --> 00:04:54,520
Speaker 3: and we know that our minds are not responsible, then

80
00:04:54,560 --> 00:04:57,120
Speaker 3: it raises the questions, well, which mind is And if

81
00:04:57,160 --> 00:05:00,240
Speaker 3: you're talking about something like the creation of the universe itself, well,

82
00:05:00,800 --> 00:05:03,440
Speaker 3: and we now have evidence that from the very beginning

83
00:05:03,440 --> 00:05:05,440
Speaker 3: of the universe. First of all, there was a beginning

84
00:05:05,440 --> 00:05:09,440
Speaker 3: to the universe. But secondly there's the universe was fine tuned,

85
00:05:09,720 --> 00:05:11,599
Speaker 3: is where the physicists put it to allow for the

86
00:05:11,640 --> 00:05:15,240
Speaker 3: possibility of life. Well, that fine tuning is the kind

87
00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:18,120
Speaker 3: of thing that we know that agents produce, that minds produced.

88
00:05:18,120 --> 00:05:21,719
Speaker 3: So it's a reasonable hypothesis to think that from the

89
00:05:21,839 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 3: very beginning or the beginning of the universe was the

90
00:05:24,440 --> 00:05:29,280
Speaker 3: product of an intelligence, and that intelligence wasn't our intelligence.

91
00:05:29,320 --> 00:05:32,200
Speaker 3: It's one that seemed to be necessary for the whole

92
00:05:32,240 --> 00:05:34,680
Speaker 3: of the universe to exist. So it seems to be

93
00:05:34,720 --> 00:05:39,240
Speaker 3: pointing to a kind of transcendence intelligence, which is one

94
00:05:39,279 --> 00:05:41,279
Speaker 3: way of thinking about the concept of God.

95
00:05:42,520 --> 00:05:46,000
Speaker 2: Right, So going back to the idea of a viewpoint discrimination,

96
00:05:46,200 --> 00:05:51,240
Speaker 2: when did there become this conflict when thinking this way

97
00:05:51,720 --> 00:05:56,880
Speaker 2: when you're trying to also explain a scientific nature to it,

98
00:05:56,920 --> 00:06:00,640
Speaker 2: as was there always a conflict between these type of

99
00:06:00,680 --> 00:06:05,400
Speaker 2: explanations in science and historians? Has it always been that way?

100
00:06:06,240 --> 00:06:09,680
Speaker 3: No, that's really a studie question. I happened to be

101
00:06:09,839 --> 00:06:13,120
Speaker 3: up early in the morning here in Cambridge, England. And

102
00:06:13,279 --> 00:06:15,600
Speaker 3: if you go back in the history of science to

103
00:06:15,720 --> 00:06:19,480
Speaker 3: figures like Sir Isaac Newton or his mentor a man

104
00:06:19,600 --> 00:06:23,480
Speaker 3: named Isaac Barrow who was a very prominent mathematician in

105
00:06:23,520 --> 00:06:27,480
Speaker 3: the seventeenth century, or John Ray, the great biologists who

106
00:06:27,680 --> 00:06:33,839
Speaker 3: got the botany going. These early scientists were actually motivated

107
00:06:33,920 --> 00:06:38,600
Speaker 3: by a deeply religious belief that most of them were Christians,

108
00:06:39,320 --> 00:06:43,560
Speaker 3: and they believed that nature was in what the term

109
00:06:43,600 --> 00:06:47,560
Speaker 3: they used was intelligible. It could be understood because our

110
00:06:47,640 --> 00:06:50,680
Speaker 3: minds were made in the image of the same creator

111
00:06:50,760 --> 00:06:53,920
Speaker 3: who had made the world. So the creator built into

112
00:06:53,960 --> 00:06:57,000
Speaker 3: the world patterns of order, which they described with the

113
00:06:57,080 --> 00:07:01,680
Speaker 3: laws of nature and evidence of design. And because that

114
00:07:01,800 --> 00:07:05,719
Speaker 3: same creator designed our minds in his image, that we

115
00:07:05,800 --> 00:07:08,719
Speaker 3: could perceive the rationality and the design that he built

116
00:07:08,720 --> 00:07:09,440
Speaker 3: into the world.

117
00:07:10,120 --> 00:07:10,920
Speaker 1: And when they.

118
00:07:10,840 --> 00:07:13,840
Speaker 3: Looked at the world, they also saw evidence of that design.

