[00:00:00] Speaker A: And I think most would agree that people should be informed and the decision about design should be in their own hands.
And this is. It's really important because what you believe about the universe, where the universe came from, it affects your entire worldview.
ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
[00:00:29] Speaker B: So who gets to decide what science is and which scientific explanations for life are allowed on the table? The experts who tell us to trust the science, or can we have that responsibility?
Well, welcome to Idea the Future. I'm your host, Andrew McDermott. Today I welcome Dr. Michael Kent to the podcast to begin discussing recent discoveries that have changed the debate about design in the universe.
Dr. Kent is a fellow with the center for Science and Culture and a recently retired bioscientist from Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, a position he has held for over three decades. He also had an appointment as a staff scientist for 15 years at the Joint Bioenergy Institute. He has published more than 90 scientific papers on a variety of research topics, including chemistry, biophysics and materials science. He has been an active member of the American Physical Society, the Biophysical Society, the American Chemical Society, and the Society for Industrial Microbiology. Michael, welcome.
[00:01:31] Speaker A: Thanks for having me.
[00:01:33] Speaker B: Yeah. Now, this is your first appearance on I Do the Future, so it's great to have you on board here. Tell us what inspired you to pursue a career in science and maybe some of how you got into the research that you engaged in and the appointments you held.
[00:01:48] Speaker A: Well, I always enjoyed math and science in school, and I went to the University of Illinois to pursue a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering.
And I originally had no intention of getting an advanced degree. But near the end of my time, I realized I really enjoyed learning and I didn't want that to end. So I went to graduate school at the University of Minnesota to pursue a PhD in chemical engineering and material science. And there I focused on polymer physics studied by light scattering from solutions.
And then I had the opportunity to go overseas to do postdoctoral research at the Curie Institute and also the University of Paris, where again I studied polymer physics, but this time focusing on polymers at interfaces studied using neutron and X ray scattering techniques.
I then took the research position at Sandia National Laboratories.
And my research there has involved using the same neutron and X ray scattering methods to to study material science problems, interfaces, and also to study proteins associating with lipid membranes. And one of the highlights of the work was an important HIV protein that was hypothesized to change conformation upon binding to lipid membranes. We applied a new experimental methodology and were the first to demonstrate that conformational change.
I also worked on a new approach to discover antibodies to neutralize viruses.
And in addition, I had an appointment for 15 years with the Joint Bioenergy Institute where I worked extensively to convert biomass, especially lignans, to fuels and chemicals, by combining chemical and biological approaches.
I've always been intensely motivated by the opportunity to discover something new using science.
[00:04:16] Speaker B: Okay, yeah. And that was going to be a side question I had was what inspired you the most as you went to work every day? Was it getting to the bottom of the sciences you were studying, or was it the possibility of perhaps helping others and making important discoveries?
Or both?
[00:04:36] Speaker A: Yeah, both, I would say. But for me, I think there's a doing research, there's a lot of negative aspects or a lot of compromises or challenges and you have to really enjoy the 5% of the time where there's something really exciting.
And really, that's it for me. The moments when you realize you've discovered something that's really cool.
[00:05:05] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. A lot of discipline involved though, right? A lot of hard work.
[00:05:09] Speaker A: Oh, yeah, absolutely.
[00:05:11] Speaker B: So you've had a long standing interest in the evidence for intelligent design. Can you remember what got you into ID and why you decided to start teaching others about the evidence for design in nature?
[00:05:22] Speaker A: Sure.
I came to believe in God as a Christian at a young age. And so for most of my life I had the perspective that the universe was designed.
But growing up, there was very little discussion about science in a religious context.
And then during my university years, I found myself in a context where several of my professors were openly hostile to belief and insisted that science could explain our existence without any need for a designer.
So I began to study that question for myself to come to my own conclusions.
And the topic also overlapped with my very strong interest to discover things using science.
Fortunately, early on in my research career, I learned about scientists and intellectuals who believe that science showed evidence of an intelligent designer. It started in 1979 with a European scientist named A.E. wildersmith, and then Michael Denton and a book by Bradley Thaxton and Olson, then Philip Johnson, Michael Behe and so on.
The logic and the arguments resonated very powerfully with my own knowledge and understanding.
And it's become a big part of my life. I've been learning and speaking and discussing this subject for 30 years now.
