[00:00:04] Speaker A: ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
So all of us at one time or another, want justification for suffering. We want to know why evil exists and why bad things happen to innocent people.
Identifying good and evil in the universe is not a scientific pursuit, but we can certainly evaluate scientific theories of life by looking at the predictions they make about a world that contains suffering. I'm exploring this topic today with Tova Forman. Tova has a BA in Classics from Hillsdale College. She has been a part of the development team at Discovery Institute's center for Science and culture since 2022. She also writes occasionally for our flagship news and commentary website, evolutionnews.org and this is her first appearance on the ID the Future podcast. Tova, welcome to the podcast.
[00:00:57] Speaker B: Thank you for having me on.
[00:00:59] Speaker A: How did you first learn about intelligent design? I know you've been following the work of our fellows and scientists for quite some time, but how did Discovery Institute come across your radar? How did you find out about us?
[00:01:12] Speaker B: Yeah, so my parents loved the Discovery Institute, and I remember going to a couple of lectures that were maybe a little bit above me when I was very young.
So what I most grasped was when it was after lunch and dad said, hey, I have some videos to show you while we homeschool.
And so that was going to be a little bit different from the usual program and videos during school. That sounds fun. We watched the molecular machines. Dad particularly enjoys the kinesins, the way they walk along the strands.
[00:01:48] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:01:49] Speaker B: Um, they just look pretty comedic. So that was, that was my first real touch point with Discovery Institute. And then some years back, I guess, 2022, mom said, hey, they have this position open, and I know you're looking for something that. Because I did tax for a little bit, and I thought I could find something that suits me a little bit better and is easier on my hands and whatnot.
And I applied. I love it here. The Intelligent Design framework is just sparkling and clear to me. I love it. So it's fun digging into it more.
[00:02:28] Speaker A: And we, you know, you have a curious mind and you're eager to learn, you know, hallmarks of a good education, obviously.
But I know what you mean about, you know, following something and then suddenly working with those people.
It's a great feeling. I have a similar story. You know, I was following the work of, of Stephen Meyer and others and really looking at that debate over evolution for years before I finally was able to, to join the team. And it's, it's pretty special to, to work with such an awesome group here.
[00:03:01] Speaker B: Yeah. And realizing the, the struggles that some people have with, with seeing how intelligent design does make sense, because people do have a lot of reservations, either scientific or like, I see people emailing into our general inboxes about good and evil quite a bit, and it's not a scientific issue, but it nonetheless holds them back from understanding how our world works. Scientific. In other words, it's hard.
[00:03:30] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely, which is why I really appreciate that you, you've been writing on that topic, and of course, that's why we're. We're together today. Now, again, you've written this
[email protected] that's our flagship news and commentary website, and it's on the problem of evil, which is a very, you know, evergreen topic. There's lots of people thinking about it all the time and of course, lots happening in the world that sort of brings it to our attention.
And as you say, you, in your role at Discovery Institute, you're fielding and seeing a lot of questions come through from readers, friends, supporters, and many of those questions are touching on suffering and the problem of evil. So now, at the time you wrote your piece, Discovery Institute Press had just published a book, the young adult novel the Farm at the center of the Universe by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jonathan Witt. How do you think the issue of suffering comes up in that book? I mean, it's rather obvious, but tell our audience how it connects.
[00:04:34] Speaker B: Yeah. So your main character, his dad passed from cancer just recently and his. His grandparents are taking him for a visit at the farm.
His science teacher cousin believes in evolution and has been.
There's this moment in the greenhouse where the cousin and his grandpa and he are all in the greenhouse. And there's this carbon dioxide.
I think it enhances the levels of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse. And so they start talking about it. And Charlie's, the cousin is pointing out, like, why. Why do we have all these problems with our atmosphere and with earthquakes and things like that?
Why did. And your main character thinks in his head, why did my dad have to die? Why? Why, if this world is so well put together to do we have all these problems? They can't be well put together. People suffer.
So it's a larger issue.
And then for your main character, personally, it's just watching his dad suffer, for what reason? Why is it good for him to grow up without his dad?