119
00:07:14,320 --> 00:07:18,120
Speaker 3: Isaac Newton, in particular, in his great work The Principia,

120
00:07:18,800 --> 00:07:23,440
Speaker 3: wrote a theological epilogue called the General Scolium, in which

121
00:07:23,440 --> 00:07:27,480
Speaker 3: he made an elegant design argument based on the essentially

122
00:07:27,680 --> 00:07:29,720
Speaker 3: what we would now call the fine tuning of the

123
00:07:29,720 --> 00:07:33,680
Speaker 3: planetary orbits. He said, this most beautiful system of planets,

124
00:07:33,680 --> 00:07:37,480
Speaker 3: sun and comets could only proceed from the council and

125
00:07:37,560 --> 00:07:41,480
Speaker 3: dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. And so the

126
00:07:41,600 --> 00:07:45,080
Speaker 3: idea of design being built into nature, our ability to

127
00:07:45,160 --> 00:07:48,880
Speaker 3: understand it and there being evidence of it, was part

128
00:07:49,040 --> 00:07:52,640
Speaker 3: of the foundation of modern science, and it was only

129
00:07:52,640 --> 00:07:56,600
Speaker 3: in the late nineteenth century when this kind of thinking

130
00:07:56,680 --> 00:08:00,040
Speaker 3: became stigmatized. Some of that came in the wake of

131
00:08:00,120 --> 00:08:03,440
Speaker 3: Darwin's work on the origin of species, but it wasn't

132
00:08:03,480 --> 00:08:07,240
Speaker 3: just that he had an alternative explanation for new forms

133
00:08:07,240 --> 00:08:11,200
Speaker 3: of life. It was he and other scientists around him

134
00:08:11,280 --> 00:08:14,680
Speaker 3: kind of established a convention that said, if we're going

135
00:08:14,760 --> 00:08:18,320
Speaker 3: to be scientists, we must limit ourself to materialistic explanations.

136
00:08:18,720 --> 00:08:21,960
Speaker 3: And so no matter how strong the evidence of design

137
00:08:22,800 --> 00:08:27,560
Speaker 3: has been since then, scientists have been reluctant to acknowledge it.

138
00:08:27,600 --> 00:08:30,640
Speaker 3: But that's beginning to change, and I think that's what's

139
00:08:30,880 --> 00:08:32,000
Speaker 3: exciting about our time.

140
00:08:33,240 --> 00:08:36,200
Speaker 2: One of the fascinating things if you had a time

141
00:08:36,240 --> 00:08:39,600
Speaker 2: machine or kind of like Bill and Ted's excellent Adventure,

142
00:08:39,720 --> 00:08:42,280
Speaker 2: you had a phone booth and you can go back

143
00:08:42,320 --> 00:08:45,120
Speaker 2: and grab historical figures and bring them back on stage.

144
00:08:45,160 --> 00:08:48,520
Speaker 2: Imagine if you had Darwin in Newton on the same

145
00:08:48,559 --> 00:08:50,880
Speaker 2: stage and you said you have to pick one or

146
00:08:50,920 --> 00:08:54,800
Speaker 2: the other. Neither it's not you can take viewpoints from

147
00:08:54,880 --> 00:08:57,320
Speaker 2: either of them and understand they could be right. No,

148
00:08:57,520 --> 00:08:59,200
Speaker 2: you have to side with one of them and the

149
00:08:59,240 --> 00:09:04,360
Speaker 2: other ones discredited. Immediately, Imagine if that's how we treated

150
00:09:04,400 --> 00:09:06,559
Speaker 2: the two figures on the stage together, but that's how

151
00:09:06,559 --> 00:09:09,000
Speaker 2: we kind of treat science today, in a way where

152
00:09:09,120 --> 00:09:11,920
Speaker 2: you can take two different viewpoints and you can look

153
00:09:11,960 --> 00:09:14,480
Speaker 2: at them and say, well, if one sounds more credible

154
00:09:14,520 --> 00:09:17,160
Speaker 2: than the other, then you have to throw away everything

155
00:09:17,200 --> 00:09:19,800
Speaker 2: on the other side. And that's just a silly way

156
00:09:19,880 --> 00:09:21,960
Speaker 2: because you're going to exclude a lot of truth.

157
00:09:22,400 --> 00:09:26,040
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, this is just a wonderful question you're asking

158
00:09:26,080 --> 00:09:29,040
Speaker 3: because of where I happen to be right now. Just

159
00:09:29,120 --> 00:09:32,400
Speaker 3: yesterday I did a little walking tour of Cambridge, walk

160
00:09:32,480 --> 00:09:36,240
Speaker 3: someone by Newton's old rooms in Trinity College, and then

161
00:09:36,280 --> 00:09:39,840
Speaker 3: a few minutes later we walked by a house has

162
00:09:40,960 --> 00:09:43,880
Speaker 3: a little plaque on it where Darwin lived in eighteen

163
00:09:43,920 --> 00:09:46,520
Speaker 3: thirty six, in eighteen thirty seven. So this is a

