[00:00:04] Speaker A: ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: Sometimes the most frightening things in life are not what we wake from, but what we wake to. Welcome, dear listeners and viewers, to ID the Future. I'm your host, Andrew McDermott. On this episode, Bio takes us on a spine tingling journey through the shadows of science to shed light on some of the scariest abuses of science happening right now in our world. Wesley is chair and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism, where he hosts a podcast called Humanize. He is author of more than 14 books on human dignity, liberty and equality, the most recent being an updated and revised edition of Culture of Death The Age of Do Harm Medicine. Wesley has been recognized as one of America's premier public intellectuals on bioethics by National Journal, and was honored by the Human Life Foundation as a great defender of life for his work against suicide and euthanasia. He has appeared on more than a thousand TV and radio programs, including national shows like ABC Nightline, Good Morning America, Larry King Live, CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, and Fox News Network. His writing has appeared in Newsweek, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Telegraph, Western Journal of Medicine, the American Journal of Bioethics, and elsewhere. And when he finds the time, he also writes regularly at Humanize Today, Evolutionnews.org and National Review. Wesley, welcome to ID the Future.
[00:01:43] Speaker A: Thanks very much. Good to talk to you.
[00:01:45] Speaker B: Well, today we have the unfortunate task of revealing some of the ugliest and most frightening things being done in the name of science right now. We're talking about misguided experiments, research and policymaking, and about misleading and even malevolent rebranding, normalizing and weaponizing of the scientific enterprise done in the name of progress and equity and even emergency. Our journey today is merely a brief survey of these many fearful developments, and we may indeed revisit some of them on future episodes. And listeners and viewers, though you may feel dread or disgust or downright bone chilling terror at what you hear today, take heart. For even at this late dark hour, there's still time to save yourself and many others from the specter of scientific doom that looms large.
Well, Wesley, let's start with the topic of one of your books, a Culture of death that has emerged in recent decades. A modern bioethics movement has influenced many doctors to betray their Hippocratic oath and compromise on issues in medical ethics like euthanasia, organ harvesting, and patients rights. Listeners and viewers may recall the controversy over Terry Shiavo nearly 20 years ago. You recently wrote that Terry's case was a culture of death tipping point and that in the last two decades we can trace a profound lessening in our commitment to the value of human life. A recent example is a critically ill British teenager currently embroiled not only in fighting for her life medically, but in fighting the national Health Service in Britain and the courts over plans to stop her treatment and proceed with end of life care. She wants to go to Canada for an experimental therapy, which she believes might help her rare genetic condition. But her fate is in the court's hands. Wesley, can you speak to the current state of things and this culture of death and where things are headed?
[00:03:41] Speaker A: Yeah, sure. You know, it's very telling that doctors no longer take the Hippocratic oath. And they don't take the Hippocratic oath precisely because under modern sensibilities, things like abortion and euthanasia are acceptable. And I would point out that that poor British girl that you described has since died. She was never allowed to pursue the kind of care that she wanted for herself and that her parents wanted for herself. And that brings up the issue of do harm medicine. Often today, things that used to be considered an unequivocal harm are now thought of as a proper medical treatment, things like assisted suicide. We see advocacy for declining wanted treatment in what's called futile care or inappropriate care, where doctors say no to wanted, and I emphasize wanted life sustaining treatment, like that case in Britain. You also see advocacy for things such as health care rationing. Meanwhile, doctors who wish to practice traditional Hippocratic medicine, or perhaps follow things like Catholic healthcare moral maxims, are being forced to abandon those in favor of the current we might call unethical standards of care, such as what's going on with children and transgenderism. So we have, I think, a crisis in healthcare that is destroying the people's faith in organized medicine.
[00:05:10] Speaker B: Okay. And we need only look at our cultural cousins, Canada, to see how, as you put it, they've fallen off the euthanasia moral cliff. You've written that based on what's going on there, people with disabling conditions and those who love them should be very scared. Can you give us some examples of what's happening in Canada and what might be brought here?
