[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 am Andrew McDermott, your host. Well, today my guest is comedian, speaker, and author Evan Sayit to discuss the topic of his latest book on the failure of the atheist origin myth. Seyyid was a top Hollywood writer and producer for 20 years, and his credits include the Arsenio Hall show and politically incorrect with Bill Maher. A leading conservative political comedian, he has been an in demand master of ceremonies and speaker at events across the United States. He is also author of the Kindergarten how the Modern Liberal thinks, as well as woke supremacy, an anti socialist manifesto. Evan, welcome to the idea the future.
[00:00:53] Speaker A: Well, thanks. It's good to be with you.
[00:00:55] Speaker B: Well, Evan, you know, before we jump into the content of your latest book on the atheist origin myth, I wanted to give our listeners some idea of your journey and how you came to write such a book. Now, you grew up as a liberal jew in New York City. Tell us a little bit about your childhood.
[00:01:11] Speaker A: Well, I'm pretty satisfied with your description. You know, New York City born liberal jew, with all that that entails in the, in the era starting in the sixties when I was born, seventies when I started to come of age. It's also a fairly good description. It's an accurate description of my parents, you know, New York City born liberal jews. So that was the environment in which I grew up. Although it has to be understood liberal, my liberalism as well as my Judaism were not thoughtful, active positions and beliefs that I came to. They were sort of the default factory setting for somebody born into my demographics. You know, if you were a New York City born jew, you were a liberal. And it's not like I gave liberal ideology or liberal policy any thought whatsoever. I just knew growing up what all liberals know, which is that liberals are good and conservatives are evil.
Liberals like peace, republicans like war. I like peace. I must be a liberal. Liberals like air. Conservatives hate air. They pollute the air. They don't breathe the air. I don't know. You didn't think about it. You were just a liberal because that's what you were. As far as my Judaism went, that was wholly a cultural definition. There was the fact that I was born to a jewish mother. But as far as faith and practice, I say in my stand up act that my jewish rituals throughout my growing up, my coming of age stage consisted of three days total. At the age of eight days, people I barely met a week ago took a knife to me and I was circumcised almost exactly twelve years and 357 days later, I said words in a language I didn't understand. And they told me I was a man when I very much wasn't yet. And ten years after that, I stepped on a glass and I was married. And so it wasn't that I didn't believe in God. It wasn't that I had considered it and rejected God.
It was more like David Gelertner said about his students at Yale, I didn't even rise to the level of atheist. I'd just never given God's existence any thought at all. And the reason I didn't give it any thought was that I had bought into the two big liberal lies, atheist lies. One, that God is not scientific. Well, I'm scientific, so I must be an atheist.
But the fact is, and this is the point of my book, God is a more scientific belief than is the only possible alternative, not God. And the other big atheistic lie is that religion, belief in God, is the cause of every evil the world has ever known. It's the cause of war, it's the cause of bigotry. It's the cause of racism. It's the cause. And in reality, as it turns out, it's exactly the opposite. Religion is the only explanation for peace. Religion is the only hope for overcoming bigotries and racism. You know, if the universe really is, as Dawkins describes it, the random interactions of incentive materials with no, that is utterly and pitilessly indifferent, then war is the natural state of things at all times. If all there is by way of motivation is the survival of the fittest, then war is the natural state at all times. So when the supernatural takes place and we have peace, that can only come from religion. If you look at slavery, for example, slavery is the natural state of Dawkins universe. If I have the ability to oppress you and make you less able to survive and be more able to survive because I'm enjoying the fruits of your labor, then slavery is the survival of the fittest. But why did, and when did slavery end? Well, it ended in the judeo christian west with the very christian abolitionist movement. It could not have ended in any other way. How did we get civil rights in America? Well, it was the Reverend doctor Martin Luther King Junior and his call to the Christians not to abolish Christianity, but to better practice their christianity. Where did the concept of treating your enemies the Geneva conventions, come from? That's certainly not the pitiless indifference of insensate materials. And it's not a surprise that the Geneva conventions came from the judeo christian west. And so I accepted the two big lies, and I didn't disbelieve in God. I disqualified God before even giving it any thought.
