Speaker 1 00:00:05 ID the future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
Speaker 2 00:00:12 Welcome to ID The Future. I'm your host, Andrew McDermott. Is masculinity dangerous and destructive? Is it toxic? How did this idea permeate throughout our culture? Today I'm speaking with Professor Nancy Pearcy, professor and scholar in residence at Houston Baptist University, and a fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. She is author of Love Thy Body, the Soul of Science, saving, Leonardo Finding Truth and Total Truth. We're going to discuss her latest book, the Toxic War on Masculinity, how Christianity Reconciles the Sexist, published by Bakker Books. The book tells the story of how secularism and Darwinism have villainized the concept of masculinity resulting in much of our current tragic confusion on the subject, but it also provides a hopeful way forward, a way to return to the virtue and goodness that have always been at the heart of masculinity. Nancy, welcome to the show. Thank
Speaker 3 00:01:10 You so much, Andrew. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 00:01:12 Absolutely. Well, I'd like to talk about Darwinism and how that has affected the secular script for masculinity, but perhaps we can build up to that by giving listeners some general introduction to your book. In the introduction, you say you've been writing this book your whole life. What did you mean by that and why is now a good time to release this book?
Speaker 3 00:01:31 Well, Andrew, I start the book with my personal experience. I have not told my, my story publicly before. So, um, so this, I, I still feel a little bit vulnerable when I talk about this book because I, I grew up in a very abusive home. My father was very physically abusive in books on abuse. They sometimes ask, was it open hand or closed fist? And it was closed fist. So my father would not say, do this or I'll spank you. He'd say, do this or I'll beat you, and then he would follow through on his threats. So a big part of my growing up years was coming to terms with my past, and especially after I became a Christian, you know, getting emotional, psychological, and spiritual healing. And that's why I say in the introduction, in a sense, I've been writing this book my whole life trying to figure out what is a healthy, biblical view of masculinity.
Speaker 2 00:02:28 Yeah, that really struck me as I read that, and, um, I'm so sorry for the abuse that you, that you had, but I'm glad that you have been, um, getting healing from that and, and that this book comes out of that. Well, you start off the book with some good news. Uh, you say that when people complain that masculinity is toxic, they're often pointing to evangelical Christian men as their prime example. Um, sort of look, if they're doing it, then what hope do we have? But you report on findings from the social sciences that debunk those charges. Can you tell us more about that?
Speaker 3 00:03:01 Yes. I first start out in this, um, in the book with examples of people saying Evangelicals are the prime examples of oppressive tyrannical patriarchy. And I'll just give you one quote. This was from the co-founder of the church two movement, and she said, the theology of male headship feeds the rape culture that we see permeating American Christianity today. And my answer to that is, you have not been keeping up with the social sciences because psychologists and sociologists were reading these charges and they said, well, where's your evidence? You're making these claims, but where's your evidence? So they went and did the studies, and what they discovered was that exactly the opposite. They found that evangelical Christian men are the most loving husbands, the most engaged fathers of any major group in America. And by the way, they do ask the wives separately, they interview the wives.
Speaker 3 00:04:01 So what they're really saying is that the wives report being the happiest with their husband's expressions of love and affection. They spend more time with their kids in the any other group, both in terms of shared activities like sports or church youth group. And in terms of discipline, like setting limits on screen time or enforcing bedtime, evangelical couples are the least likely to divorce. And here's the real stunner. They actually have the lowest rates of domestic abuse and violence of any major group in America. And this was, this was summarized, let me give you a quote because the, the main sociologist who's done the, the largest study on this is Brad Wilcox. He's at the University of Virginia, and he's considered maybe the top marriage researcher in the country. He gets quoted in places like the New York Times. And so this is a quote from the New York Times.
Speaker 3 00:04:56 He says, it turns out that the happiest of all wives in America are religious conservatives. And of course, they focus on the wives because the assumption is that any concept of male headship or authority is going to be oppressive, uh, and it's gonna silence women and, you know, domineering, et cetera. At any rate, he says, it turns out that the happiest of all wives in America are religious conservatives. Fully 73% of wives who hold conservative gender values and attend religious services regularly with their husbands have high quality marriages. So that's the finding from the social sciences. And I'll have to tell you, even Christians are not aware of this. I had to go digging in the academic sociological literature to find this information. And it really was the main reason I wrote the book because I thought, we need to get this information out there both to encourage Christian men in the church and also to counter the negative messages that are in the media in, in the public square. We should be very bold about bringing these findings. This is not just a pastor trying to rev up his audience, right, his congregation. This is hard, empirical, factual data. And so we should be very confident about bringing it into the public square.
