[00:00:05] Speaker A: ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent Design.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: Welcome to ID the Future. I'm Andrew McDermott. Well, today you're in for a treat as we share with you selections from a recent talk by Dr. Casey Luskin on the origin and uniqueness of human beings.
Be hard pressed to find another lecture that accomplishes what Cayce does here. Review the fossil history of hominids and humans to show the large unbridged gap between the two. Bust the myth that humans are 99% genetically similar to chimps. Demonstrate the plausibility of intelligent design to explain the Big Bang origin of the genus Homo, and argue that the human race is unique and unparalleled in its moral, intellectual and creative abilities.
If you've ever had doubt that human beings stand unique among living things, or you know someone who thinks we evolved and we share a common ancestor with chimps, you need to listen to this talk or share it with someone who needs to hear it. And let me tell you, Casey is in the zone here. He's energized and he can talk pretty quickly. I scribbled eight pages of notes while I listened to it. Feel free to take your own notes and hit the pause button when you need to.
Ready? Here we go. Here's Dr. Casey Luskin now.
[00:01:24] Speaker A: So this talk is going to be in three parts. We're first going to talk about fossils, then we're going to talk about genetics. Then we're going to talk about psychology in the human mind and how all of these point to intelligent design rather than an evolutionary origin of the human species. So what is the evolutionary view of human origin? So the standard evolutionary view starts about 5 to 7 million years ago, where supposedly we shared our most recent common ancestor with apes, namely chimpanzees and some of the earliest hominins. Here on the bottom left would be these early species that were supposed to be some of the first upright bipedal species that were walking on two legs like we do today. After them came a genus of ape like hominids called the Australopithecines. And this is supposed to be our direct evolutionary ancestors. These are supposed to be very small ape like creatures that had a chimp like head, but supposedly they walked upright just like we do. And there's supposed to be evidence that basically the human like body plan was coming into existence. And then finally around 1 to 2 million years ago, you had the genus Homo appearing. Of course, we are the species Homo sapiens. In Latin it means wise man. And our body plan appears in the fossil record. And according to the evolutionary story, these australopithecines are supposed to be our direct evolutionary ancestors. So what I'm going to talk about today is the fact that the fossil record shows a large unbridged gap between ape like fossils and human like fossils in the hominid fossil record. And this comes directly from the mainstream scientific literature. And the record does not document the evolution of humans from ape like species. So I like to, when I first talk about this topic, talk about the field of paleoanthropology, this field that basically studies human origins. And what's interesting about the field of paleoanthropology is it is a very fragmented field. And I like to say that it's fragmented in multiple senses. Number one, the fossils themselves are fragments. Stephen J. Gould, famous Harvard paleontologist, said that most hominid fossils are basically scraps of jaws and fragments of skulls. But the record is also fragmented in space and time. I love this quote from University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Quine. He says paleoanthropology is a field in which the students far outnumbered the objects of study. Okay, this tells you just how few fossils they have to work with. But then also the field itself is fragmented. This is a quote from a PBS NOVA producer. He was doing a documentary on Neanderthals and he said that each Neanderthal expert thought the last one I talked to was an idiot if not an actual Neanderthal. So they're constantly disagreeing with each other and the field itself is highly fragmented. I really like this quote from Nature editor Senior editor Henry Gee. He says that the fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Now, of course, he's a full blown evolutionist, right? So when he says open to various interpretations, he's talking about evolutionary interpretations. But what I want to put forth is if the evidence really is so fragmentary, then why are non evolutionary interpretations fully disallowed in the mainstream paleoanthropological community? I think there is plenty of room for non evolutionary views and quite suspiciously, those are totally denied by the mainstream scientific community. They're never, ever allowed. But I think the evidence, if we're to look carefully, follow the evidence where it leads and let truth guide us, I think there's plenty of room. In fact, I think the best explanations are non evolutionary ones. So let's first get into the Australopithecines. As I said earlier, the Australopithecines were a genus of ape like hominids that are supposed to be the direct ancestors of our genus Homo. Their name literally means southern ape. They lived between 1.9 and 4.5 million years ago. They had a brain and body. They were about the size of a chimpanzee. But the big story here is that they supposedly were beginning to walk upright, much like modern humans do. And one of the most complete and most famous specimens of Australopithecines, of course, is Lucy, a member of the species Australopithecus