[00:06:10] Speaker B: Right. I think of the famous socrates saying, the unconsidered life is hardly worth living. So for a time, you hadn't considered these things enough. Well, you went to Hollywood to pursue a career as a stand up comedian, television writer, and video producer. Tell us about that and how that changed your worldview.
[00:06:29] Speaker A: Sure. I mean, the only word that in your question that I take exception to is I didn't go out to Hollywood to pursue a career in showbiz. I already had a career in New York for several years and had accomplished and achieved just enough to know that I might be able to make it in the big leagues.
And so I went out to Hollywood to continue my career in showbiz, and it went extremely well for 35 years. I achieved from the very beginning the minimum standard that I had set for myself that we all must set for ourselves, which is, I made a living. I paid my bills, I fed my family. But beyond that, I continued to. For the first ten years that I was out there, I was a touring stand up comedian and did television shows. I performed in all 50 states as a headliner and in probably 25 different countries. But around 1990, 1991, when my son was born, I didn't want to be on the road 40 weeks a year. I wanted to be home. And so I segued and became a television writer, as you were kind enough to mention. I wrote the Arsenio hall show for a number of years. And so let this sink in. For about two and a half years, I was the voice of black America.
And then after that, I wrote a brand new show, and for the next six years, wrote a show called politically incorrect with Bill Maher. And then at a certain point, because at the beginning, you are basically a gun for hire, and you are not writing your own thoughts or your own beliefs. You're writing for the other person in their voice what they believe. But at a certain point, when you've proved that you can do it, somebody comes along, gives you some money, and says, let's see what you can do with what you want to say and do. And I started writing shows that I created. I created a two hour primetime documentary on the 1970s that was the highest rated special in Discovery Channel's history for about ten years, until it finally got beaten out by a documentary about midgets priorities, you know.
But for years and years after that, I was able to write and produce and do the, what are sometimes called passion projects, but the things that reflected my own voice. And that was probably the most joyous time for me because I wasn't just a gun for hire. I was actually adding my thoughts to the world.
[00:09:04] Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah, I can imagine. Very rewarding to be able to do that. But you have some impressive credits as well to your name now. September 11, right? 2001, a day none of us will forget, but it's also a day when things began to change for you personally. Can you comment on that?
[00:09:19] Speaker A: Yeah. And I mean, I've been tiptoeing a little bit around politics, but the reality is you can't separate the question of God's existence and politics. You know, just as we rightly recognize the existence and the influence of the religious right, we have to recognize the influence and reality of the godless left. And so at this point, on 910 the night before, I'm still a New York City born liberal jew in the entertainment industry. And along comes 911 and what I call myself, Andrew. I call myself a 913 Republican.
911 didn't surprise me. Obviously. I didn't know the date. I didn't know the specific targets. The amount of carnage sickened me. But even as a brain dead liberal back then, I still knew just enough about the world to know that the same people who were murdering the Jews of Israel for no other reason than that they were the closest infidels who were murdering Hindus in India for no other reason, that they were the closest infidels who were murdering Christians in Africa for no other reason that they were the closest infidels would, when they could figure a way across those giant oceans because we weren't so close. But of course, if they could find a way, of course they would come to get the big infidel, the great Satan. So, nine. The attacks didn't surprise me. What surprised me and began my movement to the political right was what I metaphorically called 912. That's the days, the weeks, the months and the years after 911. And the liberal response to the attacks, very much like, if less so, because the movement hadn't yet so solidified, but very much so like the way the left takes the side of the Palestinians who massacred the Jews of Israel the other day. It was the leftist response, the idea that we deserve the attacks of 911, that it was, in the words of Jeremiah Wright, President Obama's spiritual mentor, the chickens coming home to roost. And the idea that the way to prevent further attacks was to be nicer to the terrorists. This was insane to me. And so I had to begin to think if that's what liberal thought is, am I a liberal? And I had to start to think through the issues. And, Andrew, I have an expression. The first time you think is the last time you're a Democrat.
[00:11:46] Speaker B: And it's so important to start reflecting. You're right.
[00:11:48] Speaker A: Yes, sir. One by one, as I began to investigate the issues, I found out not only was I not an uppercase l liberal oath, but that true liberalism, lowercase l liberalism, classical liberalism, resides now in the republican party. What's called left is liberalism is really leftism, and once again, it is antithetical to what they believe themselves to be, or at least attempt to portray themselves as.