[00:05:30] Speaker A: Sure. In Canada, a court ruling, supreme Court ruling in Canada ruled that euthanasia was a constitutional requirement, and the parliament passed a law that said euthanasia would be permissible. And we're talking about lethal injection euthanasia for someone whose death is reasonably foreseeable. Well, that, of course, was a wide enough category to drive a hearse through, but it didn't stop there. Now, in Canada, after only a few years, people with disabilities can be given the lethal jab. People with chronic illnesses can be given the lethal jab. The frail elderly can be given the lethal jab. We've even seen cases of elderly people who are lonely being given the lethal jab. And starting next year, the mentally ill will be allowed to have lethal injection euthanasia. And by the way, sometimes these killings and it is killing, it's homicide. It's not unlawful homicide. So it's not murder, but it is homicide. These are now conjoined with organ harvesting. In fact, in Ontario, if you qualify for euthanasia, the organ procurement organization that coordinates getting organ donations, will contact you before you're killed and ask for your liver. That's pretty awful. And that's another example of do harm medicine, because these patients, who are suicidal by definition, are not given suicide prevention. And so you get to the place where a patient can be thought of as objectified, that is, that their organs are considered more important than their lives.
[00:07:01] Speaker B: Wow. Yeah. You can clearly see where this is heading and how the erosion of human life and human exceptionalism is progressing.
[00:07:10] Speaker A: And it also violates human exceptionalism because it violates our duties to people. Human exceptionalism is both about the unique dignity of human life, but also our moral responsibilities to each other, particularly the vulnerable and the ill. So this violates human exceptionalism both coming and going, right?
[00:07:30] Speaker B: Well, the modern scientific laboratory might look very appealing white walls, great new equipment, and a far cry from the attic or the hut that is in Victor Frankenstein and his monster story. But that doesn't mean that mad science or dangerous biotechnology experiments aren't being done. And you report on them quite regularly. There's something called synthetic embryos or embryo models that are opening the door to experimentation on the living unborn. Can you tell us a little bit more about what you found there?
[00:08:05] Speaker A: Well, scientists are learning to create what they call embryolike organisms, for want of a better term, from stem cells. And they have been able to develop these embryolike entities for a period of time. They haven't tried to create a pregnancy in a woman or have a birth from them. But what you're looking at is the destruction of natural procreation.
And if these synthetic, quote unquote, entities are, in fact human organisms, that means they're human beings. And this would just be the latest in a long line now of efforts in the biotech community and with promotion by bioethicists to allow what some of us call fetal farming. That is, eventually, once an artificial womb is allowed, we might end up experimenting on living fetuses, using them for organs and so forth. So there's a whole array of problems here. There's also genetic engineering going on of human embryos. And in fact, three, I believe, children in China that were genetically engineered have been born.
And there is no attempt right now to have any real enforceable regulations. Everything is based on voluntary guidelines. Well, voluntary guidelines aren't worth the paper they're written on, because if somebody decides they would rather stretch that line, there's nothing that can be done about it, except perhaps pure scorn. But I don't think you'd have much pure scorn because the Chinese scientist who genetically engineered those babies was thrown in jail by China for a few years, as if China, being a tyranny, didn't know what he was up to. But now he's already out and being named as the head of a laboratory so that he can continue to conduct his work. And there was some American involvement in his work as well. In fact, China has become the nation where medical ethics and scientific ethics go to die, since if there are certain experiments you can't do here, you might be able to get them done in China.
[00:10:20] Speaker B: Wow. So in our regulations and recommendations that are being handed down from on high, they're depending on a morality in these considerations that may not be present anymore.
[00:10:32] Speaker A: Yeah, that's a problem. But here's a bigger problem. We're not even talking about it. I don't believe that. President Trump once mentioned biotechnology and the need to engage the international community in trying to create, enforceable know. When I saw Oppenheimer, it really struck me that scientist who helped create the atomic bomb understood immediately the need for regulation of atomic energy, both for peaceful purposes and nonproliferation of weapons. That was wise because that was the most powerful technology the world had ever seen to that point. But I submit that biotechnology, the ability to change any life form and any cell through genetic engineering and other technologies that are coming down the line, are even more powerful than atomic energy. But unlike then, we are not attempting to create nonproliferation or enforceable limits on the uses of our new scientific prowess. So this is very concerning. I mean, you think about the COVID epidemic, pandemic. What if and we don't know whether that was an engineered virus or not, but what if a terrorist was able to bioengineer a bird flu to make it even more deadly than might otherwise be the case? You could end up with a worldwide catastrophe, and yet nothing is being done to limit the experiments or to make sure that the wrong people don't get their hands on the technology.