[00:05:50] Speaker A: Lots of very important and pertinent questions come up in that story, both for the character and for us as readers. Now, your chief claim in the article you've written Is that intelligent design proponents are better prepared to answer the tough challenge of the problem of evil than those adhering to neo Darwinism or a materialistic view of life. And you say that before we can look at why there is evil, we must ask this. Is there evil? You got to start there. Which is related to the question from where does the value of life come?
Now, when scientists wedded to a Darwinian framework try to answer these questions, what's usually the result?
[00:06:33] Speaker B: So Darwinianism usually is coupled with materialism, naturalism, a sense that there's, there's nothing outside this universe. It's just the atoms, it's just your chemicals and arrangements of matter.
And if you're looking at it that way, it's very hard to, to see morality.
I, I was just thinking of the cartoon in Daniel Witt's evolution news article recently where he's saying, can you, can you look at unscientific explanations?
And it is sort of unrelated, but the cartoon is, is of this guy who just got murdered, There's a knife in his back. And you say, well, is that good or bad?
If you just look at it materially, you notice there's this iron intrusion in his body. But it doesn't mean anything unless you start looking to other disciplines, ethics and things like that. So if you're just looking at matter, like let's say I have a cough or there are allergies or whatever, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean anything. If you start saying, well, we're going to notice patterns and how people behave.
One nation wipes out another. It happens all the time in history.
That's a pattern. Maybe we should learn from it and wipe out another nation. I mean, where are you going to get as a biologist when you're, when you're trying to develop ethics, are you just going to notice patterns? And then it's just a matter of personal taste. Was that nation right to take over or not?
So it's hard to talk about the fundamentals of good and evil if you're buddy, buddying with materialism, which Darwinism definitely does.
[00:08:29] Speaker A: Yeah. And then, you know, you can see that it comes from a pedigree. Evolutionary theory comes from Darwin's, you know, ideas in the 19th century. But we can see that that dehumanizes humankind as well as our history. Let's talk about examples of that for a moment.
Why is it clear that Darwinian theory has a dehumanizing view of human life and also human history?
[00:08:56] Speaker B: So social Darwinism and eugenics are A very clear case of that where people said this one people group seems a lot stronger and better or whatever than the next. And we want to preserve the gene pool and it's perfection here. So we're going to get rid of whoever we don't like as much.
And that's definitely a black mark on Darwinism.
It's not the way to go if you're, if you're trying to work out ethics.
Don't, don't use like DNA to, to say this person is more valuable than that other person. Don't use just physical markers because the value is in the, the dignity of the human person.
And, and that's not a material thing. It's immaterial.
[00:09:53] Speaker A: Yeah. And yeah, that goes out the window with a Darwinian framework where it's portraying life as a violent struggle for existence. You know, slay or be slain, you know.
[00:10:03] Speaker B: Yeah. It's brutal and degrading to a person to, to set themselves up as somebody better and then use their power to hurt others to get ahead.
[00:10:18] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. It's been an excuse for a lot of, a lot of bad decisions throughout history. Well, one great point you make in your post is that design is designed whether it's considered good, bad or indifferent.
Skeptics of the design argument will sometimes claim that the presence of evil or even poor design sort of undermines design theory.
One example you bring up is from the Farm at the center of the Universe, the young adult novel. Isaac's older cousin Charlie maintains that a good designer wouldn't make a world where people struggle to heat themselves or grow enough food in cold climates.
But Isaac's grandfather offers some great food for thought. In his response in the book, he says, you have to think about trade offs.
The fact that there are warm seasons and cold seasons in many parts of the Earth and colder and warmer zones helps circulate the oceans. If we could snap our fingers and make the planet's temperature evenly warm year round and pole to pole, the oceans wouldn't circulate much and you'd end up with a lot of dead zones that have very few fish or aquatic life.
So I really like that idea. The trade offs, you know, and a designer or an engineer knows about tradeoffs, the cost and benefit decisions involved in the process of design.
You say that frequently. An accusation of malevolent design unearths a system of optimally designed trade offs. Why is this important to remember as we weigh the problems of suffering and natural evil?