[00:12:18] Speaker B: Well, you've written a couple of books on those topics, but your latest one is called, and it's a whopper, magic soup, typing monkeys and horny aliens from outer space. The patently absurd, wholly unsubstantiated, and extravagantly failed atheist origin myth. How's that for a title? Well, in it, you take a cuttingly humorous approach to dismantling the atheist origin myth. Doctor Stephen Meyer, one of our favorites, calls it a rambunctious romp exposing the absurdities of what Sayyid calls the extravagantly failed atheist origin mythological with his trademark humor, say it exposes the absurdities of the materialist superstition of our age. Now, you mentioned that the impetus for the book started with Mister Richard Dawkins and his appearance on Bill Maher's show politically incorrect. How did Mister Dawkins get you going on this project?
[00:13:08] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, back, back then, I was still, I agreed with his conclusion. I too was an atheist. But it was bothersome to me. And this was in retrospect. I mean, it took me a while to recognize that it was Dawkins appearance that day that really did begin me on my quest for something more than atheism and godlessness. And it wasn't just, it wasn't just Dawkins. It was whenever Marr had on someone who claimed to be an intellectual or a scientist or comedian, but who was aggressively antagonistic towards people who believe in God. And even though I didn't believe in God at the time, I didn't think it was appropriate.
It just didn't smell right for scientists to be engaging in hyperbole and ridicule for intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens to be engaging in non intellectual, in fact, anti intellectual name calling. I mean, I noticed that even Marr, who I think is an incredibly funny and talented comedian, and yet his jokes, at the expense of the nonbelievers were devoid of wit. They were devoid of anything that would constitute a joke. There was no clever turn of a phrase.
There was no ironic twist. It was really just a cruelty in the guise of humor. And more and more, as I saw these people who ridiculed those who believed in God, I recognized that they would ridicule, but they would never refute. And when they would say, what do you believe in God? Stead, they'd say, we believe in science. But when it came time for them to then offer the science they say that they believe in, they could offer nothing other than a quick return to the ridicule of others. There is no science. And what eventually dawned on me is that atheism is not a scientific belief. In fact, it is neither scientific nor is it a belief. Simply disbelieving in one thing in no way implies that you believe in anything else. And what I came to recognize is that these atheists don't believe in God, but neither do they believe in any of the alternatives to God.
[00:15:28] Speaker B: Yeah, and I was pondering that. You do mention that in your book. You note that real science requires an alternative hypothesis be proposed. You can't just say nyet or no to something, but not give another idea.
[00:15:41] Speaker A: Indeed, real science requires an alternative hypothesis that offers a better explanation as to the means, methods, processes, mechanisms of the various phenomena that our physical reality presents. Well, not only do the atheists offer no alternative, no other means, method, mechanism or process for how the universe came into existence, how the cosmos, against all known science, went from literally the literal definition of chaos that instant after the big Bang, the literal definition of chaos, to utter precision. They offer no alternative theory as to how life came from the insentient. They say simply that they know that it didn't come from God. But then, when asked to provide an alternative, not only do they have no alternative, Andrew, they can't even conjure one. They can't even make one up.
[00:16:34] Speaker B: Yeah, which is why they love Mister Charles Darwin. Because, you know, finally, materialists had their alternative hypothesis and they've clung to it for 175 years or so, and still they champion it and cling to it, you know, in spite of the mounting evidence. Why do you think that's so? Why do they still cling to this old 19th century idea? Do they have anything better?
[00:16:57] Speaker A: Let's be very clear. Darwin is not an alternative hypothesis to any of the questions of creation and design.
Darwin doesn't even attempt to. And by his own admission, he never claimed that he did attempt to offer an explanation for how the universe first came into existence. Darwin's theory does not offer an alternative for how the cosmos fine tuned themselves. Darwin does not offer even a theory about how life came from the insentient, or how human beings came to have feelings and the metaphysical traits that we possess. Darwin's theory doesn't even attempt to address any of the big questions. It is simply an ad hoc, one time, one off theory about a very small and local question at the very, very, very end of the atheist and each and all in every way patently absurd, wholly unsubstantiated and extravagant failed origin myth. And the reason they cling to this small, ad hoc theory is because it's the only theory they have for anything in the universe at all that doesn't require pre existing intelligent life. It's the only theory they have about anything. And so if they give that up, they have nothing at all. Darwin is the only thing they have. But the thing about Darwin is that even that theory could not have been created without first a pre existing life, the first life form, which Darwin does not explain with the intelligence to know, too, and how to defend itself in the world of survival of the fittest. So even this one little tale at the end of their story requires pre existing life and pre existing intelligent life, which is exactly what the Bible specifically and id in general says.