I'm strongly motivated by the impact that it's had in my own life and my faith, so I want to share that with others.
But I'm also motivated by what I believe is false messaging that this debate is about science versus religion.
That's not true.
The bottom line for me is I want people to be knowledgeable about the most relevant scientific discoveries, and I want the philosophical decisions to be in their own hands, not made for them or imposed on them by someone else.
And I think neither of those things is generally true today.
[00:07:52] Speaker B: Hmm.
Yeah, a very noble goal there to help people with that. We do want to give people the opportunity to make decisions for themselves. And I don't think, you know, the scientific elites and the establishment scientist organizations really have that in mind. You know, it's here's science and follow the signs and listen to us. You know, it's that sort of idea.
But. But we really do need to teach that critical thinking and give people a chance to evaluate important scientific ideas.
So I appreciate the fact that you've been doing that. Now, you've noted that one reason you teach the evidence for intelligent design is that not enough scientists know about the evidence, let alone the public.
Why do you think this is the case?
[00:08:41] Speaker A: Currently, there's a commitment in the scientific community in the Western world to promote materialism and to actually fight against any sense that materialism might not be a complete description.
So the discoveries that have implications for design are either not communicated to the public or even to people who are training to be scientists, or they're communicated in a highly biased way. That kind of sweeps the implications under the rug.
And also, many religious institutions, such as churches or seminaries, don't consider this topic to be within their purview.
Science is not what they do.
So this topic is typically not included in either religious or academic institutions in our society. And I think that's why most people are not very well informed.
[00:09:52] Speaker B: Yeah, and when I. When I am with young people, you know, I teach intelligent design and other topics in a homeschool setting. And, you know, I love to tell the kids, hey, you are a scientist. You know, you were looking around since birth building conceptual models of the world around you and. And refining those models with new observations. I mean, that's what science is, you know, and so I. I'm trying to get them to understand that they can tackle the big questions and even the small questions and be scientists themselves, be investigators, you know, be critical thinkers. So fits right into what you're seeing a need for. It sounds like.
[00:10:31] Speaker A: Exactly.
[00:10:33] Speaker B: Now, as part of your work promoting intelligent design, you've developed a series of presentation videos reviewing 12 discoveries that have changed the debate about design in the universe. Today, we're going to look at the first two, focusing on information at the cosmic level. But before we get there, I want to touch on a few important concepts. Your core argument relies on the concept of informational discontinuity. Now, that's a mouthful, but I'd like you to define the term. And how does the analogy of a car help distinguish between the origin and and operation of a complex system?
[00:11:07] Speaker A: Okay, so the most accurate term is specified complexity spelled out in the work of William Dembsky and his coworkers.
But I think the term informational discontinuity is easier for most people to grasp. It comes from the recent book Cosmic Chemistry by John Lennox.
The idea is that when we observe an object or an entity that has an information content that's far, far beyond the reach of unintelligent natural processes, meaning chance plus natural law, we find that such objects always come from a mind.
So the discontinuity in information is with respect to what unintelligent natural processes can do.
So an example that I like to use is the photo is a photo of a car parked on a beach.
Everyone knows that the car was not produced by the wind or the actions of the waves rolling up and down on the beach for a long period of time. There's too much information in a car.
And we know that a car operates by unintelligent natural processes.
But those same unintelligent natural processes can't explain the origin.
So it's important to make a distinction between how it works and where it comes from.
An input of information is required in our experience. That always comes from a mind.
[00:12:45] Speaker B: Yeah. In other words, as Dembski put it in the title of one of his earlier books, no free lunch, right? When it comes to information at the heart of life, there is no free lunch. You cannot take information for granted, the origin of it, and you've got to explain that. So you need a mechanism that is capable of explaining it. Now, you quote a famous scientist, Richard Lewontin, writing that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produces material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. What does he mean here? What's he getting at? And what is this view called?
[00:13:29] Speaker A: The next part of that quote, he actually states that the commitment is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door. So he's very clear on his philosophical position.
This is the view that the material world must be complete. There can be no incompleteness, no input of information from outside the system.
It's fine for us to conclude design if the information comes from within the material realm, such as in the example of the car.
But this view forbids the possibility that information will, might come from outside the system, outside the natural realm.
It's called methodological naturalism.
