[00:00:04] Speaker A: Id the future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: Welcome to id the future. I'm Andrew McDermott. Today we're sharing with you a conversation between Doctor Jonathan Wells and Hank Hanegraath on the Hank Unplugged podcast.
This interview originally aired in 2018, shortly after Doctor Wells published Zombie Science, his highly anticipated follow up to icons of evolution.
With the recent passing of Doctor Wells, Hank and his team re released the interview, along with some words of tribute to this icon of the intelligent design movement. Enjoy this hour long conversation unpacking more icons of evolution and why the zombie science that comes out of a darwinian paradigm is a threat to science and our culture.
[00:00:55] Speaker C: Well, welcome to another edition of the.
[00:00:57] Speaker A: Hank Unplugged podcast, a podcast that is.
[00:01:01] Speaker C: Committed to bringing the most interesting, informative, and inspirational people directly to your earbuds.
In today's edition of the Hank Unplug podcast, I want to begin by saying something that you've probably heard me say before, which is that other than the scriptures, Darwin's magnum opus, obviously titled the origin of species by means of natural selection, might well be the most significant literary work in the annals of recorded history.
And that's a mouthful.
Sir Julian Huxley actually called the evolutionary dogma. It spawned the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.
Harvard scientist Ernst Meyer said that the darwinian revolution of 1859 was perhaps the most fundamental of all intellectual revolutions in the entire history of mankind.
And in like fashion, biologist Michael Denton once said that the far reaching effects of the darwinian dogma ignited, well, an intellectual revolution more significant than the Copernican and the newtonian revolutions combined.
Indeed, neither the 20th nor the 21st centuries can be comprehended apart from the intellectual revolution that theory has produced.
So, in light of the unprecedented impact of darwinian dogma, it would be reasonable to expect it to be, well, solidly rooted in truth.
In reality, however, evolution is rooted, well, it's rooted in metaphysical contentions and mythological tales.
Denton actually summed up that sentiment profoundly when he termed the darwinian theory of evolution the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century.
The far reaching consequences of this cosmogenic myth can be felt in almost every field, including all areas of academia and every professional domain.
The most significant consequence, however, is that it undermines the very foundation of Christianity.
If indeed evolution is reflective of the laws of science, well, then Genesis must be reflective of the flaws of scripture. And if the foundation of Christianity is flawed, the superstructure is destined to fall.
However, as you'll hear on today's encore presentation of the Hank Unplug podcast it is not Christianity, but the great cosmogenic myth of the evolutionary naturalistic paradigm whose foundations are crumbling.
A short while ago, I received the sad news that the great iconoclast, the great destroyer of the icons of evolution, Jonathan Wells, had departed this life on his 82nd birthday.
His death induced me to go back and listen to my last interview with him on Hank Unplugged, this podcast devoted to his last book, a book titled Zombie Science, which, incidentally, was a follow up to the classic volume titled Icons of Evolution.
So as I listened, I couldn't help but think that in our discussion, Jonathan Wells provides one of the most concise and compelling refutations of the evolutionary paradigm that I've ever listened to. And on a personal note, listening to this podcast that originated back in 2017 was a sobering experience.
He reminded me that I did this podcast interview not long after being diagnosed with stage four mental cell lymphoma.
Now, seven years later, my lymphoma is gone, and so is doctor Wells.
He's absent from the body.
But you and I, we're still here.
We're here to make a difference for time and for eternity.
And I'm also reminded of something I say over and over again. Only one life soon twill be passed.
Only what's done for Christ will last.
Well, with two earned doctorates, Jonathan Wells was not only a brilliant scientific mind, but he was also incredibly brave in the face of the brazen attacks that await anyone who dares disagree with the so called scientific consensus.
Of course I'm talking about the scientific consensus on evolution.
His work brought to light the errors of the evolutionary paradigm. It exposed over and over again the false icons that for decades have been used as the argument.
[00:07:26] Speaker A: Icons that have.
[00:07:27] Speaker C: Been passed off as settled science to unsuspecting young minds.
Well, just as Jonathan Wells was an iconoclastic force when it came to evolution, he was like one lies an icon of the intelligent design movement. I have so long appreciated his work as well as our conversations, conversations that span a good number of years.
His influence will long outlast his life on earth.
And I should also say, his heavenly reward will undoubtedly reflect his efforts, efforts that did so much to reveal the truth and beauty that can be found in studying the resplendent handiwork of the creator of the cosmos.
I sincerely hope you enjoyed this encore presentation of zombie science, as I did. And again, I just listened through it and I thought, wow, this is one of the not only earliest, but one of the best Hank unplugged podcasts ever. And again, best because Doctor Jonathan Wells was interesting, informative, and inspirational. And by the way, if you enjoy the podcast, please subscribe.
Rate review it helps a lot. And do remember that Doctor Jonathan Wells works. His books are available on the
[email protected] dot. You can also write me at PO Box 8500, Charlotte, North Carolina. Zip code 28 two seven one.
And now enjoy the podcast.
[00:09:23] Speaker A: Then welcome to another edition of Hank Unplugged, the podcast that's bringing to you some of the most interesting, inspirational, informative people on the planet. And in this case, some of the funniest. One of the funniest. I mean, this is going to be a podcast that has some lines in it that are side slapping hilarious. In fact, the book that I want to talk a little bit about during this podcast is a book titled Zombie more icons of Evolution. And the COVID itself is side slapping funny. But a lot of other things we're going to talk about. My podcast today is with Jonathan Wells. He's senior fellow with the Discovery Institute center for Science and Culture in Seattle. He holds a PhD in molecular and cell biology from the University of California, Berkeley, as well as a PhD in religious studies from Yale University. His books include icons of evolution, one of my all time favorite books. I think this book is must reading for every single person on the planet, and certainly for every single Christian on the planet. The politically incorrect guide to darwinism and intelligent design, which came out in 2006, the myth of Junk DNA. But this book, this book, I read this book last night. I had perused the book before. I'd never really read the book before. Zombie More Icons of Evolution is a book that if you do not have this book, you've got to get this book. And while you're at it, buy a bunch of copies you can give away. I've often said how one views their origins ultimately determine how they live their life. If you think that you're a function of random chance, that you arose from the primordial slime, you're going to live your life by a different standard than if, you know, you're created, created by an intelligent designer, an uncaused first cause. So I am just delighted, Jonathan Wells, to have you on the podcast. I've been waiting for this moment for a long time, and we're finally doing it.
