Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In science, you can't deny the data forever. And all of the data, as science advances, is pointing strongly away from Darwinian theory and very strongly towards the need for a mind, a intelligence behind biology.
ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent Design.
[00:00:30] Speaker B: Welcome to ID the Future. I'm your host, Andrew McDermott. Thanks for joining us. Well, today I'm welcoming Michael Behe back to the podcast to discuss his recent experience speaking at Cornell University.
We'll look at a few of the arguments he made for intelligent design there, how his talk was received by faculty and students, and we'll place this as much as we can in the more general context of how college students in America currently view evolution and, and alternative explanations for life in the universe. So welcome. Mike.
[00:01:01] Speaker A: Hi, Andrew. It's great to be back with you. It's been a while.
[00:01:05] Speaker B: Yeah, it's, it's been a couple years, unfortunately. I, I love having conversations with you, so I'm glad, glad to have you today. Now, for those who may not be too familiar, can you just give us a line or two on, you know, sort of how, how long you've been in the ID movement and some of your greatest hits?
[00:01:25] Speaker A: Giving away my age there then, I was one of the first generation in the ID movement. I'm a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, and way back in 1996, coming up on 30 years ago, I wrote Darwin's Black Box, which first made the argument that the biochemical molecular level of life points strongly towards intelligent design and is very resistant to explanation by Darwinian mechanisms.
[00:01:56] Speaker B: Yeah, and you mentioned coming up on 30 years, will there be a plan to put out a new edition or, or celebrate that?
[00:02:05] Speaker A: No, I, I, I'm not sure. I, I think other people in the movement are going to organize a celebration because it's also the 30th anniversary of the center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. So it's a, a couple of anniversaries there.
[00:02:23] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. Lots to celebrate next year for sure. Well, you recently spoke at Cornell University about Intelligent design, and I got wind of this through an article. I think it was the College Fix that reported on your visit. Can you describe the setting for us? Who invited you, what the event was like, and what your main message was that evening?
[00:02:45] Speaker A: Sure.
The person who invited me is named Randy Wayne, who is a professor of biology at Cornel, and he invited me not as in his capacity as a biology professor, but as a member of something called the Heterodox Academy that they have a chapter of at Cornell. And as the name implies they invite speakers who talk about ideas that aren't always heard on university campuses and oftentimes kind of cut against a lot of the grain there.
And we, I spoke on a Tuesday night in a nice room in the law school and there were probably 50 or so attendees, faculty, graduate students, postdocs, a couple some undergraduates too.
So I spoke for an hour. We had a half hour's worth of question or quest, half hour's worth of questions that could have gone on for, for a lot longer. And I think the people there, as a rule, saw that there was a whole lot more to this topic than they had previously thought.
[00:04:05] Speaker B: Well, mission accomplished on that front. Now, this wasn't your first visit to Cornell. Your first visit actually was an invitation from Professor William provine back in 2002.
Recall that being a pretty fruitful experience as well. Tell us why.
[00:04:20] Speaker A: Yeah, that was great. Well, for the folks who don't know, William Provine was an eminent historian of biology and recorded and explicated a number of intellectual battles and evolutionary theory and, and the different personalities who. Taking different sides. And he himself had been, grew up as a Christian but became an atheist and kind of anchored much of his, his belief in, in Darwinian theory and, and he, William Provine would go around the country with Philip Johnson and debate in a number of campuses and settings.
So he was always interested in talking about id and he invited me not only to come and speak, but to speak to his introductory evolutionary biology class.
He was a historian, but the. He also had an appointment in evolutionary biology department.
And so I got to speak with the class about the issues about why I thought intelligent design was a compelling idea. And after I spoke, then he spoke and then we would get some questions from the, the students.
So it was a, a lot of fun and I think we were allowed to open a few young minds to, to start questioning some of these topics.
[00:05:59] Speaker B: Wow. It's exactly the kind of thing that a college student needs and, and, you know, benefits from is just the, the pros and cons of important topics and subjects.
Well, you've spoken on dozens of college campuses over the years. How did the atmosphere this time at Cornell recently, you know, where you spoke compared to, you know, you've spoken at Berkeley, smu, the University of Minnesota. Was it different? Was it, was it similar?
[00:06:27] Speaker A: In the late 90s when I first started speaking on college campuses, I'd get rather large and enthusiastic audiences and. But as time went on and ID became more prominent and was in the headlines and engendered a Lot of opposition. Then there would be oftentimes hostile groups that would come by. And then later on, you know, Covid came along and you could no longer speak on campuses for a few years.