afarensis. But very little of her skull was found. So I find it so interesting that when you go to all of these science museums, they have reconstructions of Lucy, as we see here. These are all supposed to be reconstructions of Lucy. And in each of these reconstructions, she's like staring up at the sky, like she's having her first glimmer of thought or she's smiling. This is, of course, sheer imagination and fiction. I mean, these reconstructions of these fossils are not based upon hard evidence. In Lucy's case, we don't even have a whole lot of her skull. Certainly we don't have evidence that she was smiling and looking up at the sky, pondering the meaning of her existence. So this is very much evolutionary interpretation. So be very skeptical when you see reconstructions of hominid fossils. But one of the points I like to make about the Australopithecines is although they are supposed to be our evolutionary ancestors, many australopithecine traits are ape like and, or not human like. I'm talking about their arms, their chest, their striding gait, their shoulders, their abdomen, their inner ear canals, which are actually very important for the way you walk. Right. If you ever had an inner ear infection, it, it affects your balance. Well, they had inner ear canals that were similar to apes, not to humans. Their developmental patterns, their toes, their teeth and their hand bones and their brain size were all ape like and are not human like. So I think there's a lot of evidence that they were very different from modern humans. Now, what about Lucy being this small brained, bipedal or upright walking ape, Is that true? Well, yes, I think it is true that she was small brained, but. But the nature of the bipedality, the nature of the way that she walked and the way that she's basically what her lifestyle was, is very controversial. There's an article in the journal Nature in 2000 that said that Lucy actually had the hand bones that were similar to a knuckle walker, like chimps and gorillas. So that tells you a lot about how Lucy probably walked, at least when she was on the ground. There's also quite a bit of evidence. This is from an article in the journal New Scientists. It said everything about her skeleton, from fingertips to toes, suggests several traits that would be very suitable for climbing in trees. So I think it's clear that Lucy also had an arboreal lifestyle, meaning that she spent a lot of time in trees. Now, what about her pelvis? The pelvis is a very important bone for determining how an organism walks. Do they walk upright or are they quadrupedal, walking on all fours? Well, when Lucy's pelvis was first discovered, it was actually in very bad shape and they had to do reconstruction. And there's been criticism that they reconstructed Lucy's pelvis so that it looked more human like than it actually was. And various scientific papers have said that her pelvis was initially badly crushed with distortion and cracking with air in the reconstruction, creating a very human like sacral plane. And so basically there was air in the way she was reconstructed. There was an article in the Journal of Human Evolution which talked about how we. We really don't have enough evidence to clearly say how Lucy walked. It said prevailing views of Lucy's posture are almost impossible to reconcile. To resolve such differences, more anatomical fossil evidence is needed. The available data at present are open to widely different interpretations. There's an anthropologist from the UK who said that the australopithecines are like apes and the Homo group are like humans. Something major occurred when Homo evolved, and it wasn't just in the brain. So let's talk really briefly about what I like to call a Big bang origin of the genus Homo. When you read the technical literature, you see that it talks about an explosion or rapid increase, punctuated change and approximate doubling of brain size at the appearance of homo around 2 million years ago. In fact, a study of the pelvises of the Australopithecines and Homo found very rapid evolution corresponding to the emergence of the genus Homo. When you see buzzwords like punctuated change, explosion, rapid increase, very rapid evolution, what that means in the technical literature is we don't have transitional forms. Things change so rapidly that we don't see an evolutionary gradual transition going on. In fact, look at this quote from Ernst Mayr, one of the great evolutionary biologists who helped. He was basically one of the architects of the modern neo Darwinian synthesis. He said that the earliest fossils of Homo are separated from Australopithecus by a large unbridged gap. How can we explain the seeming saltation? He says not having any fossils that can serve as missing links. We have to fall back on the time honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative. Isn't this interesting that one of the leading evolutionists says that we are not seeing fossils documenting this transition. Instead, we're separated by a large unbridged gap, and we don't have any fossils that can serve as, quote, unquote, missing links. In his own words, there's three Harvard paleoanthropologists who discussed the transition from Australopithecus to Homo, and they had both good news and bad news. We'll start with the bad news. They said the transition from Australopithecus to Homo was undoubtedly one of the most critical in its magnitude and consequences. As with many key evolutionary events, there is both good news and bad news. First, the bad news is that many of the details of this transition are obscure because of the