[00:18:48] Speaker B: Yeah, it's true.
[00:18:49] Speaker A: The thing is, even then, Darwin's theory is not a very good theory. In fact, it's basically not a theory at all. Darwin's theory has no beginning. It doesn't explain how the very first life form came to be. A theory about origins that leaves out the original is not a theory about origins. Darwin's theory has no end. It does not offer even an explanation of the means, methods, mechanism, processes by which that single cell turned into the human being. So it has no beginning, it has no end, and it has nothing in the middle. Think about the mechanisms, the description that Darwin offers. It's random mutations acted upon by natural selection. Random and natural, those are meaningless terms scientifically. Imagine if you and I went to a penn and teller show, and towards the end of the teller does a rather modest illusion, and I hit you with my elbow and I say, I know how he did it. And then I tell you, well, the rabbit just randomly appeared, and then it naturally sawed itself in half. I have not provided any means, method, mechanism, process by which the trick was actually done. Darwin offers no means, method, mechanism, process for how evolutionary theory works. It's random and natural, and that's just no beginning, no end, and nothing in the middle. And that's their best theory about anything ever.
[00:20:19] Speaker B: And even he admitted that it was a mere abstract. You know, there was a bigger book to come that actually didn't come. We've just put out a book called, let's see, it's Darwin's bluff. You know, it's all about this, this bigger book that was to come to promise all this evidence of his theory that actually didn't come. Yeah, you're right. And even today, as they think, they've added things from genetics and, you know, kind of a neo darwinian synthesis, they still can't explain, you know, how. How it can do it in the time that they're giving it and how it could have the creative power even.
[00:20:50] Speaker A: Then with the time, because this is what the typing monkeys is about in my book, you know, the infinite monkey theorem. Well, how did, how did life come from the insentient? Well, if you put enough monkeys in a room with enough typewriters for enough time, anything's possible.
Well, anything's possible is not a scientific theory. In fact, it's the very opposite of a scientific theory.
If just anything's possible, then we have no laws or constants of science. The laws of science say that's not possible. The constants say that's not possible. So if just anything's possible, then. So in order to promote Darwinism, and in fact, to promote any of the, how did the universe find itself? Well, if you put enough monkeys in a room with enough typers for enough time, all of their attempts to explain anything, including Darwinism, requires the concept of not only luck, but the rejection of the concept of the laws and constants of science.
[00:21:52] Speaker B: Well, it does remind me of a quote that you included. You have a chapter on the origin of the universe, or rather, how atheists, you know, proposed the origin of the universe. And, you know, the. The discovery that the universe had a beginning was a devastating blow for materialists. Suddenly, the universe was a formed entity with a finite past. It thus demanded an adequate explanation. I did like the quote you included from the american scientist and physics professor Edward Tryon.
[00:22:18] Speaker A: And my good friend.
[00:22:19] Speaker B: And your good friend, yes, you knew it.
[00:22:21] Speaker A: And my good friend.
[00:22:22] Speaker B: Well, in a paper he wrote proposing that our universe is a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum, he writes, I humbly propose to you that the universe is simply one of those things that just happens from time to time. So have materialist scientists offered any kind of satisfactory explanation for the origin of the universe, or is that all they got.
[00:22:42] Speaker A: No, I mean, they have two theories left. The multiverse, that there are many, many, many other universes, maybe even an infinite number. Because if there's an infinite number, then how many monkeys you need doesn't matter, because you have all the monkeys. You've got infinite monkeys. You've got infinite rooms. So the fact that the odds are so stacked against this happening, our being here, is irrelevant because it would have happened at least once in infinite universe. But they have the multiverse, and they have string theory. The multiverse says that there are universes outside of our own where the laws of our physics don't apply. The string theory says there are dimensions beyond the mere four in which we humans can perceive height, width, depth, and time. Well, the notion that there are universes outside of our own where the laws of our physics don't apply and or dimensions in which we cannot perceive, is exactly what the Bible stipulates, and it's exactly what intelligent design postulates and proves. So the only remaining theories the atheists have left are exactly the things they use to disqualify God as not scientific in the first place.