So the, the session at Cornell was kind of more like a department seminar than it was a, a big event.
So I, I really enjoyed it because one could calmly make your arguments without either, you know, being interrupted by applause or being interrupted, you know, dodging tomatoes as they were being thrown. So. So it was a lot more intellectually satisfying.
[00:07:36] Speaker B: Okay. Yeah, sounds like it was. Now, you divided your talk into five main points or claims, and I just wanted to touch on those briefly for those who may not be familiar with some of your arguments.
The first is that design is not mystical. It's deduced from the physical structure of a system. Why was that an important point to make from the get go?
[00:07:59] Speaker A: Well, it's important because some people think, and some groups are pushed the idea that design is, is some sort of supernatural idea, that it's like counting angels on the head of a pin or something strange.
So I like to, at the get go, show people that they recognize design all the time in situations that have no particular philosophical or theological religious overtones. And I like to show them a little cartoon from the Far side series that really encapsulates the idea. And it shows some jungle explorers walking along, and this poor lead explorer has been pulled up by his foot by a vine, and a trap has driven stakes through his body, and he's dead.
And I point out that, hey, everybody looking at this, you know, it's a funny cartoon. There's some funny lines in it too.
But you recognize that this was a design trap, that this wasn't some accident. It's not like he fell over a cliff or something. And, and there's no religious significance to, to this cartoon at all.
And so I want to make the point that we recognize design all the time. When you see a mouse trap, you know, when you see a jungle trap, when you see Mount Rushmore and. And so on, nobody has to tell you that it was purposely made. And you see that because you see a number of parts that were put together for a purpose. And because we humans have minds, we recognize purposes, and we recognize them from physical arrangements. So it's a.
Is a scientific conclusion. We recognize it from empirical physical arrangements and normal logic.
[00:09:56] Speaker B: Yeah. And after you kick off with that, the next point you make is that everyone agrees that aspects of biology appear to be designed. In his 1987 book, the Blind Watchmaker, eminent biologist Richard Dawkins wrote that the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impresses with the appearance of design, as if by a master watchmaker, impresses with the illusion of design and planning.
And then he spends the rest of the book, of course, trying to resolve that paradox with the evolutionary view. But the point you're making here is a good one. There's no dispute that life appears to be designed.
So then what's the problem?
[00:10:35] Speaker A: There is no problem in recognizing design. But it turns out, of course, that Darwin tried to get rid of design by saying, wait, there's another, another way that design, like features can appear.
And that is of course, random mutation, natural selection over long periods of time.
But the important thing is that, well, that was a proposal by Darwin and back in the 19th century, though nobody realized the depths of biology. The cell to Darwin and his contemporaries was like a little piece of jelly, protoplasm.
Nobody understood, nobody knew anything about DNA or protein, machinery and so on.
And that as science progresses, we've seen more and more barriers to that explanation. So what I argue in my talks is that here we are again.
Everybody recognizes the appearance of design, but what we thought was an alternative explanation has not panned out. So we're left with a strong appearance of design. And that's how we, that is the evidence for design. We recognize design by a purposeful arrangement of parts and we've got that in spades in biology. All sorts of systems have very purposeful arrangements of part parts. So the point then of course is that we are justified in concluding that that design is, is, is real.
[00:12:11] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, and I, and I was going to move to that. The third claim that you make in your talk after, you know, the acknowledgment that, you know, everybody sees this appearance of design is that there are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution, to this proposal that Darwin and then others built on in the last 150 years. So in a nutshell, what are you pointing to with that part of your argument? I know you've alluded to it already. Do you go, how, how deeply do you go into the structural obstacles and the mathematical challenges? Do you give people a taste of that?
[00:12:52] Speaker A: Yeah, I do. Just it's everywhere in biology. So I pick a couple of examples to show people that in fact these are very resistan into Darwinian explanations. One objection I often times get and other folks in the ID movement get is, oh, all you're saying is that you don't know how yet to explain this by Darwinian evolution. So you're just Saying, oh, we don't have any answer, but, but maybe later on we'll figure it out. And the point I try to make with these structural obstacles is that no, it's, it's just not that we haven't discovered an answer. We have discovered reasons why the Darwinian process can't achieve this or is very unlikely to achieve this because Darwinism has to work one tiny step at a time.