[00:11:50] Speaker B: I think it's similar to when you listen to a politician say We've got a big problem, it's awful.
And then they don't offer the solution. And you think, well, if I'm going to give you any more, if I'm going to listen to you anymore, I want a solution.
So I think it's similar to when somebody says this design is awful. I wish I could never have the option to choke when I eat because I have to breathe through the same pipe that I eat with or something.
Well, what's your solution? Do you want one that you can breathe through and another mouth that you can eat with? What's your solution? And frequently it's just a, you know, you did a bad job. I mean, not you, because they're not talking to God usually, but this was a bad job.
And then it's just tacit as to whether there's a better option out there. And when you look at it, it's an incredible design to have the one mouth and nose and breathing system all combined so that you can sing and talk and breathe and eat and drink. It's really well designed. So this is just an example of somebody who says it's poor design and they aren't looking at, at the trade offs. Like, I'm glad that I don't have to have three sets of mouths to breathe and eat and sing and.
[00:13:30] Speaker A: Well, and there's lots of examples, you know, that the intelligent design community has brought to light.
Stuart Burgess, you know, the bioengineer, he's been working on lots of evidence of optimal design, invertebrate limbs and in joints.
And so you really have to get close to it. You know, when you're far away, it's easy to say, that's terrible. You know, optimal doesn't mean perfect, you know, let's face it. But it means that you've taken into account the trade offs, those decisions that are inherent in the design process.
And you've, you know, chosen what benefit and what cost is going to be associated with that design.
And often it's like, who are we to question, you know, what, what has been working for many moons since we got here? You know.
Yeah, it's, it's interesting. Now you quote mathematician Granville Sewell as you write about design constraints, those trade offs that are inherent in the design process.
The laws of nature and of life do not bend to our every wish, Sewall says, and this knowledge makes our achievements meaningful. He uses the example of gravity. Can you share what he says about that?
[00:14:43] Speaker B: So Granville points out that gravity serves a good purpose.
It means that the Earth is connected to the sun doesn't fly off. We're connected to the Earth. We don't fly off.
And yet it can also lead to plane crashes and a lot of deaths.
So something that can serve a good purpose can also lead to some suffering.
And this is just natural. It's how it is. It makes life meaningful.
People like a bit of challenge. That's why we watch the Olympics. We wouldn't watch the Olympics if all of us were Olympian skills.
If we all had that kind of skill without even raising a finger, you could run a marathon, then what would be the point? We love the underdog story.
So that bit of a challenge, that need to get off the ground and give it a try, some adventure, try to land well, it makes life meaningful in a way that. That taking all of the opportunities for trouble.
So all these adventures, if you took them out, I don't think you'd actually prefer your life that way. Like, I'm. I'm glad for the troubles I've had. It's not like I wanted them to come, but. Yeah, I wouldn't be who I am without them.
[00:16:11] Speaker A: Right. Yeah. So bringing a lot of meaning to life. And this, this also relates to a conversation I had with physicist Eric Hedin recently. And, you know, he says we push against the forces of nature, the. The laws of physics that would otherwise have us in a puddle of organic material on the floor. So every day we get out of bed and face the challenges, both physical, mental and otherwise that we face.
We are, you know, we're pushing against that, you know, idea that in physics where all. All matter, you know, tends toward an equilibrium energy state. And so we're pushing against that to be a ballerina, to dance as you love to do, to do the great physical feats that we watch at the Olympics, you know, we're pushing against that. And that does bring meaning. When you push against something and overcome something, there's meaning there and there's satisfaction and there's. There's life to be lived there for sure.
Now, philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer also addresses the problem of evil in a long footnote in his book Return of the God Hypothesis. He is trying to provide a framework for those who want to affirm a designing intelligence responsible for life, such as the one the Judeo Christian scriptures affirm. He says based on the Judeo Christian scriptures, one can expect to see two classes of phenomena in nature.
On the one hand, you see evidence of intelligent design and goodness, as well as evidence on the other hand of subsequent decay and degradation.