[00:23:55] Speaker B: Now, it is funny how it tends to come back to what intelligent design has been saying.
[00:24:00] Speaker A: Well, the thing about.
I'm sorry, Andrew, but one more thing.
[00:24:04] Speaker B: No problem.
[00:24:04] Speaker A: The only reason that they believe or say they believe in the multiverse and string theory is not because there's any evidence for it. There is no evidence for this multiverse. There is no evidence for these additional dimensions. What they've done is they have so exhausted their search for any possible materialistic answer in this universe and in these dimensions that they've simply had to make up the existence of others, where all the materialistic answers have been hiding from them this whole time. It's not that they believe in those other things. It's that they have been so overwhelmingly disproved in this universe that they've simply made up other universes because they had to.
[00:24:49] Speaker B: Right? They're getting creative. And the more exotic the hypothesis, the weirder it gets. And of course, it doesn't satisfy Occam's razor, the simplicity factor of having the.
[00:25:01] Speaker A: Best explanation, quite the opposite, because the more complex and the more precise the things that we discover are, the less likely it is that it happened by luck. So every new discovery not only fails to disprove God's existence, but only further and further and further makes unlikely any alternative.
[00:25:23] Speaker B: Well, what some materialists claim as settled science may just be a widely accepted standard model awaiting a paradigm shift. And you do deal with the idea of settled science. In your book, we saw this with the big bang Theory, which flew in the face of conventional wisdom and even annoyed the best scientists in the world at the time, like Albert Einstein and Arthur Eddington. There's a reason doctor Stephen Meyer and many other clear thinking philosophers of science like to remind people that science is provisional. But calling the science of something settled is a great way to end the discussion. You do quote Michael Crichton, the great novelist who was also a doctor of medicine. He said that the claim of consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels. I like that you write that consensus is an utterly meaningless concept. In fact, it's not just meaningless, it's anti scientific. Can you expound on that?
[00:26:15] Speaker A: Well, sure. It's not a popularity contest. It doesn't matter how many people subscribe to something. It matters what's true and what's not true.
Every failed, every wrong hypothesis theory that has been embraced as a standard model for often centuries. The world is flat was the consensus of the world's leading scientists at the time. So the fact that there may or may not be a consensus is wholly irrelevant. In fact, it's a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum.
You may recognize its english translation, but mom, everybody else is doing it. The fact that so many people may embrace something as good or true wholly irrelevant to the argument. But on the other hand, it is the only argument that the atheists have, and it is indeed a refuge for scoundrels. It is indeed a way to cut off conversation.
And in fact, if you ever are in a discussion or debate with somebody who claims to be making a scientific argument, and they say the science is settled, or they say that there's a consensus, that's the end of the conversation, because they clearly are not actually scientists. They are propagandizers wearing the cloak of science.
[00:27:40] Speaker B: Yeah, and we've been talking lately about the myth of junk DNA here in the intelligent design community and how that myth was propagated for decades, and it's now being revealed as what it was, which is a sham, because junk DNA does have function, what they called junk DNA, the non coding regions. You know, and I'm sure you've read a little bit about this, but it is amazing, and it's a great example of how myths can be really strong in building this narrative.