[00:14:21] Speaker B: Yeah, whenever I refer to it, I, I use the acronym Amen, you know, but, but this is something that we're facing, you know, we're facing this a priori, you know, commitment, and nothing can shake that, no matter what evidence comes along. You know, if you are wedded to this, this belief. And what's so funny is you'll also get, you know, Darwinists and, and scientific atheists such as Richard Dawkins, quite happy to entertain the notion of an alien, you know, coming and seeding life.
You know, you have the directed panspermia idea, you know, that that doesn't seem to be so abhorrent as a benevolent designer or creator.
And so that's a little strange, you know, that they would be willing to entertain the notion of some alien bringing life, but, you know, not what we would consider to be an intelligent designer of the benevolent kind. You know something interesting? Well, how does a commitment to methodological naturalism jeopardize the search for scientific truth?
[00:15:31] Speaker A: Well, there's no logical reason for, to believe that the natural world, meaning the space, time, fabric, matter, energy and natural laws, is a complete description of all there is. There's no logical reason to believe that. If in fact naturalism is not a complete description and there has been information input from outside the system, then if methodological naturalism is adopted, we could never discover the truth.
No matter how strong the evidence is for informational discontinuities, that possibility is not allowed and it's an absolute commitment.
So with this principle imposed, science is no longer an unbiased search for the truth. If materialism is not a complete description, then as the evidence mounts, scientists are going to be faced, or I would say forced to believe things that appear to be impossible because the alternative is unthinkable.
And I think that's where science is at in many of the areas discussed on my website.
[00:16:49] Speaker B: So very much a limiting factor. If, as you say, scientific materialism cannot explain everything, then by nature it is limiting your ability to do so. Is that what you're saying?
[00:17:00] Speaker A: Yes, absolutely. And I think the question of how much evidence is needed to convince a person that design is real, that's a personal choice.
Many knowledgeable scientists today are convinced by the evidence that design is real.
So they don't actually hold to methodological naturalism in an absolute sense.
But for scientists who do hold to mn, no amount of evidence could ever be enough, so the data is no longer the arbiter of the question.
I just want people to understand this and to realize that it's not about science versus religion.
This is what I meant earlier when I said that I want the philosophical decisions to be in their own hands, not made for them or imposed on them by others.
[00:17:57] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. I really like your point of, of, you know, how much evidence is needed to invoke an inference to design or convince somebody that design is a real thing in nature is a personal choice, you're saying, by which you're probably meaning that, that it's not going to be the same for everybody. You know, I like to look at, at this debate as, you know, sort of in a Bayesian approach, you know, a cumulative case one way or the other, against a given hypothesis or for a given hypothesis. And when you're satisfied that you have enough evidence for a given hypothesis, then you can feel comfortable putting stock in that and, and holding to it unless otherwise convinced. You know, and that's actually what I teach people, too, when I'm talking about intelligent design.
As Barry Arrington, the attorney has recently put it, evidence is anything that makes a given proposition more probable.
And so that's a cumulative case. And you're saying that it's a personal choice when there's enough evidence to convince you.
[00:19:10] Speaker A: And if some people like Richard Dawkins or Lewontin want to adopt materialism no matter what, that's their decision. Okay, that's okay for them, but they shouldn't impose that on everyone else.
It should be a personal decision everyone makes for themselves.
[00:19:32] Speaker B: Yeah, and we have a lot of science popularizers, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, and others who use their platform not just to communicate, hey, this is my view, but to actively, you know, proselytize for an atheistic or Darwinian perspective. And I would put that down to an abuse of science, you know, an abuse of their position.
[00:19:59] Speaker A: Absolutely.
[00:20:00] Speaker B: And that's what we're pushing back against when we, when we do our teaching here.
So let's get into some of the discoveries you outline in your presentations. And remember, audience, you're likely to have heard some of these things already. But the goal is to solidify it in our minds so that we can both defend our own view first of all, but also share it with others.
So the universe has a beginning. Might sound old hat by now, but this was an absolutely earth shattering discovery. And believe it or not, it's very recent.
Parts of it were still being confirmed as little as a few decades ago.
So what scientific observations and theoretical developments proved that the universe, you know, space, time, matter, energy, had a beginning? Can you just review that for us?