But it's directionless. And with these interactive, complex, irreducibly complex systems, one needs a number of parts all together at once before one has a functioning system. So it's, it's pretty much exactly the opposite of what you would expect a Darwinian process to make. So it's not just a lack of knowledge, it's, it's an under understanding. Now that modern biology has shown that the cell is made of machines and machines can't be approached in this gradual fashion that Darwin insisted on.
[00:14:27] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a key point and I'm glad you mentioned that. It's not just the, the idea that we haven't found an explanation is that it's what we have found that explains why a Darwinian process cannot.
Such an important distinction.
[00:14:43] Speaker A: Let me add one other thing that is actually a newer discovery was, you know, the, the interactiveness, the difficulty in forming things like eyeballs by a Darwinian process was pointed out really early on, within 10 years of Darwin's origin, that Darwin's mechanism is a poor candidate to explain this. But it turns out, and I mentioned it at the Cornell A seminar, that only in the past 20 years have we been able to see how Darwinian processes work at the molecular level.
Because it turns out mutations are changes in molecules, especially in DNA. And in order then to evaluate Darwin's theory, we have to track changes in molecules over thousands of generations, over many, many organisms.
And it turns out that science has developed ways to do that. But unexpectedly what we've seen is that the Darwinian process does work. We do get mutation that mutations that benefit organisms.
But overwhelmingly those are mutations that break things that already existed in the, in the genome of the organism. They break genes, they stop machines from functioning, and sometimes that helps an organism survive.
And so ironically, we now see that Darwin's mechanism is actually strongly devolutionary.
It helps an organism adapt, but it does so by throwing away things that it already possessed by devolving from where it was.
So that's another structural obstacle for why a Darwinian process cannot explain the, the elegance of, of molecular machinery.
[00:16:49] Speaker B: Yeah. And when I first came across that, that argument in your book Darwin Devolves. I remember we did a series on it when it first came out, and I was just absolutely stunned and wowed by the gravity of that realization, you know, that it's through breakage that we see changes and small scale, you know, additions or what have you. It's through breakage and not anything novel, not anything that natural selection would be producing de novo.
What an amazing realization.
Did you think you had stumbled upon something magnificent there or was that sort of a duh?
[00:17:32] Speaker A: Well, a little bit of both.
[00:17:34] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:17:35] Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, when you looking back, it seems so utterly obvious that it's a whole lot easier to break some complex apparatus than it is to make some new complex apparatus. But what didn't, didn't register until you started to think about it is that that can help, that can actually help to, for an organism to adapt. If you, if you want to make a dog that's, you know, smaller than usual, then, you know, because people like to cuddle little dogs and they'll be selected.
Why, you can just break a gene that's involved in having it grow to a normal size.
And if you want to, a dog that's bigger than normal, you can break a gene that's involved in telling the body when to stop making growth hormone and it'll continue to grow. You can get all the sorts of features that, that evolutionists have bragged about for years in, in dog breeding, curly hair and different sizes and, and extra muscles and, and so on. You can get all those by breaking genes. And. But it wasn't until science developed the methods to look at the molecular level by DNA sequencing that this has been discovered. And, and I really think that this is the, the final nail in Darwin's theory simply because if it's a whole lot easier to break something than to make it, then that process cannot make something in the first place.
[00:19:18] Speaker B: Yeah.
And really, and honestly, we should be seeing, you know, many examples of diet in the wool. Evolutionary biologists, you know, abandoning the theory of Darwinian evolution, the neo Darwinian synthesis, as it were, but we don't see that quite yet, at least. And you know, I realized this in recent years, you know, materialists, when you're, when you're wedded to the scientific materialism, the methodological naturalism that comes with a commitment to natural processes, no amount of evidence given to you, shown to you, thrown at you, is going to change your mind when you're wedded to that belief. And so that's why we don't see them all Dropping like flies. In terms of their, their commitment to Darwinism, what do you make of that? Will we see that at one point or is it human nature?
[00:20:11] Speaker A: I think we will, but. But it's. To me it's. It's going to be kind of like the fall of communism. Yeah, Communism, everybody knew, is a failed idea, but it kept plugging along, kept plugging along and then all of a sudden it collapsed.
And I think Darwinism is supported the same way that communist societies were in the sense that it's an ideology.