[00:28:08] Speaker A: And very often they don't even believe their own myths. They're propagating them for the sake of tricking the general public. But they know better, which is why I took the title, the subtitle of my book, from the quotation that begins my book, which is from Richard Lewontin, the famed Harvard evolutionary biologist and very active militant atheist, in which he says, we take the side of science despite the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, despite its failure to keep its extravagant promises, despite the willingness of the scientific community to embrace wholly unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. Well, Andrew, materialism is just a euphemism that the political left uses to when they mean to say atheism. So had Melanton been more honest in his confession, he would have said, we militant atheists who call ourselves scientists take the side of the patently absurd, wholly unsubstantiated, extravagantly failed, because we have a prior commitment to the political cause, atheism. And that's a very important and substantial part of my book, is I introduce the concept of or I reintroduce the concept of the militant atheist. And that's very different than just a personal atheist. A personal atheist, somebody who doesn't believe in God. Atheist has probably been around, you know, forever. But militant atheism, which is the active and aggressive, evangelizing and proselytizing in order to expunge God's influence across the whole of society, is fairly new to the western world. In fact, it only first got intellectual credence when Marx published his communist manifesto. And militant atheism is not an ideology in and of itself. It's a weapon wielded by would be revolutionaries to clear the moral path to their rise to power and the ungodly way in which they then intend to rule. And so militant atheism wasn't Marxism, but it was a weapon wielded by the Marxists to clear the moral path to their rise to power in the immoral way in which they intended to lead. In the current version of militant atheism, the philosophy is woke ism. That's the revolution. It's woke ism. And militant atheism is simply a part of that revolutionary movement designed to clear the way for their. For the woke's rise to power and the ungodly way in which they then intend to rule. And since militant atheism was, was given first given credence with Marx's manifesto, it's given us Leninism, Stalinism, Hitlerism, Maoism, the fictional big brotherism, and woke ism. And they all make the same promise. If you will stop believing in God and look at us as gods, we will engineer. We will use our powers to engineer a whole new type of human being, a never before seen type of human being who will then usher in paradise. And so the marxist promise, if you reject God and trust the politburo, trust the government, trust the state, the party is God, they will use that power to engineer a human being who is wholly devoid of selfishness. They will engineer a human being who will toil to his utmost and asking nothing for himself but the bare minimum. And by doing so, they will create a workers paradise. Well, the premise the woke make is that if you reject God and embrace us as gods, we will use our powers to engineer a whole new type of human being who is wholly devoid of hate.
There will be no hate in the world that they have created. And in fact, theyve done a rather good job of creating a world without hate. The problem is love. And hate is a single concept. And if you eliminate hate, then you eliminate love as well. For example, you can't love good unless you hate evil. You can't love justice unless you hate injustice. You can't love beauty unless you hate ugliness. And so by eliminating hate, they've eliminated both love and hate, and they've left their victims, their young victims, with absolutely nothing to care about, nothing to believe in, nothing to search for, nothing to seek for. And you know what? Those things, that's what God is. Without God, you don't have anything to love, anything to know, anything to seek, anything to. Without God, you don't have science, because there are no laws or constants. I go back all the time to John Lennon's song imagine, and the promise is that without God, it'll be a peaceful paradise because there'll be nothing to kill or die for. But what they leave out of that promise is that a world with nothing to kill or die for is also a world with nothing to live for and no reason not to kill. And what we see in this current atheistic generation, the woke generation, is an epidemic of suicide, an epidemic of mass random homicide, depression, self hurting, loneliness, all these things that have been taken away from them. Because in a world with nothing to kill or die for, which is a promise, they've also left them with nothing to live for and no reason not to kill.
[00:33:40] Speaker B: Yeah, the failed promise of atheism, which actually leads me to my next question. If you're not going to cry, you're going to laugh, right? Well, how can humor and comedy be of service to us in this debate, in this scientific debate? How can it help us?
[00:33:55] Speaker A: Well, first of all, I go back to Saul Linsky's recognition that ridicule is the most powerful, most potent weapon of all. And one of the reasons I wrote this book is because, you know, there are probably 10,000 books out there making the case for a creator, including the book the case for a creator. And the problem with them is I want to be careful because I don't want to insult them, because many of them are really quite great, but they are also earnest.
When Lee Strobel makes his case for the creator, he's litigating the case, and it's important that he does and he wins the case. But I don't think it's something to those who need it the most today are likely to engage in. First of all, I think when you litigate God's existence, it's like litigating the emperor's clothes. You know, once you begin to discuss hemlines and once you thread count, you've already given the emperor's clothes too much credence. When you begin to litigate atheism, you've already given it too much credence. There's no there there, as I say. I mean, I'm going to have to clean it up for our purposes. But stuff happens is not a scientific argument. And, in fact, stuff happens by luck, by randomness, by the random interaction of incentive materials. There's no there. There's no process, there's no mechanism, there's no means.