[00:11:30] Speaker D: I'm delighted to be here. Hank.
[00:11:33] Speaker A: You've got so many great lines in this book, and I want to talk about it during the podcast. But one of the funniest things about this book, quite frankly, and this is quintessential, Jonathan Wells, is that you have a diagram in the book for how to make a cover out of a brown paper bag so that if you're reading the book in polite spaces, no one will know what you're reading.
[00:12:00] Speaker D: Yes, because reading it on a college campus, for example, could actually be dangerous to someone's career.
[00:12:07] Speaker A: I mean, that's in itself. It's funny. On the one hand, the brown paper bag story and the diagram, but on the other, it's kind of sad, because if you want to be tenured in the academic universities around the world, you better not be reading or distributing this kind of information.
[00:12:26] Speaker D: That's right. It is sad.
[00:12:29] Speaker A: You titled the book Zombie Science, and you have an icon on the COVID of the book. And obviously, no one can see the COVID of the book unless they go to the web, and they ought to go to the web and see this. You can see
[email protected] dot. It's worth going to equip.org comma just to see the icon. Explain the icon for us. I mean, obviously the icon has become the argument. In this case, you've taken the icon and exposed the icon for just how bad an argument it really is.
[00:13:00] Speaker D: Well, the COVID shows an icon that's been around for a long time of an ape like, stooped, over ape like creature gradually morphing into a modern human being.
And what's different about the book cover, of course, is that the modern human being turns out to be a zombie holding a a page from Darwin's origin of species.
[00:13:26] Speaker A: And that is the whole idea behind the book zombie. More icons of evolution. We'll talk about those in a little bit, but tell us what zombie science is. I think you're explaining it as materialistic science masquerading as empirical science.
[00:13:44] Speaker D: Yes, that's exactly true. For me, good science is empirical science. That is, we formulate a hypothesis and we test it against the evidence. If it fits the evidence, we keep it. If it doesn't, we throw it away or modify it. That's empirical science, and that's how science should be done.
But there are other meanings of the word science. One is consensus science, which is just the majority opinion of current practicing scientists, which often turns out to be wrong if you look back at the history of science.
But a third and more disturbing definition is the search for natural explanations for everything.
Now, it's okay to search for natural explanations, but if you insist that everything has a materialistic or naturalistic explanation, it's basically applied materialistic philosophy rather than empirical science.
And by zombie science, I mean the practice of telling materialistic stories even though they're empirically dead, they don't fit the evidence.
Telling those stories and making it look as though they're empirical science. So they're empirically dead, but they keep stalking the halls of science and education.
[00:15:07] Speaker A: So for empirical science, the highest value is the truth. For a materialistic science, the highest value.
And I think this is kind of a clever turn of phrase as well. In the context in which it's used, the highest value becomes survival of the fittest. So you've got in the book, and I think it's important, maybe you can expand on this a little bit. You've already touched on it, but you got zombie science, materialistic science masquerading as empirical science. You have empirical science that's testing, that is consistent with the evidence. You have consensus science, which you just described, and then you have technological science, advances in medicine and technology and the like. So there are different kinds of sciences. And I suppose that begs the question, isn't it really important for us, when we use terms, that we define the terms because it really has to do not necessarily with the word, but the meaning you pour into the word.
[00:16:08] Speaker D: Absolutely. So, for example, the march, the so called March for science back in April, was really a march for consensus science, not a march for empirical science.
It was a march to pressure lawmakers and taxpayers into supporting the current consensus on things like climate change and evolution.
But empirical science is quite different. It's much more fluid.
It changes as the evidence accumulates.
And it's not the same as consensus science or materialistic science.
[00:16:49] Speaker A: When you talk about things like evolution, you're talking about something that is a dogma so entrenched, particularly in the american psyche, that if you go against this, I mean, you are going against the weight of all academia. The same thing is true with respect to climate change. I know, as president of the Christian Research Institute, I'm oftentimes told by people inside and outside the organization, let's lay off the whole issue of climate change, because the moment you even begin to. To question consensus science, you're seen as someone that, well, is an obscurantist that's lost your brain somewhere in the narthex of a church.
[00:17:36] Speaker D: That's true. Now, you brought up evolution. Actually, I brought up evolution.
Like the word science, the word evolution can have many meanings.
So it can mean simply change over time. And I've never met anyone who denies that things change over time.
It can mean minor changes within existing species. Again, I don't know anyone who denies that. We can see it in our own families.
It can mean that there's a history to life on earth. So there used to be things around that aren't with us anymore.
And some things, like human beings are here that weren't always here.
So in those senses, evolution is not controversial.
But Charles Darwin proposed an explanation for all those changes that was purely materialistic. He denied that there was any design.
He said it's all chance.
And his theory actually won out, not because of evidence, but because it fit the materialistic temper of the times.
In that sense, evolution is controversial and in fact it's a zombie science.
[00:18:53] Speaker A: You point out that Darwin's theory was that microevolution plus time equals macroevolution, and that that is a hypothesis that is starving for evidence. And the evidence wasn't good in Darwin's time and certainly is even worse today.
[00:19:12] Speaker D: That's quite true. Darwin had actually no evidence for his theory that macroevolution, that is, large scale changes, come from small changes given enough time. He had no evidence for natural selection.
He was completely wrong about the nature of heredity.
He didn't know anything about genetics. And basically it was materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science.
[00:19:43] Speaker A: You've been accused, particularly when you wrote icons of evolution, of being like a petulant child that's throwing a tantrum, that's cherry picking earnest errors out of these tomes that are credible in and of themselves. But you're finding this little nit picky mistake that's made analogous to a cartoon having superman with a green cape as opposed to a red cape on, and you've made a cottage industry out of these nitpicky errors and therefore you shouldn't be taken seriously. How do you respond to that?
[00:20:21] Speaker D: Well, if the things that I point out were textbook errors, they would have been corrected. And there are many examples in the history of textbook writing of errors that have been corrected. But in the case of the icons of evolution, the evidence for Darwin's theory, they're not corrected, they're still there. In fact, I wrote icons in 2000 and now all of those icons are still with us and more.