There's so much evidence showing that it's not the right answer or the wrong approach or something, but there is a commitment to it. People want it to be true for other reasons than the science and then they will just plug along and won't care about the results, but eventually it will collapse. Because in science you can't deny the data forever. And all of the data, as science advances is pointing strongly away from Darwinian theory and very strongly towards the need for a mind, a intelligence behind biology.
[00:21:24] Speaker B: Right. Yeah. It won't be able to be denied forever. So looking forward to that collapse and I think we're seeing early signs of it now. You make two more claims in your talk at Cornell. The fourth one was that grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination. I like that phrasing. Can you tell us what you meant by that?
[00:21:47] Speaker A: Yeah, sure. Well, if early on when I was writing Darwin's black box, I said, well, I want to go see and how, how. See how scientists have tried to explain by Darwinian approaches the complex biochemical systems that I wrote about. So I went to the science library and I was stunned to see that not only were there papers offering inadequate. Not only weren't there papers offering inadequate explanations, there were no papers at all even offering, you know, hand wavy explanations. The best I would find for most things that I looked at were a long paper talking about an elegant and extraordinary system and some sentence at the end saying, isn't it wonderful what evolution has produced for us? So kind of just a genuflection.
I always use a quotation from a man named Franklin Harold, who was an eminent microbiologist, where he says that we must admit in the process of saying we're forbidden to think about intelligent design in science, said Franklin Harold. He said, but nonetheless we have to admit we don't have any explanations for the evolution of any complex biochemical system, only some just so stories.
And this startles a lot of people outside the field, laymen as well as academics who are outside the field because they think that.
That science knows that science has evidence, and it's the hardest thing to tell them. No, that's. It's. It's just, you know, everybody's essentially nodding their heads, agreeing that.
Let us agree to agree that, you know, we know this is true and don't bother us with claims about evidence. And when you point us out that there is nothing there, well, that's. That startles a lot of people who aren't familiar with it.
[00:24:03] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. It's real funny, you know, how you're. You're mentioning the little attachment at the end, you know, genuflecting towards Darwinism. It's. It's almost like a required sponsorship message. You know, this feature was brought to you by the neo Darwinian synthesis.
[00:24:20] Speaker A: Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Quite literally. I've heard of people who have written.
Written papers on complex systems. And at the end, the referees or the editor of the journal to which they had submitted their paper for consideration for publication said, okay, but we want you to add a sentence at the end saying, you know, evolution is even, you know, more clever than we thought or. Or some such thing. So, yeah, you have to genuflect to the. To the overriding paradigm.
[00:24:59] Speaker B: Well, the concluding claim in your Cornell talk is that there is strong evidence for design and little evidence for Darwinism. And that's where you leave it. So what kind of questions or objections did you receive from Cornell students or faculty? I know you said it was more of, like an internal seminar than a large, raucous public event, but did you get any questions or pushback?
[00:25:23] Speaker A: Yeah, there. There were a lot of questions, and a number of folks were sympathetic to the argument. But another.
A number of ones were, you know, thinking about it. Not. They're not quite convinced. It was great. I. As long as I get them to think about it, I. I think my. My mission is accomplished. But somebody came up and said, well, that was a good talk, but I don't believe in God, so.
Oh, okay, you know, but, you know, that's not a scientific answer to these problems. Another. Another person.
Another person came up and said, gee, I wish that we had you alongside a biologist who would defend Darwinian theory so that this fellow could try to compare the two arguments side by side.
But it's an. But I had to tell them. It's an interesting fact that Randy Wayne, who organized the thing, invited all of the biologists at Cornell, and they were divided into a number of departments there, and not one showed up.
So, you know, I would have been happy to present with another biologist and talk about these things.
But, but again it's, you know, in, in my view Darwinism is accepted for sociological reasons.
That is, it's, it's the only acceptable idea for various reasons in our, in our society today.
And having another biologist come and talk that would have people try to justify their, their thoughts based on evidence rather than sociology. But, but Darwinism, the only thing, the only thing it has going for it is sociology. The evidence is, is pointing strongly against it. So people use, you know, pressure like we won't talk to you, you know. Nah, nah, nah, we, we don't like the, what you're saying. Yeah, it's really, really silly for academia. But, but that, that's the situation.
[00:27:45] Speaker B: Or they'll hide behind the settled signs label, you know. Well, there's no need to talk. It's settled.
[00:27:50] Speaker A: That's right.
[00:27:52] Speaker B: But if it is settled signs, you would be very confident and enthusiastic about sharing it and talking about it because it would stand by itself.