As an example he talks about virulent strains of bacteria or viruses and how microbiologists can document the informational losses, the mutations or the transfers that from an ID perspective, have reversed or altered original creative acts that made life possible.
Now he quotes University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minich on the origin of the microorganism that caused the devastating bubonic plague in the 14th century, one of the deadliest pandemics in human history. This is what Minick said. With molecular techniques and DNA sequencing, we have in the last 10 years shown that the plague evolved, or rather devolved from an innocuous progenitor strain of bacteria.
So Meier says, we can expect to find tragic natural evils in the world around us, and we can actually consider such instances as evidential support, he calls it, for the Judeo Christian understanding of nature.
Now, what do you think? Does this idea support your thesis in your article that Intelligent Design can better address the problem of evil than Darwinism?
[00:18:53] Speaker B: If you have design and you break it, then you have a problem. If you don't even have design, there's nothing to break.
Is, is there a problem?
I think of like if, if your dad gives you a toy and you play with your sibling and it gets broken because you were fighting or something, now that design is broken, you could potentially take it back to your dad. It would be a growing experience. Maybe he can fix it. So that's sort of the understanding of design being a cushier spot for this, for this pain that we all have. Like, why is there evil? What can we do about it? The designer intended so much good, it's broken. Maybe there's more to the story.
Darwinian evolution is a bit of a puzzler because you don't even have the toy in the first place. And the mechanism is, is probably better termed devolution because you're just losing information, you're losing function. There's no guidance to that. And so it's just going to get worse. That's. That's all it can do.
[00:20:10] Speaker A: I like the way you put that succinctly. You know, if. If it's not recognized as design, then when it breaks, you know, the materialist says, who cares? You know, wasn't. It wasn't something designed in the first place, what does it matter, you know? And so that's a good way of kind of encapsulating the ideas within materialism when it comes to the design that we see in nature. Now you address another angle on this issue when you quote C.S. lewis out of his book the Problem of pain. Lewis says, pain provides an opportunity for heroism. Is there evidence of this repurposing of hardship in the world? Can you give us a few examples of that?
[00:20:52] Speaker B: I think there are the Helen Kellers of the world, people who don't have all the capacities we have and yet grow through that and inspire so many people, quadriplegics, who turn that into their ministry and their livelihood, just traveling around and speaking. And people who. I like this when people arrived, dietary issues or mold problems, who then are like, super sensitive and attuned to various toxic problems we have, and they forge a path through. And they make it so much easier for others to learn about this and just try to optimize, get more healthy. It's so fun learning about how we're made. And until it breaks, sometimes you just take it for granted. You move on, you misuse your system.
So people who do have those problems, when they grow through it, there's a lot of good.
[00:21:55] Speaker A: Evolution doesn't really give a good account of turning good out of evil or repurposing hardship, does it? I mean, natural selection celebrates the death of weaker individuals. It naturally selects for a cutthroat population.
Does it have an answer for mercy and selflessness and bonding over shared trials?
[00:22:18] Speaker B: I think their attempt at that was altruism, to try to say, well, you're not really looking out for yourself, you're looking out for the larger group.
And that still comes from a place of selfishness, and it can lead to just more of a totalitarian take on social Darwinism.
So just a larger scale, do you have one tyrant or do you have many that kind of like you still want to. You want a better principle guiding it all?
[00:22:54] Speaker A: There's a lot of hope with materialists and Darwinists when it comes to morality.
You know, they look to the future and they think, well, we're going to eventually evolve into peaceful, virtuous creatures technologically distanced from all material hardship. That's certainly the view of some techno utopians today. And indeed, people are working towards that.
Does that. Does that hold any water with you? Do you see us, you know, moving towards something better Again, I think the.
[00:23:21] Speaker B: Mechanism is a little wanting because you're losing function, you're mutating. There's no guidance to it.
So I don't see things getting better under the Darwinist perspective.
Also, I think suffering is a integral part of our human experience.
I don't mean to minimize it right now. It. Suffering serves such a great purpose. The stories often point out that you need the bitter with the better. Right.