164
00:09:46,559 --> 00:09:50,319
Speaker 3: city where a lot of that scientific history has taken place,

165
00:09:50,400 --> 00:09:55,120
Speaker 3: and there has been an ongoing discussion, I think, right

166
00:09:55,200 --> 00:09:59,920
Speaker 3: up to the present time about whether this design perspective

167
00:10:00,160 --> 00:10:02,959
Speaker 3: or the no design perspective makes more sense of the

168
00:10:03,440 --> 00:10:07,600
Speaker 3: data we have in modern science, and there have been

169
00:10:07,920 --> 00:10:09,960
Speaker 3: great scientists on both sides of that, but that I

170
00:10:09,960 --> 00:10:12,800
Speaker 3: think underscores your point that it's important to keep an

171
00:10:12,800 --> 00:10:15,920
Speaker 3: open mind and to have a form of inquiry that

172
00:10:16,040 --> 00:10:20,760
Speaker 3: allows for competing hypotheses to be evaluated. There's a great

173
00:10:20,800 --> 00:10:28,760
Speaker 3: Italian philosopher of science named Marcello Para. Rather Marcello Para,

174
00:10:28,880 --> 00:10:33,080
Speaker 3: he's not Irish, he's Italian, and he says that science

175
00:10:33,120 --> 00:10:37,400
Speaker 3: advances as scientists argue about how to interpret the evidence.

176
00:10:38,040 --> 00:10:40,839
Speaker 3: And that means that if you shut down argumentation by

177
00:10:40,920 --> 00:10:45,440
Speaker 3: just appealing to quote does science and not acknowledge the

178
00:10:45,480 --> 00:10:49,000
Speaker 3: competing hypotheses that are out there, you may end up

179
00:10:49,040 --> 00:10:53,640
Speaker 3: with an impoverished form of inquiry where you're missing out

180
00:10:53,800 --> 00:10:56,920
Speaker 3: on the best explanation because you've committed yourself to an

181
00:10:56,920 --> 00:11:01,800
Speaker 3: explanation within a limited framework of possibility. Least so, I think,

182
00:11:02,040 --> 00:11:06,360
Speaker 3: especially with the big questions that science raises about where

183
00:11:06,360 --> 00:11:08,920
Speaker 3: did the universe come from? Why does it have the

184
00:11:08,960 --> 00:11:12,520
Speaker 3: exquisite structure that it has, Where did life come from?

185
00:11:12,559 --> 00:11:15,360
Speaker 3: Why does why do we see at the foundation of

186
00:11:15,400 --> 00:11:19,400
Speaker 3: life things like digital code and circuitry and that complex

187
00:11:19,440 --> 00:11:23,240
Speaker 3: information processing system. In my view, all of these features

188
00:11:23,280 --> 00:11:26,320
Speaker 3: are things that are better explained by the action of

189
00:11:26,800 --> 00:11:32,120
Speaker 3: a pre existing intelligence than they are by undirected material processes,

190
00:11:33,320 --> 00:11:38,800
Speaker 3: because again we know that mind has minds have powers

191
00:11:38,559 --> 00:11:42,640
Speaker 3: that undirected matter doesn't have, and we're seeing at the

192
00:11:42,640 --> 00:11:47,560
Speaker 3: foundation of life features that we know from our ordinary

193
00:11:47,559 --> 00:11:50,320
Speaker 3: experience only arise from an intelligent agency.

194
00:11:51,840 --> 00:11:55,320
Speaker 2: Doctor Steven Semeyer joining us here, and I think about

195
00:11:55,360 --> 00:11:59,120
Speaker 2: in recent years, not in a political way, but you

196
00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:04,920
Speaker 2: think about what happened with COVID and everything else in

197
00:12:04,920 --> 00:12:07,760
Speaker 2: the world, and generally speaking, what you found was that

198
00:12:07,880 --> 00:12:11,520
Speaker 2: if there was some sort of disagreement, you were called

199
00:12:11,559 --> 00:12:14,480
Speaker 2: anti science. And I thought, while you're shooting yourself in

200
00:12:14,520 --> 00:12:19,400
Speaker 2: the foot, if you take a viewpoint that's not yours,

201
00:12:20,040 --> 00:12:22,960
Speaker 2: you label it something along the lines of anti science

202
00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:26,440
Speaker 2: in order to try to win an argument. Because what

203
00:12:26,480 --> 00:12:28,640
Speaker 2: you're going to do again, you're going to throw away

204
00:12:28,720 --> 00:12:32,520
Speaker 2: perhaps something that may very well be true. So in

205
00:12:32,559 --> 00:12:36,480
Speaker 2: the modern times, when we start labeling things anti science,

206
00:12:36,720 --> 00:12:39,679
Speaker 2: and I'll go back to the viewpoint discrimination, how dangerous

207
00:12:39,760 --> 00:12:44,480
Speaker 2: is that when you stifle innovation, you stifle scientific progress

208
00:12:44,880 --> 00:12:48,640
Speaker 2: by just throwing out things like anti science, and then

209
00:12:48,679 --> 00:12:51,040
Speaker 2: the crowd gets behind it and the next thing you know,

210
00:12:51,080 --> 00:12:52,600
Speaker 2: we're in the wrong direction.