[00:20:51] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. The title of your book, Zombie Science, more icons of evolution. So it's not as though they've jettisoned the icons that are demonstrably false. They just kept shuffling forth more icons out of the dustbins of people's imaginations.
I want to talk about some of those icons again. The book icons of evolution. It was, I mean, I always promoting books. I love books.
It was one of my all time favorites. Very, very readable. And this one is in the exact same category. Very, very readable.
But when you get through with this book, you're in the state of saying, how could anyone in the world buy into evolution in the 21st century? It might have been one thing to buy into it in 19th century science or in the 20th century, but how can anyone buy this particular outdated, completely false premise? And obviously, we're talking about evolution in the sense of macroevolution. How in the world can people buy into this theory in the 21st century?
[00:22:04] Speaker D: Well, it seems to me it's a commitment to materialism that amounts to a religion and it's a belief that refuses to consider the evidence. And so when someone attacks the evidence for evolution, for darwinian evolution, it's as though they're attacking a religion.
And the people who prop up that religion respond quite nastily sometimes.
[00:22:36] Speaker A: Yeah. So, I mean, this is the difficulty, and I know you've already touched on this, but I think we have to really knock this one out of the park. Anytime you talk about evolution, and again, we're talking about evolution in the sense of blind materialistic processes. Anytime you talk about this in a pejorative sense, in a negative sense, people will say, look, youve got to be out of touch with reality. Prominent politicians, presidents, pundits, people in all walks of life who are smart people by this theory, lock, stock and barrel. How in the world can you swim against that tide?
[00:23:23] Speaker D: Well, it's quite a challenge because, as you say, there are powerful forces and powerful people lined up on the side of unguided evolution.
But in science, we're supposed to look at the evidence. And so I encourage people to look at the evidence for themselves and question the claims of these people who are insisting that unguided evolution is a fact.
It just doesn't fit the evidence.
[00:23:53] Speaker A: So talk about the price you pay when you take the position that you've taken. Obviously, you've written some books, they're very, very popular. But what is the price you pay or someone like you pays for swimming upstream?
[00:24:07] Speaker D: Well, in my case, I've been fortunate enough to be affiliated with the Discovery Institute in Seattle. So I have a job.
In many cases, sad to say, people have lost their jobs for doing what I do.
If they don't lose their jobs, they suffer grievously at their job.
They're stripped of funding, they lose the respect of their colleagues, they're shunned, they may have no students or research facilities available to them.
And whether it's theme or me, there's always a steady drumbeat of insult and ridicule.
[00:24:50] Speaker A: So you have the very difficult task, if you stand with the Jonathan Wells, you have the difficult position of standing against the very people who control the research funding, who control what gets into scientific journals, faculty appointments. There's a resistance to all who dare challenge the paradigm. And I think that even beyond that, and maybe you can comment on this for us, it's the old adage that paradigms only allow us to see what paradigms allow us to see, which is to say that we don't think as much about our paradigms as we think with our paradigms. So once we're in the water, the macro evolutionary waters, it's very, very difficult to see clearly or to see that. Yeah, I mean, you're in this water and you can't think outside the lens of this particular paradigm.
[00:25:57] Speaker D: Yes. And the guy who first pointed that out, at least clearly, was Thomas Kuhn back in the 1960s, who wrote a book called the structure of Scientific Revolutions.
And he pointed out that paradigms exert a very strong influence over how people think and how they behave, and they're very difficult to change. And it's not always a matter of evidence. It's more a matter of politics and money and power.
[00:26:28] Speaker A: And I think your humor goes a long ways to getting people to consider the absurdity of their paradigms. I want to talk about some of the examples of zombie science. The icon, as I said, becomes the argument. And this is certainly the case when it comes to Darwin's tree of life, which was not only uprooted by the cambrian explosion, but I've written about this as well. The fossil record shows no evidence of the origin of species by means of common descent and natural selection. And yet you see Darwin's tree of life everywhere. In fact, you see it on the COVID of your book. You have the zombie carrying a copy of Darwin's Tree of Life.
[00:27:07] Speaker D: Yes, it's actually the only illustration in Darwin's origin of species.
And it's a branching tree diagram which starts with a single species at the bottom and then branches over time into more and more species as we approach the modern day.
And it's a very powerful image.
And you're right. Decamerian explosion, which is the sudden appearance of all the major, or most of the major types of animals about 550 million years ago.
That posed a problem for Darwin. He knew about it, but he sort of said, well, we just don't have enough fossils yet. But the more fossils people have collected, the clearer it has become that this branching tree pattern doesn't fit the fossil record.
But people who have this in their minds, who have this paradigm, look at the fossil record and they see a tree. And it's very hard to dislodge that illusion no matter how much evidence we accumulate.
[00:28:15] Speaker A: I mean, it really works for the uninitiated. I mean, if you don't really know the arguments and you don't know the backstory, the icons are so powerful. Another one is the ape to man icon. And you did double duty on the COVID of the book because you got Darwin's tree of life there, the icon, and then you have the ape to man icon. But what did Darwin say? At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races. I memorized that a long, long time ago and written about that over the years. But the hell of it, as it were, is that in Darwin's ranking, and a lot of people argue about this, but if you read the descent of man, there's no argument whatsoever. And what I'm quoting is from dissent. In Darwin's ranking, the Caucasian is on the top, then down at the bottom, dangling at the edge of humanity. You have what he wrote about as the negro or the australian, and they're just a hair's breadth away from the most human, like apes. So here you have Darwin very clearly taking the whole idea, the evolutionary idea, to its logical extension with the crowning jewels of God's creation. Humankind.
[00:29:48] Speaker D: Absolutely. And I think that was an underwriting purpose of his theory, was to make humans little more than highly evolved animals. So there's nothing special about human beings. Certainly we're not created in the image of God for Darwin.
[00:30:06] Speaker A: So you have people like Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, who tries to absolve his hero Darwin from this kind of racism.
But this is pure and simple racism. I mean, and when you extend it to humanity, you're saying that you've got to get rid of the unfit, because if the unfit survive indefinitely, they're going to infect the fit with their unfit genes and then evolution is not going to be possible. So you have a whole eugenics movement that's closely linked, inextricably linked, I should say, to the evolutionary paradigm.
[00:30:46] Speaker D: That's true. And, you know, we spoke a few minutes ago about the scientific consensus 100 years ago, the scientific consensus in America, the scientific establishment, was very pro eugenics and thousands of people were forcibly sterilized because of it.