[00:28:01] Speaker A: And so yeah, that doesn't, that then always confused me. They say at one and in one breath that you know, you know, Darwinism is so well supported that it commands the acceptance of everybody who hears about it. And then we're not going to talk about it with you because we think you'll confuse people. But, but if it's so overwhelming and you get the chance to talk to people, why wouldn't you expect them all to be convinced by, by your argument? So yeah, it's a little inconsistent.
[00:28:37] Speaker B: Yeah. I was recently talking to a recently retired scientist who worked at Sandia National Laboratories for many years. And, and he, he doesn't insult, you know, the general public's intelligence and ability to make their own decisions about these important topics. You don't want to do that. You know, people are smart enough to take two sides and evaluate it, you know, if they put in a little effort. So the other thing I think is funny is when they point to the mountain of peer reviewed literature that they say upholds a Darwinian view, you know, what they're really referring to are the genuflections that you mentioned, the little tag along sponsored by Darwinism, you know, and they take that to be evidence for it. You know, I'm sure you've come across that quite a bit.
[00:29:26] Speaker A: Sure, sure. That's the all scientists, you know, agree argument. But if you dig into the papers, you know, anybody can cite a thousand papers, but that's called citation bluffing. If you dig into those papers, you'll never, you won't see any detailed explanations. And even, even better though, as I discussed in Darwin Devolves recently is that, and, and the previous book Edge of Evolution is that we don't have to invent stories because scientists have done experiments showing what evolution, what Darwinian evolution does when it's allowed to proceed in the laboratory or elsewhere for a long period of time. And, and again, that's these devolutionary processes that I mentioned a few minutes ago.
So we don't have to, we don't have to dig into the literature because nobody's, whatever arguments are in there are not or were not based on experiment. Now we do have arguments or data based on experiments and they show that Darwinian processes pretty much do the exact opposite of what they had been advertised to do.
[00:30:45] Speaker B: Yeah, well, this is a wonderful time in our scientific history to be evaluating Darwinism. You know, it's the perfect time to, to show what science is now revealing with the technology we have and the, the methods we have.
So it's really exciting to be able to give that full evaluation now and show where it's lacking now. In preparing for our chat, I did some searching to see what I could learn about current attitudes of college students toward evolution. I found a 2024 study published in the journal Evolution Education and Outreach. It was called Exploring Patterns of Evolution Acceptance, Evolution Understanding and Student Religiosity.
This, this study focused on us college students in biology courses. And there were a few interesting takeaways from it.
First, it said students are more likely to accept microevolution, which is that small scale change within species, and least likely to accept the larger scale evolutionary concepts like common ancestry of all life on earth.
So I thought that was interesting. It also found that higher religiosity is strongly associated with lower acceptance of macroevolution or human common ancestry, which may be an obvious thing, but it showed the correlation there. And third, this study notes that acceptance of evolution among college students is more multifaceted than previously thought.
So the study seems to suggest that even among biology students, acceptance of evolution varies depending on what we mean by evolution. What do you make of that study? Is that an encouraging sign?
[00:32:28] Speaker A: Yeah, I, I did get the chance to, to browse through it and it, it made me, made me very optimistic for the future of, of college students that, that they're a lot, they're a lot more perceptive, a lot more discriminating than, you know, perhaps one, one would, would think that they can break a, the small claims, intermediate claims, big claims, and they say, well, I can see the evidence for this small effect. Okay, I believe that that's great.
The other stuff, well, you're just, you know, talking through your hat, you're gesturing, you're not, you're not telling me how this could happen.
And therefore I am either reserving judgment or thinking that I have heard of alternative explanations, whether they are scientific ones or, or not that seem more convincing on total evidence to me than, than the, than the theory that you're selling. And so I was very impressed by, by the, by the college students responses. And as you mentioned, it showed that a large fraction even of students, biology major students, who could answer all of the questions about evolutionary theory that the, that the, the purveyors of the survey put to them. They knew what the theory is, but they didn't accept it. And I thought that was great. And I, I, I think the, the authors of the study should have thought that that was great.
But they not only want to see that they under, students understand what scientists talk about. They want them to believe it.
Yeah, they want their evangelists. You know, it was, it was, it's really deeply offensive to me. Why do they care whether these students, you know, sign on the dotted line and say I swear allegiance to Darwin's theory.