paucity of the fossil and archaeological records. Okay, so they don't know how this transition happens. That's the bad news. Okay, then what is the good news? Well, here's what they say. Although we lack many details about exactly how, when, and where the transition occurred from Australopithecus to Homo, we have sufficient data from both before and after the transition to make some imperatives about the overall nature of key changes that did occur. So what are they saying here? They're saying, in other words, the fossil record provides ape like australopithecines before and human like Homo after this supposed transition, but not actual fossils documenting a transition between them. And in the absence of intermediates, we're left with inferences of a transition that are based strictly upon the assumption of evolution. Getting back to this paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution, it said that early Homo was significantly and dramatically different from australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior. The changes are sudden. No australopithecine species is obviously transitional, a radical transformation. In other words, a genetic revolution. This is not what you want. Just for the record, if you're an evolutionist, this is the exact opposite of what you want to find in the fossil record. But a commentator talking about this evidence actually called this a Big Bang theory of human evolution. And this problem is all throughout the hominin fossil record. A major 2015 review of hominid evolution said the evolutionary sequence for the majority of hominin lineages is unknown. Most hominin taxa, particularly early hominins, have no obvious ancestors, and in most cases, ancestor Descendant sequences, fossil time series cannot be reliably constructed. Okay, so we have this major gap in the fossil record, this large unbridged gap, right when the human like body plan is supposed to be evolving from its ape like australopithecine ancestors. But when we look at the genus Homo, what we see is that in contrast to the Australopithecines and other hominids, the major members of Homo, like Homo erectus and Neanderthals are very similar to modern humans. In fact, they're so similar to us that some have classified Homo erectus and the Neanderthals as members of our own species, Homo sapiens. These other hominids are very similar to, to modern humans. When you look at a comparison of the skulls of Homo erectus, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, there are some differences, but overall they're very, very similar. When you look at skull size, Neanderthals actually had an average skull size that is greater than that of modern humans. And even though the average skull size of Homo erectus is smaller than modern humans, it's still well within the range of modern human genetic variation. So it's not outside the range of what we would consider to be normal for human beings. But various paleoanthropologists have recognized that Neanderthals were very similar to modern humans. One says they may have had heavier brows or broader noses or stockier builds, but behaviorally, socially and reproductively, they were just people. Another archaeologist says Neanderthals were using technology as advanced as that of contemporary anatomically modern humans and using symbolism in much the same way. So contrary to the perceptions and claims by some evolutionists, Neanderthals do not show that humans are descended from or related to primitive and or ape like species. In fact, there are fossils showing morphological mosaics suggesting that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred. And there's also genetic studies showing that modern humans have what they call Neanderthal DNA. So what's really the difference between us and them? I would say that they were really, they could be viewed as just a subrace of the human species who lived in a particular part of the world at a certain time and they were just as human as you and me. That's one way to look at them. The differences between these human like members of Homo can be explained as microevolutionary changes, not macroevolution. What I would say there's a good quote from one scientist who called it the effects of size variation, climatic stress, genetic drift and differential expression of Common genes. So these are small scale changes. Now, what about intelligent design? Well, I work with Stephen Meyer at Discovery Institute, and he has written a paper which talks about how intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information, and that the intelligent design of a blueprint often precedes the assembly of parts in accord with a preconceived design plan. In other words, intelligent agents typically design things fully formed and ready to operate in the world. And this could be reflected as the abrupt appearance of new types of organisms in the fossil record. So, a quick summary of the fossil section. Hominid fossils generally fit into two categories, ape like and human like species with a large unbridged gap between them. This morphological discontinuity reflects a genetic revolution, or, you know, a Big Bang model of human origins. The genus Homo appears abruptly in the fossil record in a manner that challenges standard Darwinian explanations for the origin of our species. And a Big Bang model requires the rapid origin of new genetic information, and that information is best explained by design. So now we're going to talk about human genetics. How many of you have ever heard that old argument that we are 99% genetically similar to a chimp and that shows that we share a common ancestor? Okay, I've certainly heard this argument. And you guys also watch Bill Nye the Science Guy. He wrote in his book a few years ago that as our understanding of DNA has increased, we have come to understand that we share around 98.8% of our gene sequence with chimpanzees. And he says this is striking evidence for chimps and chumps to have a common ancestor. Well, last year in August, I was at the Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History, and it said exactly the same thing. You and chimpanzees. 