So there's one example of the consensus being overturned eventually. Thank goodness.
[00:31:11] Speaker A: Thank goodness. Yeah.
You've brought this up in your books, but I think this is one of the icons that we ought to talk about for a few minutes at least. That's Darwinius Massili. I love the name Massilli. Also nicknamed Ida, the closest thing to a direct ancestor, the Mona Lisa, the 8th wonder of the world. The hyperbole that was used with respect to Ida or Darwinius Massilli was quite over the top. But, you know, you have these icons trotted out and then after a while, you don't hear about them anymore. They sort of fade into the recesses of our memory. And just about the time we're starting to think maybe this was all a big hoax to start with, another icon shuffles out quite right.
[00:32:00] Speaker D: Well, that's zombie science for you. There's a story to be told. The story is that we evolved by unguided natural processes from earlier forms of life.
And so periodically, someone trots out a new fossil, a newly discovered fossil of what they think was that ancestor. And that's what happened with Ida. It turned out to be actually a lemur, not anything like a human being at all.
But that's zombie science at work.
[00:32:33] Speaker A: Zombie science. And part of the narrative with respect to zombie science is the hippo like animals evolving into whales. And this actually had its genesis with Darwin himself. At the time, people thought it was kind of funny, but in his time, it was bears evolving into whales. But as you point out in your book, I mean, the idea of a hippo like animal evolving a whale, it's a whale of a tail. That's the bottom line.
[00:33:01] Speaker D: It is. Again, it's a story in search of examples. And so examples were found.
Darwin didn't have any. He had an imaginary story of a bear swimming with its mouth open and eventually evolving into a whale.
But in the 1980s, scientists began finding fossils of creatures that they called walking whales that they said were intermediate between land animals and whales.
Well, the walking whales, it turns out, are a lot like sea otters or sea lions.
You know, they walked on land, they spent a lot of time in the water, probably, but they were a far cry from whales. Whales live their entire lives in the water, and they're actually very different from sea lions and sea otters. And so in the fossil record, the zombie science storytellers want it to look like there's a smooth transition from these land animals to fully aquatic whales. When in fact, there's a sharp break between them, but the story goes on anyway.
[00:34:18] Speaker A: Yeah, so talk about that a little bit more, because I think this bears elaboration.
How in the world can a hippo like animal evolve into a whale? When you start to think about sonar and blowholes and skin, that's impermeable to water and these kinds of things.
Enormous, enormous leap of faith once you get into the minutiae.
[00:34:46] Speaker D: Well, it is an enormous leap of faith. And again, it's the story that takes highest priority.
In fact, we don't know a mechanism that could do the sort of things that it would take to turn a land animal into a whale. It'd be enormously difficult.
Rather than provide the mechanisms, people just repeat the story every now and then. They'll come up with some gene, some stretch of DNA that they think might be involved. But in every case, the ones that they have come up with turned out to be basically irrelevant.
[00:35:25] Speaker A: So it seems to me that the narrative that christians have faith and scientists have facts is really misguided in the sense that what scientists really have, at least scientists that are promoting this narrative, is they've got stories that's true.
[00:35:44] Speaker D: I mean, their faith. I've heard people say it takes more faith to believe in unguided evolution than to believe in God because the evidence is so against it.
And it's true. It takes a large measure of faith.
I heard a friend say a few years ago, a christian friend, that faith is belief in things for which we have no evidence.
And I disagreed with her. I said, I don't think that's true.
I think faith is, as the classic theological tradition says, faith is belief in things unseen. But that doesn't mean we don't have evidence.
My faith in God is based on what I consider to be evidence.
The evolutionists belief in unguided macroevolution is more based on a faith in materialism than it is on evidence.
[00:36:43] Speaker A: And the fact that something can't be seen obviously doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I mean, there's lots of clear evidence for that. You can't see the law of gravity, for example.
[00:36:51] Speaker D: Right?
[00:36:52] Speaker A: Archaeopteryx. Talk about archaeopteryx. You know, Archaeopteryx for a long time was supposed to be a missing link, turns out to be a full fledged bird. And there are a lot of evolutionists. Stephen Jay Gould is no longer with us. But, I mean, he actually conceded that before he died.
[00:37:10] Speaker D: Yes. Archaeopteryx was discovered right around the time of Darwin and seemed to provide a missing link between reptiles and birds.
And it's no longer considered that by people who study it, but it's still portrayed that way in many textbooks.
So the icon is still out there. It's just too good to give up. But in fact, however birds evolved, if they evolved, it was not from Archaeopteryx.
[00:37:43] Speaker A: And the very notion. I mean, think about this and maybe you can expand on it a little bit. But, I mean, you think about the notion of a scale, a reptilian scale, becoming a feather.
Unless you start thinking about the intricacies of feathers, you might buy the story. But the moment you start thinking about how a feather is constructed, you can't possibly imagine a scale becoming a feather.
[00:38:15] Speaker D: That's true. Again, it takes quite a large leap of faith to think that a scale could turn into a feather which is radically different from a scale.
[00:38:24] Speaker A: And then you have Darwin's finches.
Was Darwin actually inspired by the finches to formulate the theory of evolution, as the narrative of the story goes? Or is this just another story?
[00:38:41] Speaker D: Well, the textbooks still portray it that way. They say Darwin, when Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands in the 1830s, he was inspired by these finches to formulate his theory. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. He actually paid very little attention to the finches. They weren't named Darwin's finches until a century later, and only then, because they appeared to be a good example of an ancient ancestor, a bird arriving from the mainland, say, evolving by divergence into separate species to populate the islands.
So it's called. The technical term is adaptive radiation.
So the original ancestors supposedly split into these different species because of different foods or environmental pressures or something like that. And so that's the standard view of Darwin's finches.
In the 1970s, some very courageous biologists camped out on one of the islands and there was a severe drought that killed about 85% of the birds on that island.
And the birds that survived had, on average, slightly larger beaks, so they could crack the harder seeds that were left.
And at the time, the biologists predicted that with a drought every 20 years, this could produce a new species in less than two centuries.
The problem is, when the rains came back, everything went back to normal. There was no net evolution. So this sort of one line extrapolation into a new species never happened.