[00:12:10] Speaker B: Indeed. Yeah. And it just feels to me like life in this technological age for all of us is moving so fast. We got so much stimuli. We got so many things that are concerning and crises that we don't know up from down, and it's hard to focus on the most important ones. But as you're saying, biotech is definitely one of them. And part of it is because it moves faster than our moral considerations often do.
[00:12:35] Speaker A: And I also think that there's a problem with people saying, well, what can I do? I think there's a complacency that is set in, or perhaps a nihilistic sense of hopelessness, because the institutions that supposedly serve society now usually don't. They are imposing value systems on the rest of us that most of us disagree with and pay no attention to. What people on the street, people who they are supposed to be the protectors of, think about or care about, right.
[00:13:08] Speaker B: Gives new meaning to them as public organizations. Well, you say you've personally witnessed scientists who have blatantly misled legislators and the public on biotech issues such as cloning adult stem cells and the nature of embryos. A few years ago, you reported that the 14 day restriction on embryo destructive research had been removed. You called that a con from the beginning.
[00:13:31] Speaker A: Tell us why it was a con. Yeah, it was a con. C-O-N. So during the embryonic stem cell debate starting around 2001, 2002, through the Bush administration, as those who are old enough will recall, there was a great human cry about the relatively minor funding restrictions that George W. Bush imposed on the field. And I testified a lot in state legislatures around the country. I saw scientists blatantly lie about adult stem cells, how they were supposedly not capable of working to help create treatments about the potential for embryonic stem cells, the idea people will be out of their wheelchairs, this kind of thing.
It was truly disheartening to watch. And legislatures and legislators, these are not scientists. These are people, especially at the state level. They might be life insurance salespeople, or they might be cattle ranchers or they might be entrepreneurs and so forth. They didn't know what to do or how to react when these supposedly learned scientists came in. And yet look what happened when George W. Bush said that he believed scientists had the capacity to create pluripotent stem cells, meaning stem cells that can become any kind of tissue ethically.
He was scoffed at. And yet before his term ended, that actually happened because George Bush put the focus on the importance of the human embryo in terms of ethics and morality. These are nascent human beings. And we now have what's called induced pluripotent stem cells, where scientists can actually take your skin cell, change them into stem cells, and then those stem cells can be used in much the same way that scientists had hoped for embryonic stem cells. And postscript 20 years after that great debate. Adult stem cells are the ones that are providing treatments in the clinic and that are actually having the greater hope. There's not one clinically approved use of embryonic stem cells in medicine. And yet back in 2002, 2003, we were promised they were the gold standard. And those who said that, no, there's a better way and a more ethical way were branded anti science. What a pejorative. Science requires dialogue and science requires ethics. And in the great embryonic stem cell debate, the people who opposed embryonic stem cell funding and human cloning research had the right call.
[00:16:09] Speaker B: Wow. Disturbing. Well, other frightening frontiers in biotech include lab grown eggs and sperm, artificial wombs, human genome editing, three person baby IVF, and more. Is there any way to slow or stop the march towards these things? I know you said ethics, but how do we get people to engage?
[00:16:28] Speaker A: It's really hard. First, there's a lot of money at stake in these industries, particularly in the IVF industry and procreation industry. Billions of dollars are involved here, and they put a lot of pressure on legislators and Congress. And so forth to have no meaningful regulations. Secondly, you're always going to have the people saying but this could help me. And we all have natural empathy. But even though some of these procedures could lead to very unnatural outcomes, we seem very hesitant to say, you know what, we really do care that you're suffering like this and that you feel bad, but there have to be certain lines drawn for the benefit of the general welfare. We seem to have lost that capacity. And finally, a lot of people just don't think they can understand these technologies. Which is part of the reason I write about it a lot, because I do have a talent for taking complicated and seemingly technical issues and translating them into what I call real people's language. So it is important for people to know about this and to engage in this. But it's very hard in a time when the institutions of our society pay very little attention to what the people think.
[00:17:50] Speaker B: Yeah, and what you produce is such a great resource for that reason, just to communicate these things to the public. Well, now as commitment to the value of human life is going down, the push to recognize the rights of nonhuman things continues. In an effort to move closer to the end goal for animal rights activists, which is outlawing all human ownership of animals, they want to give voting rights to animals. Now, it sounds crazy and otherworldly, but it's happening. And in other news, the nature rights movement wants to grant rights to wait for it oceans. When does the radicalism there stop? And what else is being done to erode human thriving? With radical environmentalism I've come to believe.
