Episode Transcript
[00:00:04] Speaker A: ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
Has Christianity traditionally been at war with science? Hello and welcome to ID the Future. I'm Casey Luskin, broadcasting with Discovery Institute's center for Science and culture in Seattle, Washington. I have on the show today with us Dr. Michael Keys, a fellow of Discovery Institute with a PhD in the history of science from the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Keyes serves as a lecturer in the history and philosophy of science at Biola University and has written many papers including Systematizing the Theoretical Virtues, published in the top tier philosophy journal Synthas. Dr. Keyes is also an expert in some of the myths that are prominent in the history and philosophy of science. And he published his book Seven Myths about the History and Future of Science and Religion to debunk some of these major myths. Dr. Keyes has a chapter in the recent book Science and Faith and Dialogue published by the South African academic publisher aosis. His chapter is titled Rumors of War and Evidence of Peace between Science and Christianity. So, Dr. Keys, it's great to have you on the show with us today to talk about your chapter in this new book.
[00:01:19] Speaker B: Well, thanks for having me, Kasey.
[00:01:21] Speaker A: So, Dr. Keys, where are you broadcasting from today? I know that you travel all around the US and you kind of have your mobile domination unit from which you conquer the world, but where are you talking to us from today?
[00:01:32] Speaker B: Yeah, we have a massive RV that's sitting in the foothills of the Ozark Mountains, almost Arkansas, but actually Oklahoma sounds.
[00:01:41] Speaker A: Like a beautiful place to do this podcast. So I'd like to start off with a question. I think a lot of people wrestle with this question. It's sort of out there in our culture, but there's this common that following the fall of the Roman Empire, there was sort of this long period of intellectual stagnation that we call the Dark Ages. And this is supposed to be when Christianity was taking over the world. And as Christianity rose, science fell. And you provide a really provocative quote in your chapter from Jerry Coyne which says, had there been no Christianity, if after the fall of Rome, atheism had pervaded the Western world, science would have developed earlier and be far more advanced than it is now. So my first question for you is, is it true that Christianity led to these Dark Ages in the period that we call the Dark Ages was a time when no intellectual advancements were made.
[00:02:33] Speaker B: Jerry Coyne has no expertise in the history of science that that statement is really a deduction from his prior commitment to scientism, that only science, not religion, is reasonable. But the so called Dark Ages. It's a myth that says that Christianity, because it's anti intellectual, helped to plunge Europe into a state of anti science and anti reason. But just the opposite is actually true. And we're talking about the period roughly 400 to 1450 AD. Now the Romans didn't highly value science, they inherited Greek science, but you know, they cultivated to some extent, but not, it wasn't highly valued. And early Christians did kind of tend to absorb that attitude. But very soon they began to depart and created a science friendly Europe. For example, St. Augustine, who lived at the kind of transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages, he once wrote that we must proceed by certain reasoning and experience, unquote, to figure out how God, you know, made the world or what he called the nature of things. And there's a whole series of medieval books in that tradition that titled something like the nature of things, which is the study of nature and how it operates. For example, Roger Bacon, not Francis, but an earlier guy, Roger bacon, in the 13th century, building on prior Greek and Islamic achievements in theories of light, pushed it further and actually did some experiments on light. And he of course depended on translations from original Greek and Islamic treatises. And a lot of those translations were made available in a new institution called the University, which is a Christian invention. And that was a great place for science to flourish, and it has been ever since. The universities helped to cultivate the kind of logic that's friendly to science, that deals with probabilistic statements. They promoted human dissection to better understand the human body. And the very idea of laws of nature, the idea that there are certain principles by which the universe operates. Well, it operates that way because God is the divine maker of it and he's the ultimate in rationality. And so he upholds the universe in a certain way that reflects his faithfulness. And these came to be called the laws of nature or natural laws. So whether they're theories of light like Roger Bacon or theories of motion, these were not the Dark Ages. There was plenty of intellectual light here.
[00:05:01] Speaker A: So Dr. Keys, I'm going to throw you a little bit of a curveball. That is not on the list of questions that I originally sent you. And that is an interesting objection that I occasionally hear from people who are theists and they say, well look, when you defenders of intelligent design or defenders of the idea that religion and science are not at war, when you start to make religion sound as if it is so science friendly, are you now becoming sort of captive by your proponents of scientism who are trying to make science sound as if it is the most important thing in the world. And as you try to make religion sound more science friendly, are you sort of capitulating to their worldview which says that science is the end all, be all, and that science is the only thing that really matters? Are we spending too much time and energy trying to make religion sound science friendly? Does that just mean that we are sort of capitulating to the assumptions of their arguments?
[00:05:50] Speaker B: Yeah. Excellent question, Casey. I think we can make a robust argument that Christianity, well, really the larger Judeo Christian tradition, has been reason friendly or more generally, not just science. The very discipline of theology deals with premises derived from scripture and then arguing for certain conclusions, deductions, and other rational inferences based on those. And that kind of reasoning in theology was applied to many other areas. Technology, eventually science and medicine. Medicine being kind of a blending of science and technology. And so, yeah, I think that this is not to deny that there is faith, but of course, faith in the sense of just kind of your starting point, whether you can have a secular faith or a religious faith. And you can have reasoning that's either motivated by a desire to glorify God. Like the famous astronomer Johannes Kepler. He had religious motivations, but his science was.