So Isaac in the Farm at the center of the Universe is growing and maturing, and if he doesn't, he doesn't have to dig into the science and the philosophy and all that to surmount his problems. He's just gonna stay a child.
Suffering is fruitful when you grow through it. Well. And so envisioning a society where everyone's happy and there are no problems via the Darwinist mechanism is. It's just not compelling or persuasive.
[00:24:38] Speaker A: Yeah. And I would certainly advise those who are looking for something to give to a young person who may be going through suffering or just wrestling with some of these issues.
The young adult novel the Farm at the center of the Universe is definitely a short read. You know, it doesn't take long, but it. It helps address some of these questions. So it's a good tool, I would say.
Now, in your article, you describe the mechanism of Darwinian evolution really memorably, and I wondered if you came up with it yourself or you found it somewhere. You call it blind breakage of brilliant biological coding. Is that you or did you find that Summer?
[00:25:18] Speaker B: I. I think it's me.
Okay. I often wonder whether one should use a figure of speech in. In writing like this, but I'm glad it pleased.
[00:25:33] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, it just rolls off the tongue. It's a really good way to. To kind of summarize it. Blind breakage of brilliant biological coding. We've got to remember that one.
Now, to be sure, the problem of evil is not really a scientific one, as you. You do note in your writing, but it does persist. And I think your article does a good job of explaining which theory of biological origins is better able to address the problem of evil and which one struggles to do so. Now you close by touching on a real life Lord of the Flies story that David Klinghoffer featured previously on Evolution News. Can you briefly relay that for us as we wrap it up today?
[00:26:11] Speaker B: That's an interesting story.
I would like to learn more about it. So it.
From the kingdom of Tonga, which was a protected British state up until 1970. And so in 1965, these six boys who were going to a Catholic school just for something fun, for adventure, they. They actually ran off with a fisherman's boat and they were lost for, like, over a week at sea. Landed at Ata, which had been.
Its population had been taken away. And so nobody there.
And they.
So Lord of the Flies, the William Golding's book would make you rather pessimistic for how this is going to turn out. But they survived.
No one died. Stephen broke his leg and the other five boys, rather than saying taof your drain on the system, Darwinian rules or Darwinian rules are in effect here. They said, hey, sit there, we're going to take care of you.
They, they, they had a little commune going and they fashioned a guitar out of a coconut shell and some wires. I'm certain it didn't sound great, but they enjoyed singing and praying and had, I guess their, I hope they had their spirits up when they saw a ship.
Peter Warner, I think Australian guy, he, he remembers looking through the binoculars and seeing this wild looking boy without clothes jump off a cliff into the water and start swimming. And then these other five boys were yelling and jumped off with him and they swam over and, and then he said in English, like, my name is Stephen and I think we've been here for 15 months.
So it was just, it's, it's fun to look up, take a look at David Klinghoffer's write up. Go, go. Read more.
But yeah, that, that does not come out of natural selection.
Dog eat dog, just find your way. I mean, it's, it's, it's got a lot of character. They took care of each other and physically and certainly character wise grew stronger through this experience. It was, take a look. It was fun.
[00:28:44] Speaker A: Very interesting story that does not follow the materialistic expectation there, such as the one in the famous Lord of the Flies story.
Well, Tova, thank you for joining me today to discuss your article. Really appreciate your insights. Now you have another article coming out about dancing, which I know is one of your passions. You discuss which theory of biological origins is best placed to account for the joy and the great prevalence of dancing. So perhaps you'll come back and chat with us about that at some point.
[00:29:15] Speaker B: I hope so. Thank you for having me on.
[00:29:18] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, you're welcome. And thank you for being brave. I know it's hard to come on a podcast for the first time, but I hope this has been rewarding for someone out there who's pondering these issues and these questions. They're definitely ones that we can all think about now. Listeners, viewers, help us out by subscribing to our brand new idea, the future YouTube channel. Hop over to YouTube.com dthefuture and like and subscribe as we offer more video content covering the compelling case for intelligent design as well as the debate over evolution.
Thanks for your Support. Well, for ID the Future, I'm Andrew McDermott. Thanks for joining us.
ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