[00:18:35] Speaker A: That there is no stopping of the radicalism. Once one objective has been achieved, it's on to the next.
Let's talk first about animal rights. Animal rights is not the same thing as animal welfare, although sometimes the media uses them interchangeably. Animal rights is an ideology that says human beings and animals are equal. My book A Rat as a Pig, as a Dog, as a Boy gets into that. And that title is something I stole from Ingrid Newkirk, who's the head of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals PETA, because she very infamously said a rat is a pig, as a dog, as a no. Basically she said there's no difference. We're all mammals or we can all suffer. And the animal rights movement ideology that if an organism or an animal can experience pain, then they're equal. And that means that anything you do to an animal should be judged as if the same thing had been done to a human being. Meaning that to the animal rights activist, cattle ranching is slavery literally. And they don't mean that metaphorically, they mean it literally. Animal welfare, on the other hand, is different. Animal welfare understands human exceptionalism and that part of human duties is to treat animals humanely so that we have a right to make proper use of animals, for example, as food, in medical experiments done properly and so forth. But that when we do so engage, we do so humanely, and that we never gratuitously cause suffering in an animal. And of course, the standards of animal welfare can change as we learn more about the animals and their capacities to experience the world. But animal rights versus animal welfare is important. The animal rights activist disdains animal welfare because animal welfare agrees that human beings have higher moral worth than animals. It gets so bad in animal rights that PETA once ran what was called the Holocaust on your plate campaign for several years in which they would literally state that the Auschwitz type concentration death camp was the same thing as animal husbandry. And they made a specific equation between gassing, Jewish inmates and slaughterhouses. And they made a very explicit equation between a lampshade made from human skin and your leather jacket. So it's a very pernicious anti human movement, animal rights, whereas animal welfare is the epitome of human exceptionalism. As to nature rights, this is a very radical environmentalism that wishes to create human type rights for aspects of nature, including geological features. In fact, six rivers in the world and two glaciers have been granted human type rights. And the idea here is that if anyone thinks that the rights, quote unquote, of nature are being interfered with, they can bring lawsuits to stop that interference, which means human enterprise is going to ground to a halt. Some of the other aspects of the nature rights movement are, as you mentioned, ocean rights, where there was actually a presentation at the United Nations recently to grant rights to the ocean, which of course would prevent a lot of shipping, a lot of fishing and this kind of thing. We've seen the river rights, which has succeeded to a limited degree. And the idea, for example, in Santa Monica, where the Santa Monica City Council declared the rights of nature in that city when there's no nature left in that city. So it's an ideological statement that humans are just another animal in the forest. And I think the idea behind that is if we believe we're just one animal among many, that we will treat nature more gently and so forth. But I suspect the opposite is true. If we consider ourselves just another animal, that's precisely how we'll act.
[00:22:39] Speaker B: Yeah, it certainly fits within the evolutionary narrative. And you wonder, well, where does all this thinking come from? Thinking often comes from teaching, and that teaching is happening in universities. Yes, something that was whispered in a dusty lecture hall eventually makes its way to the public square over time. And we're seeing that in lots of different areas right now. But you make another point and give some other good advice about where this is coming from if you want to see what is going so badly wrong in society. You say, read the professional and intellectual journals because once the craziness receives the imprimatur of the intellectual class, it's often imposed from on high as public policy, even if most people think it's ridiculous. So why does this so often turn out to be true?
[00:23:27] Speaker A: Well, because public policy is basically a top down enterprise, not exclusively, but quite often. And the problem here is that many of the scientific and medical journals, the bioethics journals, are as much ideological tracks as they are scientific studies. So the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, will often have in every issue, a very woke ideological advocacy section along with their normal scientific studies. You see the same thing in The Lancet, you see the same thing in science journals such as Science and Nature. In fact, Science actually has published an opinion piece supporting Nature rights. So that also leads to a loss of confidence among the people in the high intellectual class, or the Ivory Towers, it's sometimes called, because the value system that those intellectuals have embraced do not reflect the common sense and the, I think, substantial understandings of the people of the west. And this leads to the potential for policies that most people don't want being imposed on them, which is a form of authoritarianism.