And so I thought it was more important to expose the foolishness of atheism than to debate its finer points.
[00:35:36] Speaker B: Well, I think you've accomplished that in this book. Now, since we started talking about Richard Dawkins. You know, he was part of why you started this book process. Let's bring it back to Dawkins as we conclude here, you talk about atheism as a failed enterprise. One thing I think points to that conclusion is the recent readmission of Dawkins that hes a cultural christian. After decades of attacking organized religion and the Christian God in particular, hoping to usher in a new, enlightened, secular world, heres Dawkins admitting that he actually cherishes the fruits of a christian society. The hymns, the carols, the church buildings. Does atheism fail if its major adherents still have a desire to hold onto a christian ethos?
[00:36:18] Speaker A: Well, either atheism fails or the world fails, because you cant have the product of Judeo christian ethos. You can't have the product of Christianity. The cathedrals, the hymns, the things they like. Without Christianity, these things didn't come about through the random interaction of sentient materials. And so Dawkins is kind of your typical liberal, is that he wants the payoff without the work.
[00:36:45] Speaker B: Yeah, well, we tend to love Richard Dawkins because he puts clarity into this debate, whether he likes it or not. He's so well educated and well versed on the issues, he comes to a drastically different conclusion. But, you know, Doctor Meyer and others in this community, like how he puts things, because it allows us to frame, you know, our answers in response.
[00:37:08] Speaker A: Well, one thing, one thing that has struck me on my entire journey, you know, starting as a liberal and becoming a political conservative, is how often the other side is absolutely honest that they're lying. They will tell us point blank, like Lewontin's confession that starts my book. Or there's a similar confession from Howard Zinn, the famed radical leftist historian, who said, objectivity is undesirable.
If you think that history should serve a social purpose, if you think that it should in some way advance the causes of humanity, then you make your choices based on that. So in the God delusion, when Dawkins is talking about Darwin and what Darwin does for atheism, he said, quote, it allows us to provide. Oh, shoot, I'm going to forget the exact quotation. I'm going to have to paraphrase. But it allows us to provide a plausible answer to the curious child. That's it. It's just a clever enough sounding way to say monkeys in rooms with typewriters to placate a curious child. Dawkins knows it. Dawkins also knows that the DNA is computer code. Not it resembles computer code. It is such a sophisticated computer code that it has enough information in it, the equivalent of every book ever written and every computer program ever written, every record album combined. And think about this, Andrew. If you saw, if you were flying over a desert island and you saw one four letter word, the sand help, you would know that it was written by an intelligent life form.
Four letters. This is every word that has ever been written. And still Dawkins has to say luck, right?
[00:39:01] Speaker B: Because the alternative is unthinkable for them.
[00:39:04] Speaker A: It is utterly destructive to their worldview. And so they have a prior commitment by Lewontin's own confession, they have a prior commitment to their political worldview that takes precedence over the known science.
[00:39:18] Speaker B: Yeah. Well, Evan, thank you for all that you do to make these things known to the general public, the wider public, and especially with this book. So where can folks get a copy?
[00:39:28] Speaker A: Okay. And again, the book is called magic. Soup typing monkeys and horny aliens from outer space, the patently absurd, wholly unsubstantiated, and extravagantly failed atheist origin myth. And I gave it such a wacky title because I want people to know that this is not like any other book making the case for a creator. It's fun, it's funny, it's engaging, it's persuasive, it's powerful. But there's a guy named Jeremy Adams. I think I mentioned him just a little earlier about his book hollowed out. And he wrote a review of my book and he said often believers give Cs Lewis mere Christianity to their non believing friends. Now they will give Evans book as well. So this is a book meant to persuade those who are desperate for something to believe in. But they bought the atheist lie. And you can get my book. I think that's what you
[email protected]. dot that's probably the fastest best way to get it.
[00:40:21] Speaker B: Amazon.com okay, awesome. Well, Evan said thank you so much for your time and we'll have you back sometime.
[00:40:29] Speaker A: I look forward to it. Andrew, thank you so much for id the future.
[00:40:32] Speaker B: I'm Andrew McDermott. Thanks for watching and listening.
[00:40:37] Speaker A: Visit
[email protected] and intelligentdesign.org dot this program is Copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