[00:40:34] Speaker A: Why has the war on intelligent design become so ferocious? I mean, it seems like it was fairly tepid at the time that people were spouting in the christian world this idea of young earth creationism. It didn't seem like the war was as ferocious as it was when the intelligent design movement came along and said, look, all we're trying to do is follow the truth wherever it leads.
[00:41:03] Speaker D: Well, you're quite right. When I studied the 19th century darwinian controversies at Yale, I was surprised to find that the age of the earth actually played very little role back then, because most christians had accepted the idea that the first few chapters of Genesis had some metaphorical phrases in them and that actually there was a long, long period of time involved.
So the crux of the matter back then and now, I would say, is design.
Darwin abolished design.
And I. That's what produced the most controversy back in the 19th century. And that's the heart of the matter now. The intelligent design movement is threatening the very foundation of Darwin's materialistic philosophy.
[00:42:00] Speaker A: I mean, is it going to fall like the Berlin Wall, in your estimation?
[00:42:04] Speaker D: I think it will.
I had hoped it would be happening now, but it hasn't happened yet. But I predict in zombie science that the naturalistic science that masquerades as empirical science is so full of holes right now, empirically, that it will eventually collapse. And probably the mainstream media will not see it coming, as they didn't see the wall collapse coming, but it's going to collapse because it just can't persist in the face of all this counter evidence.
[00:42:43] Speaker A: But there's a lot of counter evidence against intelligent design, at least supposed counterevidence. I mean, you take your eyes, for example, you read the literature and you find out that the eye is a case of ill designed optics and therefore proof against the whole notion of intelligent design.
So the narrative continues, not only in terms of forwarding darwinian evolution, but also in trying to somehow or other cast aspersions on the whole idea of intelligent design. And again, the eye is a classic case in point. You hear it over and over again ad nauseam, ad infinitum. The eye is ill designed.
If you're going to design an eye properly, it wouldn't design it the way our eyes are designed.
[00:43:32] Speaker D: Quite right. I'm glad you brought that up. That's actually one of the additional icons that I discussed in zombie science in, I guess it was the 1970s.
Richard Dawkins argued that the eye is badly designed because the cells that detect light in our eyes point away from the light or the back of the eye.
And he argued that no intelligent designer would ever do it that way. And others have followed suit.
Textbook writer Kenneth Miller and various other darwinian biologists have likewise argued that the eye is badly designed. Well, it turns out that in the human eye, in fact, the eyes of all vertebrates, animals with backbones, the light sensing cells, have very high metabolic requirements. They need a lot of blood and oxygen and nutrients.
And so there's a thick layer of blood cells, blood vessels, rather, at the back of the eye that nourish these light sensing cells.
If the eye were constructed the way Dawkins and other Darwinists say it should be, the blood would be between the light and the light sensing cells. And since blood is opaque, we would be blind.
So it's just utter nonsense to say that the eye is badly designed. And what's more interesting to me is that the, the evidence of the good design of the eye had all been published before Dawkins and the others started their argument.
They just didn't bother to check the scientific literature.
But it's long been known that the eye functions as well as it does because it is so well designed.
[00:45:22] Speaker A: And you think about design with respect to the eye, and kind of an interesting question that I'm not sure exactly how to cash out. But if you think about common descent on the one hand, and then you think about metamorphosis on the other, you have a caterpillar becoming a butterfly, and so its constituent parts devolve into a mysterious molecular mixture, and out of that comes the butterfly. And the butterfly has a field of vision and color acuity that exceeds even that of a human being. So you have this metamorphosis from the caterpillar that can only distinguish between black and white, and then you have the butterfly that has, well, eyes that have a sophistication that either matches or exceeds that of a human being.
[00:46:10] Speaker D: Well, it is amazing. Metamorphosis is a remarkable phenomenon, one that totally lacks a darwinian explanation, where the caterpillar basically dissolves into this pool of cells and chemicals, and from that emerges a fully grown butterfly. Nobody understands that.
And it happens constantly all around us, and it just.
Darwinism has no explanation for it.
[00:46:46] Speaker A: You have another icon, and I'm particularly interested in this one. It's the first time I read it when I was reading your book yesterday. And that is the darwinian medicine icon.
I don't know if it's a called that exactly in the book, but that's what I recall, the darwinian medicine. Again, I'm particularly interested in this because it has to do with cancer, and I happen to have cancer. But how did antibiotic resistance and cancer surface an icon of evolution, or icons of evolution when in reality they're properly cast as icons of materialistic storytelling.
[00:47:21] Speaker D: That's a good question. Antibiotic resistance occurs when bacteria are exposed to something that poisons them, and a few of the bacterial cells can resist the poison and they survive and divide.
And it's a medical problem, obviously, because if I take an antibiotic to kill the bacteria infecting me, I want it to kill them all and not just produce antibiotic resistance. Bacteria that's been used as an icon of evolution because it shows survival of the fittest, but it's really an icon of microevolution.
The species doesn't change if the antibiotic is removed. Typically the bacteria go back to the way they were.
Tuberculosis bacteria remain tuberculosis bacteria no matter what. And so it's not really an icon of the origin of species or anything like that.
Cancer has recently been used as an icon of evolution because cancer cells divide autonomously. You know, they escape the controls of the body and sort of live their own lives, and they undergo mutations and various changes. And some people have pointed this out as an icon of evolution, which is kind of ironic in a sense.
The icon for a theory is something that actually destroys life rather than produces it.
It's sort of the opposite of what a good darwinian theory would need.
But putting all these things together has been something called darwinian medicine.
And according to the advocates of darwinian medicine, since nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, nothing in medicine makes sense except in the light of evolution either.
Problem is, I don't agree with the first statement. I think most things in life do make sense without any need for referring to evolution.
But in the case of medicine, evolutionary biology has actually contributed nothing.
Its advocates really just use it as a way of telling evolutionary stories for how we got here and why the body gets sick and things like that, it hasnt actually contributed anything to improving health or overcoming disease. It's just a storytelling enterprise, and the.
[00:50:11] Speaker A: Storytelling goes on and on and on. I mean, you sort of alluded to this, but there's a sleight of hand or a sleight of mind that's used because people in the evolutionary community will be talking about microevolution in place of macroevolution, or as though the microevolution somehow or other had morphed into macroevolution.
[00:50:35] Speaker D: Yes, which was actually Darwin's idea that microevolution does eventually become macroevolution.