Speaker 2 00:06:13 Okay, so the, the heart of the truth there then is that committed authentic Christian men are, have those lowest rates of divorce and domestic abuse and the, the highest rates of return in their marriages in terms of them being good. So when people point to Christian men and say, oh, look, they're doing it too. Are they actually pointing to a different subset of men? Are they nominally Christian? Are they Christian in name only? In other words, they don't go to church, they don't live, live it out. And is that the difference there?
Speaker 3 00:06:46 Right? So the, the first pushback I always get is, but wait, haven't we heard that Christians divorce at the same rate as the rest of society? And so the researchers went back to the data and they separated out, like you said, the truly authentic committed Christian men who go to church regularly, who are living it out from the nominal Christian men who may claim an evangelical identity and hang around the fringes of the Christian Church, uh, but who actually don't attend church regularly and who identify that way. Uh, like in a survey like that, for example, they might check the Baptist box, but it's mostly a cultural Christianity. It's mostly their family and cultural background. And these men test, test out shockingly differently. They, they fit all of the toxic definitions. They actually have the worst marriages, which means their wives are reporting the lowest level of happiness.
Speaker 3 00:07:41 They're the least engaged with their children. They have the highest rate of divorce, higher than secular couples, and they have the highest rate of domestic abuse and violence, higher than secular men. So this is really shocking, is that if, if you take, if you do a survey and you take these two groups together, which many of them do, you are going to get men who are better than the secular world, and you're gonna get men who are worse than the secular world. And so of course, the numbers are going to be misleading. And that's the, the benefit of this particular stu, these more recent studies that tease out the difference is now we can say, okay, here's where that misconception comes from. The misconception comes from people who are claiming the language, uh, say headship and submission, but infusing those words with definitions from the secular culture.
Speaker 2 00:08:37 Very interesting. Well, in chapter one, you relay a story of two very different men that I think sets up a central point of your book. In 2018, Ian David Long walked into a crowded bar in Thousand Oaks, California and began shooting people, killing 13 people before turning the gun on himself. In the crowd that night was another young man, Matt Westrom, who immediately jumped into action, shepherding people out of a back window and protecting them with his own body. When the shooter paused to reload, he and other young man rushed back in the bar to get more people to safety. So here you have two young men, this, uh, tragic news story. One used his masculine strength to take lives, the other used his masculine strength to save lives. Your book says, men are being torn between two competing scripts for masculinity. What are those scripts?
Speaker 3 00:09:27 Right? So this is another sociological study, and I'll give you the background on it. I really thought my earlier book, love Thy Body would be more controversial because it does deal with issues like abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism, which is the cutting edge issue of our day. But in fact, I found that people get more triggered on these questions. Uh, for example, when I told my class I was writing a book on masculinity, one of my male students shot back what masculinity it's been beaten out of us, or if they would tell their friends and family that we were going through my manuscript in class, and they, they would immediately say, whose side is she on? That was the first question always. And with that tone, whose side is she on? Like, you have to either be wholesale for masculinity, some sort of a reactionary, or you had to be, uh, you know, a feminist male bashing person.
Speaker 3 00:10:17 At any rate, so I put this study right at the beginning to show there were two scripts that really helped disarm that initial hostility. So it's a sociologist who gets invited to speak around the world. And so he came up with his ingenious exercise where he asks young men two questions. The first question is, what does it mean to be a good man? You know, if you were at a funeral and in the eulogy somebody says he was a good man, what does that mean? And the sociologist said, men all around the world had no problem answering that. They said things like honor, duty, sacrifice, integrity, do the right thing, stand up for the little guy. I like that one. Be a provider, be a protector, be responsible. And this, these were answers he got all the way from, you know, Brazil to Nigeria to Australia.