[00:20:44] Speaker A: Sure, sure. This is discussed in detail in recent books by Steve Meyer, the Return of the God Hypothesis, and also in the book called God, Science and Evidence, which came out in France just about the same time.
So a Russian mathematician named Friedman showed early last century that the theory of general relativity indicated that the universe could not be static.
And shortly after this prediction, the astronomer Edmund Hubble reported that galaxies.
His observations indicated that galaxies were moving away from us in every direction, with veloc that increase in proportion to their distance from us.
So this observation was consistent with the notion that the fabric of space itself was expanding, consistent with Friedman's conclusion.
Following this, scientists recognized that if the universe had expanded from a hot, dense state, there would have been a very well defined transition when the universe had expanded and cooled to the point where protons and electrons could combine. And that transition would result in a radiation that would be released everywhere in the universe.
And a research group predicted the temperature of this background radiation. And, and they also predicted the distribution, the expected wavelength distribution.
And then two researchers at Bell Labs discovered this background radiation really by accident in 1965 and won the Nobel Prize for that discovery.
It had the exact predicted distribution and the temperature was very close to the predicted value.
In the minds of many, many scientists, the discovery of this background radiation confirmed that the universe really did begin in a hot, dense state.
And finally, if this picture is correct, then the structure of the universe that we see today, galaxies and clusters of galaxies must have formed from tiny fluctuations in the distribution of matter in this very early universe. And this motivated the development of probes to try to discover or detect those fluctuations.
And tiny fluctuations in the temperature of this background radiation, one part in 100,000 were eventually discovered by a team led by George Smooth in 1992, which also resulted in a Nobel Prize.
In addition to these observational discoveries, important theoretical developments include theorems by Stephen Hawking, Hartle and Penrose in 1973, which showed that general relativity implies that singularities existed at the very beginning.
Singularities in both matter and energy, and also in space time itself.
The singularity in space time means that the radius of curvature there was infinite curvature, a radius of curvature of zero, meaning zero volume at These singularities, the laws of physics, would break down.
And then there was another theorem by Bord, Guth and Vilenkin, which was published quite a bit later in 2003, which doesn't depend on a theory of gravity, but is based on special relativity and is geometrical in nature.
And this theorem also showed that the universe must have had a beginning. There must have been a beginning to space, time, matter and energy.
So the origin of the universe from nothing, from zero volume, seems to be an enormous input of information, an enormous informational discontinuity.
[00:25:22] Speaker B: Yeah, a whopper, to be sure.
And also the ramifications of these discoveries combined, you know, really sent ripples through, through the scientific community and into the hearts of lots of materialists who would rather have had it otherwise, but could no longer deny it.
So that was huge, definitely. But it doesn't really end there in terms of the discoveries of the last century that are bringing back the design hypothesis. Now. Some scientists found the idea of the universe having a beginning and a pretty repugnant idea. Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington, for example, said, it leaves me cold. Was Eddington the only one with this response to the evidence, or were there others?
[00:26:09] Speaker A: It's actually very interesting, and I wish more people knew the history of this. But over the years, many scientists and intellectuals have expressed a very strong reaction, negative reaction, to the notion of a beginning to the universe. And it was shocking because of the obvious worldview implications.
The astronomer Fred Hoyle coined the term Big Bang in derision. He hated the idea.
And another astronomer, Robert Jastrow, wrote a book called God and the Astronomers.
And in that book he said it was distasteful to the scientific mind.
[00:26:56] Speaker B: Ooh, I like that one.
[00:26:57] Speaker A: When he says that he's conflating science with materialism. I'm a scientist, it's not distasteful to me. So it's materialism that's really at issue.
One of the books that I mentioned earlier, the book called God, Science and Evidence, tells the story of actually many scientists in Europe, many in Russia, including Friedman and many of his students, who were actually persecuted and some even killed for pursuing work that supported the notion of a beginning to the universe. So this further shows that the discovery that there was a beginning to the universe had very profound worldview implications right from the start.
And many people reacted strongly against that.
[00:27:58] Speaker B: Yeah, Shuk. Many to the core, for sure.
Well, the next discovery you unpack in your presentation series is the fine tuning of the universe, which you describe as the most important scientific discovery of all. Time. So what does it mean for the physical laws, the fundamental constants, and the initial conditions to be fine tuned? And why are slight changes often catastrophic to the possibility of life?