211
00:12:53,880 --> 00:12:54,120
Speaker 1: Yeah.

212
00:12:54,160 --> 00:12:59,480
Speaker 3: Well, I think oftentimes, well people will appeal to a consensus.

213
00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:04,960
Speaker 3: There are many issues in science or many theories or

214
00:13:05,160 --> 00:13:08,320
Speaker 3: ideas and science that do have the support of a consensus.

215
00:13:08,840 --> 00:13:14,760
Speaker 3: But oftentimes when you're in if people appeal to a consensus,

216
00:13:15,040 --> 00:13:17,880
Speaker 3: it's usually because there isn't one. If you appeal to

217
00:13:17,920 --> 00:13:20,439
Speaker 3: a consensus to settle an argument, it's often because there

218
00:13:20,480 --> 00:13:26,320
Speaker 3: isn't one. Nobody says, you know, you're bad for questioning

219
00:13:26,360 --> 00:13:31,120
Speaker 3: that the formula for water is H two oh. There's

220
00:13:31,120 --> 00:13:33,640
Speaker 3: a consensus that says that it's H two oh. Stop,

221
00:13:33,960 --> 00:13:36,520
Speaker 3: you know, stop pushing the alternative view. You don't have

222
00:13:36,600 --> 00:13:38,800
Speaker 3: to make that argument because there really is a consensus

223
00:13:38,880 --> 00:13:42,440
Speaker 3: about the formula for water. But typically people appeal to

224
00:13:42,480 --> 00:13:47,679
Speaker 3: consensus to shut down a discourse or disagreement when there

225
00:13:47,720 --> 00:13:51,600
Speaker 3: actually is disagreement and therefore not a universal consensus. So

226
00:13:52,160 --> 00:13:56,760
Speaker 3: I think there's a kind of an important happy medium

227
00:13:56,760 --> 00:14:00,640
Speaker 3: here where we have to recognize that the scientific process does,

228
00:14:00,720 --> 00:14:05,720
Speaker 3: over time often settle on very solid conclusions, and at

229
00:14:05,720 --> 00:14:09,320
Speaker 3: the same time, uh, the process of getting there involves

230
00:14:09,440 --> 00:14:14,120
Speaker 3: open debate that and and the need for that kind

231
00:14:14,160 --> 00:14:17,920
Speaker 3: of openness so that that the competing views are aired

232
00:14:17,960 --> 00:14:21,960
Speaker 3: out and the evidence is evaluated in relation to competing hypotheses,

233
00:14:22,600 --> 00:14:26,080
Speaker 3: and we're not shutting down that scientific process. It's very

234
00:14:26,080 --> 00:14:29,160
Speaker 3: important not to shut down that process of evaluation prematurely.

235
00:14:29,360 --> 00:14:32,400
Speaker 3: So we need we need to be able to trust science,

236
00:14:32,920 --> 00:14:35,320
Speaker 3: and but we also need to trust the scientific process,

237
00:14:35,480 --> 00:14:39,520
Speaker 3: which involves an openness to competing views. And and in

238
00:14:39,560 --> 00:14:42,200
Speaker 3: the in the field where we work, there's actually convention

239
00:14:42,400 --> 00:14:46,000
Speaker 3: that is excluding a view in advance, a view that

240
00:14:46,360 --> 00:14:49,520
Speaker 3: has a venerable intellectual tradition, that being the idea of

241
00:14:50,120 --> 00:14:56,560
Speaker 3: design or intelligent design being part of the scientific enterprise

242
00:14:56,600 --> 00:15:03,000
Speaker 3: that we pursue the insight into nature. We pursue science

243
00:15:03,040 --> 00:15:07,000
Speaker 3: because historically scientists thought there was a design there to

244
00:15:07,040 --> 00:15:07,680
Speaker 3: be discovered.

245
00:15:09,680 --> 00:15:12,960
Speaker 1: Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at

246
00:15:12,960 --> 00:15:16,240
Speaker 1: one am Eastern, and go to Coast to coastam dot

247
00:15:16,240 --> 00:15:17,040
Speaker 1: com for more