All they should be concerned with is, well, you should understand what scientists think about this. Okay, I'll, I'll listen to what you have to say and I'll try to understand that whether I think that's true, whether I think science is the be all end all, or whether there are other things on heaven in heaven and earth and are dreamt of in your philosophy. As somebody said a long time ago, you know, that's what I will decide. Thank you very much.
So I thought it was wonderful article first, for showing how discriminating college students can be, for how revealing it was about the motivations of some of these people who are in the area.
And well, and, and just the fact that they, I guess I think unique among scientific disciplines. These guys are evangelists. They, they are staking a lot of their self identity on, on convincing other people to, to subscribe to their, to their theory.
[00:35:58] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, I sense that as well. It's almost like they were flagging an issue, you know, hey, we need a little help over here. This isn't as strong with college students. We need to get them, get the, hit them hard here, you know, which is understandable again, if you're locked into this scientific, materialistic worldview.
That's very hard to come out of, you know, but give Give students a chance, you know, we should have the opportunity to make that final decision, not, not get fed by someone else or from on high.
So anyway, yeah, those are, those are some, some great thoughts there. Well, as we wrap up our discussion today, I had a final question for you. What advice would you give to professors or students at colleges and universities who want to explore intelligent design in a way that's not going to jeopardize their standing or leave them cancelled or mocked? What would be your advice?
[00:36:59] Speaker A: Well, frankly, it's hard because not only on evolution, but lots of different topics in colleges, people have very strong opinions and there aren't, there's not the tolerance for different opinions that there used to be. That's why I guess I was invited Cornell, by the Heterodox Academy. It's, they have speakers not only on ID and evolution, but a host of other topics as well.
What I would say is that, you know, try to be a scholar, try to be a, you know, a, A disinterested, you know, person who just looks at the evidence and tries to make up your mind from the evidence and hold the evidence to the same standards that you would hold for other disciplines, too.
Always, you know, never descend into acrimony.
Always remember that all of us, whether we have tempers or not, are searching for the truth, but nonetheless don't, don't needlessly aggravate people or don't pick a fight or needlessly. Because unfortunately, the, the intellectual atmosphere we have these days is not as, as tolerant as it was. And, and as we've seen over the past number of years, some people will attack a person whose views they don't like. So you have to be, you have to be, you have to say what you think, but also be discerning about when to say things and when to kind of call it a day.
[00:38:58] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. When it's wise to argue your points and, and when it isn't that that is something that we ought to learn. And something that came across, I came across in another conversation recently, was the fact that everybody's going to come to this. Everybody, you know, who makes the decision to adopt design or, or some other, you know, explanation you, you need, like everybody's got their own, you know, amount of evidence that will persuade them it's not going to be the same as you, you know, and you're not going to be the same as the next person.
It's going to require a certain amount of evidence for everybody. And so we shouldn't assume that, you know, it's going to be the same for everybody. I think that's an important thing to keep in mind.
There's lots of evidence for intelligent design and I sort of view it on a Bayesian approach, you know, where the probability just gets higher and higher the more, the more lines of evidence you add. But don't take for granted that you know, how much evidence somebody will need to be convinced, you know?
[00:40:01] Speaker A: Sure.
You know, people have different backgrounds, they have, they know of other different options. Some people know of more options, some people less. And some people have had AD experiences where they've thought something was correct and found out it wasn't or all sorts of different things. Yeah. So be patient. Just state what you think and why you think it and listen to what other people have to say.
That's all you can do.
[00:40:31] Speaker B: Yeah. And that humble that you have in spades yourself as you're delivering these points and doing your research.
I appreciate that in you and I know others do as well. So, Mike, I appreciate you taking time to talk today about this.
Might not seem like much, just a visit to a college, but I think it was a good moment that we had to unpack, you know, what ID arguments really are and how powerful they are and how people are accepting them. So thanks for your time.
[00:41:05] Speaker A: Okay, thank you, Andrew.
[00:41:07] Speaker B: Now, audience, it's a good time to check your bookshelf to make sure that you have all of Dr. Behe's books, including his most recent, the one mentioned in our discussion, Darwin Devolves the new science about DNA that challenges evolution.
You can order his books as well as watch episodes of his excellent video series Secrets of the Cell at his website, Michael Behe.com www.michaelbehe.com well, for ID the Future, I'm Andrew McDermott. Thanks for joining us.
[00:41:40] Speaker A: Visit us at idthefuture.com and intelligentdesign.org this program is Copyright Discovery Installation Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