Speaker 3 00:11:09 And so he would ask them, well, where'd you learn that? And they'd say, it's just in the air we breathe. Or if it was a western country, they would say it's our Judeo-Christian heritage. And then he would follow up with a second question. He'd say, what does it mean if I say to you, man up, be a real man? And the young man would say, oh, no, that is completely different. And they would say, that means be tough, be strong, be competitive, win at all costs, suck it up, get rich, get laid. I'm using their language <laugh>. In other words, men are made in God's image and they do know what the good man is. They know what it means to fulfill the purpose for which God created them, but they feel cultural pressure to be the quote unquote real man, which unfortunately includes a lot of the traits that we consider toxic.
Speaker 3 00:12:05 Certainly when it's separated from the moral ideal of the good man, it can slide into being entitlement and domination and control and so on. And so what this does is it gives us a much better way to address these issues. Men don't respond well to being called toxic, you know? No, nobody would. So instead, what we can do is we can affirm them in what they innately know is the good man. You know, the Romans two right? Says, we all have a conscience. We all do, essentially know right from wrong. And so if we affirm, encourage, and support men in what they already know is the good man, that gives us a much more positive strategy for dealing with these issues.
Speaker 2 00:12:48 Right? And here's where we get into, um, what happened in, in the 19th century, the mid 19th century, to really change things up, uh, on this topic. The Greeks and Romans, of course, defined virtue as the restraint of the lower passions by the higher faculties of reason, spirit and moral will, as you say, the earlier ideal of the Christian gentleman had urged men to live up to the image of God and implant in them. But in 1859, Charles Darwin published his one long argument for evolution. And on the origin of species, now a Darwinian worldview urged men to live down to their presumed animal nature, to compete in the ruthless struggle for dominance and power. That ideal, that restraint was turned on its head. Can you tell us how Darwin's theory of evolution has negatively impacted masculinity?
Speaker 3 00:13:39 Yes. So I wrote the book, um, because I was seeing so much hostility expressed against men. It was a, a survey a few years ago where 46% of American men said, these days, society seems to punish men just for acting like men. And so I wanted to get to the bottom of this, where is the idea coming from that masculinity is toxic? And the rise of Darwinism was a key stage in that process because, well, first, let's talk about Darwin himself. Darwin did argue that women were intellectually inferior to men, very explicitly. And it's funny because he, he acknowledged that women were more sensitive and intuitive, but then he said, those are traits of the lower species. So even women's good traits were signs of their inferiority. And Thomas Huxley, who went by the nickname Darwin's Bulldog, said, you can't even fix women's inferiority with education.
Speaker 3 00:14:36 It's a product of natural selection, he said, and so educational selection, that was his phrase, is not gonna fix this. So the many Darwinian writers began to say that the, the men who won out in the struggle for survival were by necessity, rugged, ruthless, brutal, savage, barbarian, and even predatory. It seemed to imply that men's true nature was the beast within. And that, like you said a minute ago, it kind of flipped the understanding of, of masculinity. Instead of seeing urging men to live up to a high ideal of virtue, it said, no, really, you need to get in touch with the beast within. And that was a common phrase. In fact, this is when the Tarzan books became popular. Uh, there's about 50 in the series. It's, it's quite extensive. And the appeal of the books was, it was a man raised out in nature by the, by the apes, and therefore he retained that inner wildness, you know, that inner savage nature, even after he learns European customs and languages.
Speaker 3 00:15:42 At the end of the book, he says to Jane, I am still a wild beast at heart. And so this seemed to be the message of evolution. And, and let me quote you one more person. Her Herbert Spencer, who, um, was the main popularizer of Darwinism here in America, uh, was asked, you know, if if the, if the ancestors of our current, you know, population of men were brutal and savage, then how in the world did women get along with them? And he answered, well, women had to learn the ability to please, and it would also help, he said, if they learn to hide their resentment at such ill treatment. So the message for women was, you need to placate these brutal men, and you can see what kind of a message that was. You could see why this was an important stage on an increasingly toxic definition of masculinity.
Speaker 2 00:16:36 So even Darwin and his contemporaries started to adopt this toxic view of masculinity as, uh, men are just beasts. Um, and I really do enjoy your discussion of the literary naturalism, that genre of fiction that promoted a Darwinian worldview that reduced humans to products of evolutionary forces. Uh, you mentioned the Tarzan author and that book series. Were there others that stood out? I think you mentioned Jack London and his, uh, dramatic adoption of Darwinian views.