[00:28:21] Speaker A: So it's just my opinion that. But I do think this is the most important scientific discovery of all time because it affects everything in the universe and it shows that the universe is not random.
It's very, very special.
And because it impacts everything that we experience, I think the implications of this discovery for design may be even more persuasive than the discovery that the universe had a beginning.
The precise value of the constants of physics allow for the formation and stability of the elements, so giving us a stable periodic table of elements.
Fine tuning of the constants is also necessary for chemistry to even be possible for electrons to be shared between atoms, for example, and also for the existence of long lived stars that are necessary to have habitable planets.
Extraordinary fine tuning in the initial conditions of the universe were required to, to end up with a universe that has the structure and the distribution of elements needed to provide even for the possibility of habitable planets.
[00:29:48] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. It really is hard to overstate the significance of the fine tuning and we all take it for granted. But it's really important to understand that life would not be without it. And the only way to explain it is to say, well, we're nothing special. Multiverse, you know, but that's unobservable and it's in the realm of science fiction.
[00:30:11] Speaker A: But I think actually many people don't even know about it. They don't even know that the universe is fine tuned.
And that's shocking, terrible.
[00:30:21] Speaker B: Which brings us back for the need for teaching this stuff. Right. And letting people know about it.
Now, if we're going to defend our position on this, I'm talking collectively as an audience, as we hear and remember these points, or we're going to share evidence for ID with a friend or someone at work who, you know, thinks it's all magic and made up. We need to know specifics. Can you provide a few striking examples of fine tuning that we can sort of just, you know, give people at work or other places we might come across these ideas?
[00:30:56] Speaker A: Sure.
Let's start with constants for the four fundamental forces.
There are four fundamental forces in nature and they all have constants that determine their relative magnitudes.
And it could easily have been the case if the strong nuclear force, so there are two in the nucleus, strong and weak force. There's the electromagnetic force and gravity. And it could easily have been the case if the Strong nuclear force constant or the electromagnetic force constant were were even slightly different, that few elements other than hydrogen would exist, or that no hydrogen would exist.
And in absence of hydrogen, there would be no water. And water is the only solvent that's capable of supporting life.
Many other examples of fine tuning of the values of these force constants have been reported.
Likewise, the masses of the proton, the neutron and the electron are highly fine tuned as well. The mass of the neutron is 0.1% heavier than the mass of the proton.
And Lewis and Barnes in their book A Fortunate Universe state that that ratio is fine tuned to one part in a thousand.
And if the mass of the neutron were less than the mass of the proton, then protons would be unstable and so atoms wouldn't form. There'd be no chemistry and so no life.
The ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron is also critical for the stability of atoms and for chemical bonding.
And furthermore, for hydrogen atoms to be stable, the mass of the electron must be less than the difference between the masses of the neutron and the proton. So these are just a few examples. There are many, many more.
There are also combinations of physical constants that are required for conditions such as for chemical bonds to be labile over the same range of temperature where water is a liquid, and for the wavelengths of light from the sun to be matched with the range of wavelengths where photosynthesis is possible.
Regarding fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe, the discovery that the universe expanded from a hot, dense state was followed by a series of discoveries indicating that astounding precision was required for that process or in that process.
And this fact is not generally known by the public.
Many people think of the Big Bang as some sort of random explosion that just happened and was sort of chaotic.
But in fact, it's the greatest example of fine tuning that we've ever discovered.
So to speak about that, we could begin with the microwave background radiation mentioned earlier.
There are at least three remarkable characteristics of that radiation that have been discovered. First, in all directions, the cosmic microwave background radiation has the same temperature.
Yet radiation detected in opposite directions of the sky comes from regions that are so far apart that light travel time between them exceeds the age of the universe.
So if they were never in causal contact, how could they be at the same temperature?
That's called the horizon problem.
Second, the cosmic microwave background has lacks distortions that would be present if the geometry of the universe were slightly curved.
However, for the universe to have a geometry that's nearly flat, as indicated by the Background radiation, the energy density of the universe must initially have been very, very close to the critical value.
And that's estimated to be about one part in 10 to the 60th power.
This is called the flatness problem.
The flatness of the universe is important because it allows for the formation of galaxies and stars.