98.8% genetically similar. And I'll just give you the punchline ahead of time. This is simply not true that we are 98.8% genetically similar. So two questions. Is it true that we were 98.8% genetically similar to chimps? No, we'll get to that. And question two, does it matter? Does this even mean anything? Are percent similarity of chimps so soon after the chimp genome Was sequenced? In 2005, there was an article in the Journal of Science, one of the top scientific journals, titled the myth of 1%. And this article basically said that this idea that we are 1% genetically different from chimps is a myth and a truism that should be retired. Differences actually include. At least this is actually more than this. But they said in this paper 35 million base pair changes, 5 million indels in each species. Those are base pair differences that are greater than one base pair and 689 extra genes in human. That 99% similarity pertains only to to certain alignable proteins. Okay, but many non protein coding sequences are highly dissimilar. They may be so dissimilar you can't even align them to make a comparison of how similar they are. They're not alignable. So I would say that the best estimates of human chimp genetic similarity show that we are much less than 98% genetically similar. There was a paper in the journal Frontiers and genetics in 2020 which said that we are 96% similar genetically to a chimp. However, this paper did not look at centromeric DNA and much non coding DNA which would lower the percent similarity. Another informal study by a Christian biologist named Stephen Schaffner said we're 95% similar. I think one of the best studies was done by a British geneticist named Richard Buggs. Actually this was an informal study. It's not been published in a peer reviewed journal yet. But it's a very good work that he did. And he found that only in about 84 to 85% of the cases can you directly match up nucleotide to nucleotide in one genome versus the other when you look at chimps in humans. So whatever the final answer is going to be, I would predict it's going to be somewhere between 85 and 95%. However, we need to understand that all current estimates depend on what actually the NIH calls humanized versions of the chimp genome that used human DNA as a scaffolding when they built their drafts of the chimp genome. So these versions of the chimp genome are more similar to humans than they really actually should be. But let's just take the highest estimate here, 96%. If we take 4% difference between humans and chimps, that still amounts to 120 million nucleotides that are different between humans and chimps. And let me tell you, that's a lot of DNA. That's plenty of DNA to encode many complex differences between humans and chimps. But let's just say for the sake of argument that we are 99% similar to a chimp. I would then say, so what does that even make a difference in terms of making an argument for common ancestry? Those similarities could be due to common descent. Yes, that is one way to look at it. But they could also be due to common design, where we are built based upon a common blueprint. So I would say that there's really no objective standard here to infer common ancestry. And you can easily explain the similarities between organisms using common design. After all, designers will regularly reuse parts that work in different designs, right? We reuse wheels on cars and airplanes. We reuse keyboards on both tablets and cell phones. So it's a very normal practice for computer programmers or engineers or designers to reuse parts that work in different designs. So the fact that we have similarities, maybe even high similarities to other species, really does not challenge my questions about common ancestry. I think that common design upon a common blueprint can easily explain this. But, you know, if we were to take 4% of our DNA and change it, that can actually lead to huge differences. I took the famous quote from Empire Strikes Back where Darth Vader confesses to Luke that he is Luke's father. And I just inserted four instances of the word not changing about 4% of these words. And it totally changes the meaning. Now he says, I am not your father. Search your feelings. You know it to be true. Luke, you cannot destroy the Emperor. He has foreseen this. It is your destiny. Join me Together we cannot rule the galaxy as father and son. Come of meat is not the only way. So changing just a small percentage of a text can lead to dramatically different meanings. So the question that I like to ask is, let's say we do have that 120 million nucleotide base pair differences between human and chimp DNA. Is there enough time in the fossil record to evolve that degree of a difference? And I would say the answer is no. According to a paper that was published in the journal Nature in 2004, if you wanted to convert an ape like ancestor into human, you have to make all kinds of morphological changes. You need a new design of a spine, a new shape and tilt to the pelvis, legs that angle in from the hips, knees, feet and toes that were designed