[00:24:46] Speaker B: Right? Well, as we see, frightening abuse of signs isn't always a matter of death. Sometimes it impacts our quality of life. The misnomer gender affirming care is an example. It's scary how quickly so many hospitals, clinics and public health organizations have fully embraced this in the name of helping young people become their authentic selves. Yet the rush to enable these life altering procedures and changes in these experiencing gender dysphoria results in lifelong patients and reduced quality of life in the long run and a total disregard of biology and human wellness. What are you seeing on the front lines of the gender ideology crusade?
[00:25:27] Speaker A: Yeah, I've been very concerned about this, particularly when it comes to children. You have, I think, a social panic ongoing right now where especially girls are being subjected to the idea that if they're unhappy or if they have difficulties in life, that the reason is that they're actually a different gender than the sex they were born. And this is civilization destroying stuff, this whole gender ideology issue generally because I believe that it's based entirely on feelings and the subjective. And if everything is based on feelings and the subjective which are transitory, of course, which are not objectively demonstrable, of course, then society itself is threatened because a house built on sand cannot stand. And so when I feel this and when gender ideologues basically are saying to twelve and 13 year old children, oh, you feel you're the other gender, let's put you on puberty blockers. Let's make sure that people call you a new name and use different pronouns than you're given sex when you were born, let's even in some cases surgically mutilate you there have been 14 1516 year old girls have had mastectomies. In rare occasions, even genital surgeries to change, lop off a penis and turn it into a vagina, or do away with a girl's genitals and create a false penis. And even facial reconstruction surgeries during teenage years when people are still developing these can cause tremendous harm, including puberty blockers, which have been found to potentially interfere with bone growth, have potential neurological issues, and so forth. And what's really disgusting, in my view, is that journals like the New England Journal of Medicine and others will write about gender affirming care. And that's the term they use, as if it's not controversial, as if it's settled science. And yet other countries health authorities are going in the absolute opposite direction. They're really hitting the brakes on this. In Great Britain. They've hit the brakes. They've closed their major gender clinic. They have published opinion pieces that often this gender dysphoria is transitory. That's the word used.
They have stopped having just this idea of immediate affirmation. So has Norway. So has Sweden. So has Denmark. So has Finland. These are not Bible Belt countries. These are socially progressive countries. But they're looking at the data and they're saying, oh, my gosh, the studies demonstrating the value of this are very meager, but the harm is very real. And so rather than pursue the normal and proper scientific approach, which is, okay, let's bring all of this together in public, let's have a discussion. Let's have a debate. The Biden administration, people like the AAP, the American Association of Pediatrics, and others have pretended that what's going on in Europe doesn't exist. But it does. And the time has come to put a halt to this, to this changing of children that could be irrevocable and have a long and deep discussion about how to best help these children who are suffering great emotional anguish. But cutting off a girl's breast isn't the answer.
[00:28:59] Speaker B: No.
Well, before we close today, just a few more unnerving developments that I wanted to run by you first. You recently write about the push from evidence based medicine to science based medicine. Now sounds innocuous. Evidence based medicine refers to medical decisions guided by the published data. But that approach is now being criticized because the best evidence is often in the eye of the beholder. What is science based medicine, and who gets to decide what evidence is best?
[00:29:29] Speaker A: Yeah, this is a new approach, which I think is actually a destruction of the scientific method, because what that science based medicine implies is that there is some central authority that can tell you what the science is, what the science has found. And often science has different analyses. People look at it differently. There are different facts that come in. So the best way to find public policy is to bring in all the evidence and hash it out, not to have the best approach imposed from on high during the COVID pandemic. We saw a lot of this where let's say the public health authorities decided as an example that shutdowns are the only answer. And then when you had people like Jay Bhattacharya and others who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration questioning whether shutdowns were actually best, particularly for children, keeping children out of school, they were attacked by the powers that be. They were attacked by the media, they were castigated by their own universities when what they were engaging in was proper scientific questioning and heterodox hypotheses. That is how science is supposed to work. Having a one size fits all or some central command structure that decides what is the proper approach and what is the proper evidence is not science. That's ideology.
[00:30:51] Speaker B: And it would seem that shifting to a science based medicine approach will only quicken and embolden those that are engaged in censorship in the name of science.
[00:31:00] Speaker A: That's the idea. And calling it science based is to try to eradicate dissent.