Third, analysis of the development of the universe from the time of the release of the background radiation to the present, indicates that tiny fluctuations in that radiation, measured as one part in 100,000 I mentioned earlier, are actually fine tuned for the development of stable long lived galaxies.
According to an analysis by Tegmark and Ries, if those fluctuations were a factor of 10 larger or smaller, it's very likely that there would be few, if any environments in the universe suitable for life.
So the face value interpretation of these remarkable characteristics of the background radiation is that the initial conditions of the universe were incredibly precise, just as if they were designed.
An idea called inflation was subsequently proposed as a way to explain these fine tuned initial conditions naturally and thereby avoid a philosophical or theoretical conclusion. However, inflationary models themselves require enormous fine tuning in the energy conditions that turn the rapid expansion on and off, and then also in the precise timing of those events.
So inflationary cosmology doesn't avoid the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe.
Finally, the greatest example of fine tuning is in the entropy of the initial state of the universe.
The second law of thermodynamics indicates that the entropy of the universe always increases with time. So if you imagine going backward in time to the beginning, the entropy must have been much, much lower than at present.
And the highest entropy density of any object in the universe is a black hole.
You might wonder, if the entire mass of the universe were contained in a very tiny volume, why didn't it become a black hole?
Well, one reason that it wasn't a black hole is because that initial state was nearly perfectly uniform in density.
Gravity only operates on density differences.
Roger Penrose compared the entropy density of the initial state of the universe to that of a black hole to estimate how finely tuned that initial condition must have been.
And in his words, he says, the universe is certainly fine tuned in the sense that the initial state of the universe was extraordinarily special, at least as precise as one part in 10 to the power 10 to the power 100, 123.
So the fine tuning of the universe seems to be an enormous informational discontinuity, an enormous input of information.
So with these two discoveries that the universe had a beginning and the extraordinary fine Tuning of the constants and the initial conditions, it's now unavoidable that something really amazing has to be true.
Some people propose that the universe is a computer program, implying a designer, but a designer from within the physical realm somewhere, somewhere outside of our universe.
Personally, I don't believe that I'm a computer program, so that's not convincing to me.
The other alternative is an input of information from outside the natural realm by a mind that most people would call God.
[00:40:11] Speaker B: Wow. A lot to chew on in that review of the fine tuning. And what's nice is, you know, audience can go back and check out your presentation video, you know, and kind of review all this, because it is a lot to take in. But once you can nail down, you know, hey, have you heard about this? Have you heard about this? You know, then it's. It's great to be able to share that with others as well as defend why you hold that conclusion, you know, of design in nature.
Well, when it comes to deciding what science is and what explanations are allowed on the table, you want people to be able to make that important decision themselves, not made for them or imposed on them by mainstream science.
Remind us as we close here, why that's so important. Why do people need to take that responsibility for themselves?
[00:41:00] Speaker A: The problem, as I see it, is that most people don't learn about the science and then decide for themselves if the evidence warrants the conclusion of design.
Instead, most people just choose an authority to follow, I think.
And many people choose to accept what they think is the consensus view of the scientific establishment.
In that case, the very important decision about design is made for them by others who believe that no amount of evidence could ever be enough to infer design.
So I'm strongly against that. And I just want people to be informed and for the philosophical decisions to be in their own hands.
Most of my scientific colleagues are not committed atheists, and I think most would agree that people should be informed and the decision about design should be in their own hands.
And this is. It's really important because what you believe about the universe, where the universe came from, it affects your entire worldview.
[00:42:15] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. Pretty much everything is downstream from those big questions. Well, Mike, in our next episode together, we're going to continue discussing the discoveries that change the debate over design in the universe that you've assembled today. We looked at informational discontinuities at the cosmic level. Next, we'll zoom right into information at the cellular level. So thanks for taking the time to unpack all this with us today.
[00:42:40] Speaker A: My pleasure. Thanks.
[00:42:42] Speaker B: We'll include a link to Dr. Kent's series of presentation videos in the show Notes for this episode. And speaking of videos, don't forget you can watch this and many other interviews in video format now on our new YouTube channel. It's great for sharing as well, so subscribe to the channel and share the content you find there. YouTube.com d the future YouTube.com d the future well, for the podcast, I'm Andrew McDermott. Thanks again for joining us.
[00:43:13] Speaker A: Visit
[email protected] and intelligent design.org this program is copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