for upright walking, a skull that sits on top of the spine in a balanced position, a shift in jaw muscles and muscle attachments, and changes in skull shape and size, and many, many other changes as well. So the question is, is there enough time for all these genetic and morphological differences to evolve since we last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees? So what are the relevant factors in such a calculation? Well, we're going to look at things like the population size. A larger population gives you more opportunities for those mutations to arise. To get all those genetic differences, generation time, a shorter Generation time is going to give you more generations and you going to get more opportunities for all those mutational differences to arise. Mutation rate, higher mutation rate is going to give you again, more mutations, more opportunities for all those differences to arise. And then, of course, the time available from the fossil record, more time gives you more opportunities for those differences to arise. Well, in each of these cases, the factors are working against the evolutionary process. The population size is thought to be very small, bad for evolution. Generation time, very long, bad for evolution. Mutation rate very low, also bad. And the time available from the false record is certainly less than 10 million years. I think that actually the most common estimates would be only 4 to 6 million years, since we supposedly shared a common ancestor with apes. But we can just say 10 million years for the sake of the argument. But, you know, you might think that's a long time, but that only equates to a few, maybe tens of thousands of generations over that time period. So what this means is that evolution does not get very many quote, unquote, rolls of the dice to get the right mutations to evolve new traits in a population of early hominids. Now, I'm sure that many of you have heard of Michael Behe. Michael Behe published a paper years ago where he argued that it would be very difficult in multicellular organisms to evolve a very simple trait that just requires two mutations before giving you an advantage. Okay, we're just talking about two mutations that have to be present before you get some advantage. And some of Michael Behe's critics decided to try to refute him in the journal Genetics. And this is one of those times where he was really glad to be refuted, because although they kind of quibbled with some of his math, they found that ultimately the math did not work in favor of evolution. And they found that to obtain only two simultaneous mutations via Darwinian evolution, quote, for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take over 100 million years. And the critics admitted that this was very unlikely to occur on a reasonable time scale. If any two of those 120 million base pair differences between humans and chips, if just two of those are necessary to give us some trait where you don't get any advantage until both of those mutations are present, then it's virtually impossible for that trait to have arisen by unguided evolutionary mechanisms since we shared our common ancestor with apes. Okay, so if any of those 120 million base pair differences in our DNA, then encode many of the anatomical differences between humans and chimps, Represent a trait where they would just require two mutations before providing someone advantage. It's virtually impossible that it could have evolved by unguided evolutionary mechanisms since we had our common ancestor with apes. What you're looking at right now is essentially a mathematical disproof that the human species had a strictly unguided evolutionary origin. Humans are too genetically distinct compared to apes to have evolved by standard evolutionary mechanisms. In the time allowed by the fossil record, A massive apartment infusion of genetic information is needed, and that, again, implicates intelligent design. Okay, we'll wrap this up. We'll talk about human psychology. When you go to this famous hominid fossil museum in South Africa called the Maripan museum, and you walk into their main fossil hall, There is this huge quote from Richard Dawkins stretching from floor to ceiling, and it says, we are survival machines, Robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. Wow. What is this materialistic message? Simply put, it says that the purpose of human beings is nothing more than to survive and reproduce. We evolved and we evolved to pass on our genes. Nothing more and nothing less. What I want to ask right now, when we look at human psychology, is, does the evidence suggest that that is all we're here for, Just to survive and reproduce and pass on our genes? Now, evolutionary psychology claims that the human mind evolved on the African savannah and similar environments over the past 1 to 2 million years. But if this is true, why do we have so many extraordinary abilities that seem to go far beyond what is needed to survive and reproduce in such environments? And so I'm going to defend a view called human exceptionalism. It's the view that the human race has unique and unparalleled moral, intellectual, and creative abilities. So what are some obvious exceptional human qualities? Well, we have complex language. We use complex tools. We use fire, we wear clothing. Only humans can do abstract reasoning. We alone can do mathematics. Only humans. All humans around the world. I don't care where you go. We all use music, we compose poetry, we practice religion, and we use moral reasoning. So. So there's many qualities that humans do that are found in no