And that cannot be allowed to stand. We can't allow the lexicon to be created in such a way that those who disagree with the orthodoxies of the day are somehow stifled. Because if that happens, then it's something like eugenics where you just have an ideology running rampant and causing tremendous harm. Science needs dissent to be science and to go further and to continually test hypotheses and even settled theories. And that's why we can't allow this kind of science based approach as opposed to evidence based approach to prevail.
[00:31:44] Speaker B: Here, here. Well, finally there's the frightening reality that science and medical journals have become highly ideological on many of the most important and contentious societal issues of the day. In a recent article you warned that severing the discourse from true scientific objectivity could mean legitimate research gets stifled, articles get refused by politicized editors and even that scientists will self censor. Oh, I better not put that in. Oh, I better reword this or redo this. And we're already seeing this. You go on to relate the very recent story of a climate scientist who acknowledged that he pulled his punches in a climate change article in order to be published in the prestigious journal Nature. And in his article telling his story, Patrick T. Brown writes in theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value. But it isn't so, is it?
[00:32:43] Speaker A: Well, increasingly that seems to be the case. And I was really proud of that scientist who believes in climate change but who said, you know, the recent fires, I believe it was in California were not just climate change cause there were other factors involved. But he didn't put that in that kind of hedging, that kind of nuance because he believed that he and his co author's piece would not have been published otherwise. And that's really frightening. And the Editor of Nature. Denied it. But clearly there's the impression out there among scientific researchers that this is true. And of course, you also have to follow the money and issues like climate change. All the money is going to go to people finding that climate change is worse and a lot less money going to people who might be questioning current orthodoxies. You see that in gender ideology, which we discussed earlier, when the New England Journal of Medicine publishes article after article in favor of gender ideology without even mentioning dissents, it's pretty clear that if somebody provided a really good critique of gender ideology. Well sourced, well backed up with citations. It's unlikely that the editors would publish it because they might be afraid of the human cry that would come once they did that. And we've seen case after case of scientific journals publishing heterodox views and then having the orcs, if you will, attack them and try to get them fired as a consequence of breaking orthodoxy. In fact, at the Discovery Institute, when Steve Meyer years ago published a piece, a peer reviewed piece in I believe it was the Smithsonian, richard Sternberg was assaulted, not physically, but in his career for having had the temerity. To actually publish a dissenting view to the point that even the General Accounting Office said he was being discriminated against in employment and eventually he was forced to quit his work in Washington and eventually did join the Discovery Institute. But that shows you what can happen when ideology trumps science in these journals, right?
[00:34:57] Speaker B: And it's still happening across the board.
[00:34:59] Speaker A: Yes. And I think it's getting worse.
[00:35:01] Speaker B: Yeah. We do want listeners and viewers to sleep tonight, so we'd better conclude our journey into the dark, uglier recesses of science for now. There are plenty of other examples of abuses going on in science right now. And as I said, it would be a delight to have you back to discuss more. If you can't wait, though, you're hereby invited to listen to the Humanize Podcast. It's hosted by Wesley J. Smith. You can find it at Show That's Humanize Today, Slash Show, or find it on any of the major podcasting platforms. Wesley, you do a wonderful job with the podcast and your writing and advocacy, and I'm proud to have you on ID of the Future today.
[00:35:42] Speaker A: Thanks very much. And Humanize isn't so much about what I think, but about what my guests think. And I have guests that both agree with me and disagree with me. I've had people like Jay Bhattacharya of the Great Barrington Declaration. I've had the novelist Dean Kunz talking about human exceptionalism in his fiction. I've had the animal rights advocate Gary Francion. I've had the transhumanist zoltanistvan. I've had the Chinese human rights activists and so forth. So I hope people will listen, because it isn't about me. It's about important ideas and principles.
[00:36:18] Speaker B: Right? Yeah. And that's at slash show. Well, this has been an eerie journey through the realms of shadowy science. We're glad you joined us for it. And as the midnight hour approaches, may a spirit of wisdom and discernment guide you in your evaluation of science. Stay close to evolutionnews.org and humanize today. They are sharp and powerful weapons to use against scientism and scientific abuse. I'll close with the words of a certain cinematic renegade. If you're listening to this, you are the Resistance. I'm Andrew McDermott for Idthefuture. Thanks for listening.
[00:36:57] Speaker A: Visit
[email protected] and intelligentdesign.org. This program is copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