But nobody's ever seen that. It's still just a hypothesis. And when evolutionists conflate the two words. They're actually just confusing the issue. It's like confusing empirical science and naturalistic science. They're two very different things.
And one way to win an argument is it's called equivocation. You change the meaning of a word in the middle of the argument, and it sounds like you've proven something when you haven't.
[00:51:14] Speaker A: So what's behind all of this? I mean, we're having this discussion. You can get into the weeds, but what's behind all of this? You have these hypotheses in empirical science. You're supposed to test it, and if the hypothesis continues to fail, you abandon it and you get on another bandwagon. But in this case, nobody wants to get off this bandwagon. And it seems to me that it has to do with we cannot allow any room, any place for an intelligent designer. We cannot allow room for God. And that's where the virulence comes in.
[00:51:52] Speaker D: Yes, I quite agree.
20 years ago, Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin wrote with remarkable clarity about this. He said, we scientists have a prior commitment to materialism, and that commitment is absolute because we cannot afford to let a divine foot in the door.
[00:52:16] Speaker A: Another icon that we ought to touch on. Your book is just full of great examples. Homology and vertebrate limbs, similarities in limb bones used as evidence that vertebrates, animals with backbones, as you described it earlier on, that they were descended from a common ancestor. But as you point out in the book, homologous structures are defined as those structures that descended from a common ancestor. And therefore, at the end of the day, what you have is a circular argument.
[00:52:50] Speaker D: Yes, way back when, in Darwin's time, homology referred to similarity of structure and position. So the bones in our hands, for example, have similar structure and position to the bones in a porpoise flipper or a bird's wing and so on.
But in order for that to work for a theory of evolution, we have to have a mechanism that produces homology.
The bones are not in the egg, the fertilized egg, they develop later.
So two mechanisms were proposed eventually. One was similar developmental pathways.
So homologous features, according to that idea, come from the same place in the egg, the same cells in the egg in the different vertebrates.
Another theory was that the homologous structures were produced by similar genes, similar stretches of DNA.
Well, both of those ideas turn out not to fit the evidence. So we don't have a mechanism for producing homologies.
So to sort of, you know, shortcut things, darwin's followers redefined homology to mean similarity due to common ancestry.
Well, okay, but once you do that, you can't say that homology is evidence for common ancestry, for evolution, because it's like saying, okay, a is homologous to bjdeheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh why is a homologous to b? Because a and b come from a common ancestor.
Okay, then therefore, a and b prove that they come from a common ancestor. You're just sort of repeating yourself. That's the circular argument.
[00:54:49] Speaker A: You also wrote about a book title, was the myth of junk DNA. What is junk DNA? What's the significance?
[00:54:57] Speaker D: Well, James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in the early 1950s.
The idea was that DNA carries the genes that were, you know, being talked about for decades before that, and this produces the features of the organism. Well, DNA works, as Watson and Crick pointed out, by encoding proteins.
Yet by 1970, it was clear that most of our DNA does not code for protein. In fact, about 98% of it does not.
So Richard Dawkins and others proposed that this means that the non protein coding DNA is like a parasite piece of junk that's just sort of hitched a ride on the good DNA in the course of evolution. So it's put there, you know, by molecular accidents and really does nothing except ride along.
And this was used as an argument for evolution, this 98% of non protein coding DNA. In fact, in the 2006 book by Francis Collins, the Language of God, this junk DNA was part of his main argument for why we evolved by unguided mechanisms.
[00:56:28] Speaker A: Hopefully, he's let that go.
[00:56:30] Speaker D: He did. He did. To his credit, a year later or so, he said, I no longer use the term because he knew very well by that time that most of that so called junk DNA is not junk at all. Although it does not code for proteins, it performs other functions in the cell.
And so there's a huge battle going on right now between scientists who study the DNA and conclude that most of it is functional and other scientists who come from an evolutionary perspective who argue that, no, most of it has to be junk because evolutionary theory tells us so and so. It's a very interesting battle between evidence based science and zombie science.
[00:57:17] Speaker A: So get into a little bit of the psychology here. I know it was a little speculative, but I often wonder about people like Francis Collins. Francis Collins, I mean, he's obviously very bright, and he seems very credible to me on a lot of different levels. And, you know, he, as you just pointed out, to his credit, he buys into a theory, throws away the theory. When the theory is demonstrably false, it seems to me that someone in his position would have enough information, enough erudition, to throughout the whole thing, the whole evolutionary paradigm, and give up on theistic evolution.
[00:57:57] Speaker D: Well, I don't know Francis Collins. I've never met him.
And so I hesitate to speculate on his motives. But I do know people like him who, in spite of the fact that they see the evidential problems, they don't give up on the idea.
And again, I'm not referring to Francis Collins himself, but in some other cases, people I know really don't want to be disrespected by their colleagues.
They have good positions in academia. They enjoy the respect of their colleagues, all of whom are strongly pro Darwin.
And to question the idea of evolution seriously for them would be a professional sacrifice. And a lot of them don't want to make it.
[00:58:51] Speaker A: When you say pro Darwin, it seems to me that Darwin was not only an overt racist by any standards, but certainly by today's standards. But he was an overt sexist. I mean, he said that a woman can never attain to the acuity of a man in various skills. I mean, he was an overt sexist. I mean, you read descent of man and you don't ever want to burn that book. You want to make sure people read that book. And yet, somehow or other, he still lauded. We talk about ripping down statues. I mean, his bust ought to be broken.
[00:59:29] Speaker D: Well, you won't get an argument from me on that.
I think Darwin is highly overrated.
The only thing I could say in his defense is that in his time, those feelings of racism and sexism were very widespread. And so he was just sort of part of the. The stream.
But his modern followers tried to distance him and his theory from those ideas.
And the truth is, I don't think it's so easy to do that. The ideas are there.
The theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest certainly is friendly to racism if it doesn't posit positively advocated.
And so I just. I think he's unnecessarily idolized. And I think it's because of this commitment to materialism.
[01:00:25] Speaker A: Yeah. So you're just talking about DNA. And I want to get back to that subject. You know, some of the silly manifestations of DNA centrism, you know, the gay gene, the God gene, the gambling gene.
[01:00:36] Speaker D: Yes, it's paradoxical. I mean, that the same people who want to say that most of our DNA is junk also like to argue that DNA contains the secret of life and controls our anatomy, physiology and even behavior.