Speaker 3 00:17:05 Right. So there was an entire literary genre that was actually called literary naturalism because these were writers who were writing fiction explicitly to convey a naturalistic worldview. So Jack London, who you mentioned read books on Darwinism as a young man, and as one historian puts it, he had an intellectual conversion to radical materialism. And so all of his books, you know, many of 'em about dogs, but they're intended as metaphors for humans. And his whole point was to convey a worldview that said, humans are just products of natural selection. You know, the genes and the environment, they have no free will. And, and so it's very important to make sure that even when we're reading what are considered classic literature, that we need to have our antenna up to recognize the world view. So, uh, one of the theorists of literary naturalism was that French, a French writer named Emil Sola, and he said his goal was to portray human humans as animals, nothing more. And so that was his explicit goal. And so this was also the, the message of Darwinism when it was conveyed through fiction was that men are just products of evolution. And, and one of their favorite phrases was this, just a thin veneer of civilization. In other words, there's there's that, that <inaudible>, that savage, that barbarian at heart, and it was barely being held in check by a thin veneer of civilization. And at any moment it could break through. So that was the message of the literary naturalist.
Speaker 2 00:18:42 And I do like the advice you give in that section of your book, which would apply not just to these books and this genre of literature, but you know, the movies, TV shows, video games we watched today. You say that we should always read, or in some cases watch with our worldview antenna poised to pick up the stories underlying message. That's a really good, uh, thing to remember today. Now, Darwinism is still shaping the public discourse on masculinity right up to our own day. Social Darwinism is the application of Darwinism to human behavior. It's known today as evolutionary psychology. Now, how has this thinking contributed to this secular script for the quote unquote real man?
Speaker 3 00:19:22 Yes, you see evolutionary psychologists basically repackaging the same thing as Darwin and his contemporaries did. In other words, they say the male nature is intrinsically wild and undisciplined and sexually adventurism, et cetera, and it's up to women to hold them in check. By the way, that's why women come in. But for example, um, there was a cover story in Time Magazine that was titled Infidelity, it may Be in Our Genes, and the article said, monogamy is just not natural. Stephen Pinker, who's at Harvard, is another evolutionary psychologist, and he has argued that evolution teaches that men should spread their seed by far and wide, um, in order to have as many offspring as possible. That's how you get your genes into the next generation. So in other words, his point is that evolution has selected for male promiscuity, which by the way is not even scientifically accurate in the sense that if, if, if the husband and father doesn't stick around to raise the kid, he's probably not going to survive.
Speaker 3 00:20:28 And so evolution should select for faithful husbands and fathers. One of the more egregious examples is Robert Wright, who wrote a bestselling book called The Moral Animal, in which he said, and I will quote this, human males are by nature, oppressive, possessive, flesh obsessed pigs. And he says, giving them advice on successful marriage is like offering Vikings a free booklet entitled How Not to Pillage. So this apparently is the message from evolutionary psychology. Another, uh, example is George Gilder, who writes that single men are violent by, by nature, sexually predatory and irresponsible. So this is still being promoted by evolutionary psychologists that men's nature is irresponsible and immoral, and that things like marriage and family are actually counter to masculine nature. George Gilda writes explicitly that men's deepest yearning is to get out on the open road and get away from it all, you know, get on your motorbike.
Speaker 3 00:21:40 And I think it's just so contrary to the Christian understanding that God created a human couple. He didn't create, you know, a man surveying a wilderness. He created a human couple and they were married. So marriage is not contrary to the male nature. Marriage is deeply embedded in who men were made to be, marriage and family. Uh, and I I think that the, the evolutionary psychologists are putting out a message that encourages the Playboy mentality and, and supports the idea that, um, men's true nature is, is not, is contrary to marriage, commitment, loyalty, family, and so on.
Speaker 2 00:22:22 And the evidence is shaky at best. I mean, we're reporting on ID the future about the scientific evidence that, that that shows that Darwinian evolution isn't creative enough and doesn't have enough time to do what people say it does. So this is a strange time to be falling back on Darwinian claims, uh, to, you know, produce a concept of human psychology, and yet they're doing it. And that's something we all need to be aware of, so we can push back on that. Why is it a bad idea to give women the job of shaping or saving men and, and their masculinity?