other species. We are clearly distinct from all other species. Bioethicist Wesley j. Smith, who I work with at Discovery institute, He says we are unquestionably a unique species, the only species capable of even contemplating ethical issues and assuming responsibilities. We uniquely are capable of apprehending the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, proper and improper conduct. But I think that language is something that really distinguishes human beings because it makes Us so different from all other species. And it allows us to engage in communication with each other, communicating all the kinds of complex ideas that our brains can imagine. MIT professor and linguist Noam Chomsky, however, has said that human language appears to be a unique phenomenon without significant analog in the animal world. There is no reason to suppose that the gaps are bridgeable. A 2014 paper authored by multiple prominent evolutionary scientists said that studies of non human animals provide virtually no relevant parallels to human linguistic communication. The most fundamental questions about the origins and evolution of our linguistic capacity remain as mysterious as ever. And I love this quote from Harvard linguist Steven Pinker. He says human language is an embarrassment for evolutionary theory because it is vastly more powerful than one can account for in terms of selective fitness. And this is kind of the point that we're getting at here, that human beings have all these extraordinary abilities. And it's very difficult to understand why those abilities would evolve on the African savannah a million years ago. So who knows who these three people are? We all know who this is on the right. Who's that? Albert Einstein. Able to ponder the deep workings of the universe. To relativity. Michelangelo. I was just in Rome this last summer with my wife, and we went to the Sistine Chapel. And it's just incredible. It was actually. It was overwhelming of emotion to see these incredible paintings that are bigger than life size painted on the ceiling, telling the story of humanity in the Bible. And the artistic ability of Michelangelo is just incredible. Oscar Schindler, of course, was a famous German. He was not a Nazi, but he saved the lives of over a thousand Jews from the God, from the gas chambers and from the concentration camps. Basically risking his life for people who were not related to him. He had no evolutionary reason to risk his life to save those Jews. So I love this quote. You know, we can criticize Francis Collins, but this is actually a good quote. He says what we admire as the most generous manifestations of altruism are not based on kin selection or reciprocity. An extreme example might be Oskar Schindler risking his life to save more than 1,000 Jews from the gas chambers. That's the opposite of saving his genes. So there are many behaviors that humans do that I think would show no evolutionary benefit. Why would we need the ability to discover relativity if all you have to do is survive and reproduce, you know, in some ancient environment, painting the Sistine Chapel, composing symphonies, why is that needed? Celibacy usually very bad for reproduction.
Extreme acts of selflessness that put one's life at risk, especially for people outside of your own kin. And I want to take this to the next level. Willingly dying for your enemies and loving them as they kill you. Think of Jesus dying on the cross, okay? There's no evolutionary explanation for why a person, a man like Jesus, who of course was also God, would die on the cross for all of his enemies. What's also interesting about this is not just that Jesus did it, but when you talk to people all around the world, I don't care if they're a Christian or a non Christian, Everybody looks at what Jesus did and sees it as the most beautiful expression of human morality, that you would willingly sacrifice your life for the lives of others, even for your enemies. Okay? So what's interesting is that there seems to be this universal moral code throughout humanity which values, respects, and praises these behaviors above all others. And we see these behaviors among all humans. All humans are capable of doing incredible intellectual, artistic, musical, and moral feats that just make us stand in awe. Why is it not only that we can do those things, but we hold those behaviors above all others? That is the exact opposite of what evolution would produce if supposedly it's just programming us to pass on our genes. Okay, so what this shows us is that life is about more than just survival and reproduction. This challenges Darwinism, and it suggests that humanity was designed for higher purposes. So the next time somebody tries to break down the differences between humans and apes, remind them that it's humans who write scientific papers studying apes and not the other way around.
[00:30:51] Speaker B: That was Dr. Casey Luskin on the origins and uniqueness of humans. It's a powerful talk and a great episode to share with friends, associates, and family members who think humans evolved by standard evolutionary mechanisms in the time allowed by the fossil record. On the contrary, our origin required a massive infusion of genetic information in a short space of geologic time, Something only an intelligent agent is capable of. Get more of Dr. Luskin's
[email protected] that's his website, caseyluskin.com for ID the Future. I'm Andrew McDermott. Thanks for listening.
[00:31:32] Speaker A: Visit us at idthefuture.com and intelligentdesign.org this program is copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