And it's simply not true. I mean, there has long been evidence that there's a lot more going on in our bodies than what's programmed in the DNA, which is one reason why we can mutate the DNA of an organism, and we've done it in fruit flies and mice and worms and fish. We can mutate the DNA as much as we like, and it never produces a new species.
You can mutate a fruit fly embryo and all you can get is a normal fruit fly if the embryo overcomes the mutations.
Or you can get a defective fruit fly, or you can get a dead fruit fly, and that's it.
[01:01:38] Speaker A: That is hilarious. I got to tell you, when I was reading your book, it's just hilarious. No matter what you do to the DNA of a fruit fly embryo, you only have three possible outcomes. The normal fruit fly, the defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horse fly, much less a horse.
[01:01:57] Speaker D: That's right. That's right. Not even a different species of fruit fly.
[01:02:00] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. Vestigial organs. In other words, a vestigial organ cannot be explained by intelligent design and therefore must, by default, be proof positive for common descent. That's an argument. And, you know, some of these arguments actually have practical implications. Because I remember years ago, I'm old enough to remember when you'd have some kind of an operation and you're in the region of the appendix. You might as well take it out because it's just a vestigial organ.
[01:02:28] Speaker D: Quite right. Vestigial organs are supposedly useless, so a designer would not have put them there, presumably. But in every case, they turn out eventually to be useful in some respect.
So when I was a child, I had my tonsils removed because I got a sore throat. And the standard procedure was to remove the tonsils because they're vestigial organs. Well, they're not. They're part of our immune system, just like the appendix.
So, of course, there are times when the appendix has to be removed for medical reasons, but by and large, it's not useless at all. It helps us fight off infections.
[01:03:08] Speaker A: It's also a safe haven for beneficial bacteria, as you point out. And then there's this. There's this illustration somewhere in the middle of your book. It's almost obscene, to be honest with you, where you see a little baby with a tail. It's humorous. It's obscene. It's everything wrapped into one. What about human tails, you point out in the book? I mean, you actually include a picture of a newborn has the tail, and then you have a physicist Carl Gibberson, I guess, who uses that Photoshop fake in a debate as evidence for evolution.
[01:03:43] Speaker D: Yes, that really was a funny incident.
The image of the baby with a monkey like tail is in fact a photoshopped fake, and it was used as evidence for evolution in a televised debate.
In fact, a small percentage of human babies are born with protrusions at the base of the spine. In every case, though, they are birth defects. Often birth defects that have to be surgically corrected.
In no case are they throwbacks to an earlier period in our history where we were monkeys.
[01:04:19] Speaker A: So in your view, and I think this ought to be stated really clearly for every single person listening to this podcast, evolution is a science stopper. But in the narrative, it's Id. That's the science stopper.
[01:04:40] Speaker D: Yes, unguided evolution. Darwinian evolution is a science stopper, among other reasons, because it points, it claims that certain things are junk, and if you say something is junk, that kind of discourages research on it, and these things turn out not to be junk. So in that sense, it is a science stopper. Intelligent design, on the other hand, leads to fruitful research. If you think something has a purpose, you're more inclined to study the function of it and discover it.
A friend of mine once pointed out that Francis Crick, the co discoverer of the structure of DNA, was at his best when he thought like a design person, that is, an engineer. That's when he discovered things about the functioning of DNA that nobody had known before. But then at other times, he thought like an evolutionist, and in those cases, he was dead wrong. For example, he defended the notion of junk DNA.
So design for crick was fruitful, and evolution was a dead end.
[01:05:48] Speaker A: You had some great lines in the book. One of my favorites is evolutionary thinking is like reverse alchemy. It turns gold into lead.
[01:05:57] Speaker D: Exactly.
[01:05:58] Speaker A: Another one that I love is Henry G. I guess, the editor of Nature.
I don't know if he still is, but he was a long time ago who was pointing out that it's effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in a valid way, and concludes that to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not scientific hypothesis that can be tested. It's an assertion that carries about the same validity as a bedtime story. Amusing, perhaps instructive, but certainly not scientific.
[01:06:30] Speaker D: Right? Yes, he did write that years ago.
[01:06:32] Speaker A: But there are some things that are not so funny. The Enlightenment is now, and I don't know if you coined this word or where this came from, but I saw it in your book. I love the word I'm going to use a lot of times. The Enlightenment is now the endarkenment.
[01:06:47] Speaker D: Yes. In the book, I'm quoting someone who claims that intelligent design represents the endarkenment.
But I and many of my colleagues would say it's the other way around, that the so called enlightenment, I mean, which did produce some good fruit, was actually the endarkenment in the sense that it tried to replace religious faith with reason. Totally.
And reason, of course, is valuable. There's nothing wrong with it. But when you make it the king and relegate openness to religious phenomena, to the imagination, then you actually turn toward the darkness. You see the darkenment.
[01:07:37] Speaker A: You know, this whole book is fantastic. Zombie science, more icons of evolution. And as I said, said earlier on, I hope people will not only get a copy of the book for themselves, you absolutely have to read it. It's informative, it's entertaining, but it's also really chilling at points. And I found the most chilling chapter in this whole book to be zombie apocalypse. And what I mean by that is you have this clergy letter project that was chilling to me. The solicitation is signatures to a letter stating that the undersigned christian clergy believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny. So now you're taking this theory of macroevolution, and the theory has now become proliferated, popularized by the clergy and by a clergy letter. That, to me, is chilling.
[01:08:40] Speaker D: Yes, I agree.
I think if the clergy did their job instead of just going along with the academic consensus, we wouldn't be in the fix that we're in now.
It's very sad that rather than looking at the evidence or questioning things, they just sort of sign on to the bandwagon.
And that does us all a disservice, I believe.
[01:09:10] Speaker A: Yeah, because the clergy are supposed to protect the flock, not bring the wolf into the hen house or the fox into the hen house. Eugenie Scott, director of the National center of Science Education, says that she found that the most effective allies for evolution. Again, we're talking about macro evolution. Revolutionary people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting. And you actually talk about the bully tactic. To convince christians that they are not entitled to say anything about objective reality is actually a bully tactic. And that bully tactic is now being used within parishes, within churches, within synagogues.