Speaker 3 00:22:56 Yeah, so this is a theme that goes back to the 19th century as well. I hear, especially from young people, that that double standard is still very much there. The idea that men are more naturally prone to send advice to pornography, to adultery, and so on, uh, and that it's up to women to hold the lid on it, hold, hold them in check. Let's go back to prior to the industrial revolution. That's the real turning point. Before the Industrial Revolution, men worked with their wives and children all day on the family farm, the family industry, the family business. And so the ethos, the expectation for manhood was very much of a caretaking expectation. You know, that you had to be kind and gentle. You're working with your kids <laugh>. And even the concept of authority was very different back then. It didn't mean I'm in charge and I get to do what I want.
Speaker 3 00:23:45 It meant you had the responsibility for the common good. In other words, you know, I look out for what's good for me. You look out for what's good for you, but who looks out for the common good of the marriage of the family? The school, the church, civil society authority was seen as an office, and the person who held that office was supposed to be disinterested. That was a favorite word at the time. In other words, he should not pursue his own interest. He looks for the interest of the whole. And so it was a very different definition of masculinity and how do we lose it? The turning point was the industrial revolution, because it takes work out of the home. And of course, men have to follow their work out of the home into factories and offices. And for the first time, men are not working alongside people they love and have a moral bond with.
Speaker 3 00:24:37 Instead, they're working as individuals in competition with other men. And that's where you see the language start to change. In the literature of the day, people began to protest that men were losing that caretaking ethos that they had before the colonial era. That they were becoming egocentric, individualistic, acquisitive, greedy, pushing themselves forward, right? So looking out for number one, becoming morally hardened. This was the language of the day, and they were protesting because they didn't like what they were seeing. But this is where you see the language begin to be negative in its description of the masculine character. And at the same times, uh, industrialization also was a trigger, a catalyst for secularization, because as a large public sphere developed of factories and industry and financial institutions and universities, and, and of course the state, um, people began to argue that these large institutions should be run by scientific principles by which they meant value free, which, which meant don't bring your private values into the public realm, which is what we hear today still.
Speaker 3 00:25:53 But what it meant for men is that men were being largely socialized into a secular education in a secular workplace. And so men were growing secular, you know, before women did. And so they were coming home at night and they were not as committed to a Christian moral vision, a Christian view of manhood and a social expectation began to form was, well, women are, women are home. If, if values are kicked outta the public realm, where do they go? They go to the private realm, and that's where women are. And so there was this idea that, well, women are the caretakers of values. Women are the moral guardians of society. And when men come home at night, it's up to women to refine and reform them and get them rooted back in, you know, into a Christian worldview again, you know, every night, every night they had to sort of redo this, um, reforming process.
Speaker 3 00:26:45 So that's where the idea kicked in, that it was up to women to, in a sense, be the moral conscience of men. And you ask, why is that a bad idea? Well, first of all, because nobody likes it when somebody else is their conscience. And secondly, men got tired of being portrayed as the villain. Um, many of the reform movements of the 19th century, by the way, were also geared toward male vices. In other words, drinking, gambling, alcoholism and brothels, brothels, mushroomed during the 19th century. And so again, a lot of the social movements, the reform movements of the time were also aimed at men. And so about the time of Darwinism, they, Darwinism gave them the language where they could say, well, I'm just naturally this way. You know, don't, don't try to make me be different. I'm naturally rude, Lew and crude. And that's just the male nature. And so that's kind of where we are today, where a lot of people think they're defending men when they're actually defending this very secularized view of men that we've, we've acquired from Darwinism.
Speaker 2 00:27:48 Wow. Such interesting points. Uh, there, Nancy. It sure seems like, you know, men could all of a sudden after Darwinism say, well, I, it's, you know, this is me. I was born in that way, uh, to use some of the modern lingo, um, but not so, uh, and I've been studying the work of Jacque Kaul, the famous, uh, philosopher of technology and sociologist out of France. And he, he reports on technique, which was the shaping of humanity in the technological age. And it sure looks like this matches up with how it was affecting men, in particular the machine age, the factory age, and, uh, makes a lot of sense. You know, they're coming home instead of being a home and working with their families, they're coming home. And now, now we have two separate spheres and, and a lot of problems, uh, emerging from that. Well, I like the quote from Mark Batterson in your book, the Image of God is our original software, sin is the virus. Do men have to give up their identity, their maleness, to live well as men?