[01:09:57] Speaker D: Yes, it's the. The idea that religion is about, you know our personal beliefs and cannot say anything about the real world. The real world is the province of science, which is defined to mean naturalistic or materialistic science.
And so basically it's a surrender.
[01:10:16] Speaker A: It is a surrender. And now we have evolution Sunday celebrated each year on the Sunday closest to Darwin's birthday. I mean, absolutely incredible. So around February 12, evolution Sunday encourages clergy and congregations to immerse themselves in materialistic evolution. I mean, this is hardly the role of the church, but that's what we've devolved to.
[01:10:43] Speaker D: Yes, very sad. I'm sorry to say that the denomination I attended church in, the Presbyterian Church USA, PC USA, which recently endorsed the clergy letter project. Very sad. Fortunately, our pastor doesn't endorse it, but the denomination does.
[01:11:05] Speaker A: It's not only the PC USA, I mean the evangelical Lutheran Church of America passing a resolution endorsing Zimmerman's clergy letter project as a whole. Yes, I mean, you really have a big issue here. When this is morphed from the ivory tower into the public square, you have sloppy journalism which takes the information and then doesn't really fully understands the information, rejiggers the information and then puts it out for popular consumption. Now you've got this stuff inside the church being promoted.
It's not just innocent school kids anymore. Now it's the parents, it's the Sunday school teachers. They're buying in to the skin of the truth stuffed with a great big lie. And I think this is your quote from the book. I don't remember, but I remember the words. With so many clergy drinking Darwin's universal acid, it is no one that religion in America is declining. And I think that's the heart of the issue. And I hope you can expand on that just a little bit. I mean, here you have a great recession that's happening within Christianity. Kids are leaving the church in droves. And I, as the father of twelve children, nine natural children, we adopt three children, I can tell you, having all of my kids in christian education, they go off to university.
And if they are not forewarned and forearmed, my kids tell me that they're peers, they just leave the christian faith because they have this idea that you can uproot the first few chapters of Genesis. And once you've uprooted that, I mean, everything else falls as well.
[01:12:55] Speaker D: Yes, especially when you deny that there's a designer, that we're here for a purpose. I mean, what's left of faith after that?
The polls have shown that many people are leaving the church. Of course there's lots of reasons for that. But one reason given is science, because people are taught that science is true, and science tells us that religion is false, or at least imaginary.
Well, of course, that's naturalistic science, not empirical science. We have nothing to fear from empirical science.
But materialism masquerading as empirical science is a threat to religion.
And so people are affected by that. Very sad.
[01:13:40] Speaker A: Yeah, really affected by that. And science journalist Paul Vuzen said that science today is riven with perverse incentives, most of them financial.
And the result is, in the words of biologist, that science is increasingly populated by predators. I mean, think about that phrase, science being increasingly populated by predators. And you alluded to this earlier. I mean, the financial motive is huge. If you want to get anywhere in academia today, you better drink at this stream of universal acid.
[01:14:19] Speaker D: Unfortunately, yes.
For me, one of the saddest parts of this whole story is that that money comes from us, from you and me, from taxpayers, and yet we have actually very little say over how it's spent.
[01:14:33] Speaker A: I could continue on with this discussion forever, but we got to wrap it up, bring it to a conclusion. But I want you to tell everybody listening in how significant this issue of origin is, this issue of macro evolution. The consequences, from your perspective, this is not something that's inconsequential. It's not just another one of those issues that we have to deal with. But this is a macro issue.
[01:15:03] Speaker D: Yes, it's a huge issue. Where we come from says a lot about where we're going.
If we evolved by unguided material processes from lower forms of life without any purpose or direction, then why should we look for purpose or direction?
If, on the other hand, we were created in the image of God with a purpose, then we look to God for that purpose. Otherwise, we look back to the slime, and the whole direction of life changes.
[01:15:39] Speaker A: And some people in the evolutionary community bite this bullet. I mean, they say, look, if we're merely material beings living in a material world, our choices are not free. They're fatalistically determined. It's all a function of brain chemistry and genetics. There's no right or wrong. There's no good or bad. There's no purpose to history. And that's got to affect how people live. And we wonder why. I. There's this big uproar about predators, sexual predators and so forth. Because if you really bite the bullet and you bind to the evolutionary paradigm, there really is no right or wrong to begin with.
[01:16:18] Speaker D: That's true. It's survival of the fittest, and the fittest just means the strongest. So it's power and money are the ruling values.
[01:16:28] Speaker A: Well, Jonathan Wells, I want to just thank you from the bottom of my heart. You've had a great impact on my life, my own writings, my own thinking sometimes.
I know when you're writing a book, it's kind of a lonely enterprise, but you're impacting the lives of a lot of people, and God's just given you a gift. It's the way in which you write books that are so compelling, and particularly on this subject, because this subject, even if you're on the right side of the issue, can be a very dry and dusty and kind of a boring subject. But you really infuse it with life. And for that, you have my gratitude.
[01:17:02] Speaker D: Well, thank you, Hank. I'm flattered. Deeply. I mean, really, I appreciate that.
[01:17:09] Speaker A: Well, I appreciate you. And I appreciate you taking so much time to share your wisdom and your insights with our audience. And I want to talk to our audience for just a moment. If you like the podcast, make sure you go to itunes and rate, because when you rate, you end up expanding our reach. We want to make sure that we continue impacting thousands and thousands of people all around the world. And the only way that becomes possible is if you take an action step. And that action step is to go to itunes and rate. Obviously, you can consume these podcasts in a lot of different places, but go to iTunes, give us a five star rating. Some of our people get to listen to people like Jonathan Wells, who is informative, inspirational, and intelligent and someone that everybody needs to listen to. So, Jonathan Wells, thank you so much for your time and for your expertise. I appreciate you, and I don't know how else I can tell you, but keep on doing it.
[01:18:16] Speaker D: Well, it's a pleasure, Hank, and thank you for having me.
[01:18:21] Speaker B: That was Doctor Jonathan Wells in a 2018 conversation with Hank Hanegraaff about his book Zombie more icons of evolution. We're grateful to the producers of the Hank Unplugged podcast for permission to share the interview here. Learn more and get your copy of the
[email protected]. dot thats jonathanwells.org dot for id the future. I'm andrew Mcdermott. Thanks for listening.
[01:18:50] Speaker A: Visit
[email protected] and intelligentdesign.org dot this program is copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