Speaker 3 00:28:53 In my book, I just start with the biological differences. I figure that that's the least controversial. If you start with the psychological traits, of course, men and women are very similar. You get a, a bell curve for a trait like aggression, for example, even aggression. You get a bell curve for men, and you get a bell curve for women, and they overlap closely. The difference are mostly at the edges, which is why most people in jail are men. They're from that edge, the extreme edge. Um, but the, so the differences are mostly just biology. And by biologically, men are bigger, stronger, faster. They have 75% more upper body muscle mass. They have 95% greater upper body strength. They have denser bones, and they have, well, because of testosterone, they tend to be more aggressive and more risk taking. And we should embrace these as good things.
Speaker 3 00:29:49 These are things, these are the way God made them male strength is a very good thing when it is directed towards virtuous ends. It was a study done by an anthropologist. It was the first ever study done on, uh, cross-cultural concepts of masculinity. It was just a few years ago. And what he found was no matter how they define masculinity, you know, sometimes it's more aggressive, sometimes less aggressive, whatever it was, they all shared what this anthropologist called the three Ps. They all expected that men would provide protect and procreate, meaning, you know, be a father and build into the next generation. Those were universal. And so once again, we're seeing the impact of the image of God that men do know, no matter what their cultural background is. Men do know that their unique masculine strengths were not given them just to get whatever they want, but to love, provide, protect the people that they care about. And so I think this is a wonderful example of where, I guess what you might call common grace. You know, where people with general revelation as to use the theological term where people recognize that they're made in God's image. And they do have a sense when, when we ask men to live up to a biblical standard, we're not imposing something alien on them. We're asking them to live up to what they already know is the good man.
Speaker 2 00:31:19 So the original design, in other words,
Speaker 3 00:31:21 Good. Uh, yes, that's a good way of putting
Speaker 2 00:31:22 It. Putting aside the Darwinian view, which is very tempting for many people and getting to the heart of masculinity. Well, just as a final question for today, what do you propose as the long-term strategy for a return to virtuous masculinity in American society? Your book says it has to do with fathers and sons.
Speaker 3 00:31:42 Yes. Long-term, certainly raising the next generation is the most important factor. I quote a psychiatrist who says, we're not gonna have a better class of men until we have a better class of fathers. You know, fathers who don't run out on the job. And that is a serious problem in America today because 40% of children today live apart from their natural father. We have the highest rate of single parenthood anywhere in the world. How's that for, you know, being a, being on the top of the chart for single parenthood? And so I, I, I try to, um, bring fathers, you know, back encourage fathers to come back with a lot of studies showing not just what children benefit, how, how children benefit from having fathers, because most people know that. But also how fathers benefit, because there've been a lot more studies recently and how fathers feel a sense of greater masculinity, greater manhood when they're deeply embedded in their lives, in the lives of their children.
Speaker 3 00:32:44 There've been a a number of studies, for example, showing that, uh, we all knew that when women have children, when when women give birth, their oxytocin goes up, oxytocin is a bonding hormone, and it gives a sense of of connection and relationship. Well, they now find that it happens both for fathers too. They didn't know that, uh, the fathers have to be actually holding their children. It's apparently tactile, it's stimulated by tactile sense. But if a father is holding and playing with his child, the oxytocin goes up. So the father too gets that sense of bonding and connection, relationship. And here's the real surprise, the most recent studies they did on fathers during their wife's pregnancy, their oxytocin goes up if they're living with their wive during her pregnancy, his oxytocin is going up. And apparently nobody thought to test a man's blood while his wife was pregnant. When, when they did, they found out that all through the pregnancy he's being biochemically primed to be part of the parenting team. And so I don't mind appealing to self-interest that many men report that when they do have close relationships with their children, they are happier and they feel more fulfilled. And many of them in these studies report having a much greater sense of, of masculinity through being involved parents.
Speaker 2 00:34:09 Fascinating. That is just fascinating. Well, listeners, much more awaits you in this book than we could, uh, talk about in one episode. Get a copy of the Toxic War on Masculinity at places such as Amazon and learn more about Professor Pearce's
[email protected]. That's Nancy pearcy, spelled P E A R C E y.com. Nancy, it's just a real pleasure to have you on to talk about these issues. Thank you so much for your time today.
Speaker 3 00:34:37 Thanks for having me. Good to talk with you.
Speaker 2 00:34:39 Absolutely. Well, for ID the future, I'm Andrew McDermott with Professor Nancy Pearcy. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1 00:34:47 Visit
[email protected] and intelligent design.org. This program is Copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its Center for Science and Culture.