Was pathbreaking. It's still in astronomy textbooks today. Of course, atheists can do science too, but I think that the cultural underpinnings that made modern science possible owe a lot to the Judeo Christian tradition. And so atheists who can do science just as well as Christians today are still sort of living off of borrowed cultural capital that they may not themselves recognize. And that's why I've written about this topic.
[00:07:11] Speaker A: No, those are great points, Dr. Keyes. I mean, as being a scientist with a PhD in geology, I. I think science is a great thing. So I don't think it's a bad thing to explore how religion is friendly to science. I think the two should not be at war. And so I'm being a little cheeky when I ask that question, but I have heard that objection. I think that some folks, when they think of science, they think of maybe sort of a very modern version of science that is very hostile to religion and is sort of maybe a. In some ways it's an aberration from just this dispassionate search for truth based upon objectivity and humility that science originally once was. Science has changed a lot, unfortunately, not always for the better. So some folks are not quite as appreciative of the great thing that Science can be. I don't know if you have any thoughts on that comment.
[00:07:57] Speaker B: Right. Because science today, according to the majority viewpoint, seems to lead toward a secular ideology of only the material world exists. But of course, science is very good at making sense of how things operate in the material world. But that doesn't mean that there's not more to the world than just material. In fact, the very fact that one intelligence is having a conversation with another intelligence, namely you, you. You can't reduce this to just physics and chemistry. That would be ridiculous. So, yeah, I think that it's reasonable to believe that there's more than the material universe. But science is very good at making sense of the material world when it's not hijacked by materialistic presuppositions that force you into saying, that's all that exists. That's all that's real.
[00:08:43] Speaker A: Yeah, that hijacked by those presuppositions and sometimes an attitude that really turns people off. I was watching a video yesterday, a clip that someone sent me on YouTube of Richard Dawkins at an atheism convention. Richard Dawkins was obviously former Oxford University spokesperson for the public interaction of science. And so, you know, he's obviously a very big spokesperson for science. And Dawkins is at this convention essentially saying that we should be mocking religion and making fun of it and, you know, basically bullying people into abandoning their religious beliefs simply through mockery and derision. And, boy, that is not a great PR tactic for those who wanna make science look like it's sort of this just friendly to the culture way of seeking truth. And I think, unfortunately, that turns a lot of people off. So, anyway, let's proceed onward with a questions that I actually crafted for this interview. So another myth that we're led to believe is that Western civilization has traditionally believed that the Earth is flat. Is this true or is this a myth designed to make our, you know, sort of older religious roots of our culture sound foolish?
[00:09:53] Speaker B: Yeah, it's truly a myth also. And it's. It's sort of a. I treat it as a separate myth, but it's a. It's a specific kind of Dark Ages myth, but it's got so much material that I treat it as a different myth because it's very commonly taught even in schools today, that Columbus discovered the Earth was round in 1492, and that in the Middle Ages prior to that, because of the poor influence of the church, people were shoehorned into a flat earth view, even though the ancients, like Aristotle, knew it was Round and had good reasons for it. Well, it turns out that the medieval universities which I discussed earlier, one of the required pieces of curriculum was to argue for a spherical Earth, not just from authority, but based on reasoning from observations, such as that during a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the earth cast on the moon has a curved edge to it. This was noticed by Aristotle and it was taught throughout the Middle Ages as a good empirical piece of evidence for around Earth. And there's a number of others, empirical arguments for around Earth that were routinely taught in these universities. And so it showed that these Christian universities, which they all were at that time promoted, not hindered the evaluative methods that are used in the sciences and in other rational discourse, not just in the natural sciences. So yeah, the flat earth story, of course no one credibly believes in a flat Earth anymore. But the myth is that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat in Christian Europe, when in fact they didn't. And they had good reasons to repudiate that view. Showing just how science friendly Christianity was.
[00:11:39] Speaker A: That's very helpful. Dr. Keyes. I know this is something that people hear a lot. What about what you call the big myth? The idea that, I mean, obviously the universe is very big. No one, I think disputes that. But sometimes I struggle to understand why a giant cosmos would somehow count against a design based or theistic worldview. Because I mean, I think that a giant universe would just speak to the grandeur of the creator. So can you explain to us what is the big myth and why is it wrong?
[00:12:08] Speaker B: Yeah. So science textbooks will sometimes use little sidebars with little history lessons and one of them that you will often get as well. Ancient religious people thought the Earth was occupied a big spot compared to the universe. In other words, the universe is really small and the Earth is sort of the main thing in it. And then it wasn't until science, particularly modern science, that disabused us of that misunderstanding. And then now we're supposedly not significant anymore because of how small we are compared to the gigantic cosmos. Well, let's look at ancient religion and ancient science to debunk the historical component of this myth. And then we'll look at just kind of philosophically how you can debunk the false presuppositions that still drive it, the myth today. So historically, what's wrong is, let's just take as an example the ancient Hebrew poet who wrote Psalm 103. I'll quote just a snip of it. For as high as the heavens are above the Earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who feared him. This is comparing the greatness of the love of divine love with the greatness of the size of the cosmos. This psalmist obviously believed that the heavens or the cosmos were really, really big. And so is making a poetic comparison between the bigness of the universe and the bigness of God's love. Okay, so that's a religious view. How about a scientific view? In the ancient world, Ptolemy, the greatest ancient Greek astronomer, made very great arguments to prove the point that Earth is like a tiny point compared to the distance to the stars, which he conceived of as being all equidistant from the Earth on a sphere. So even though that particular view of where the stars are was wrong, he was correct that the stars, what was called fixed stars, are very, very far away, and the Earth is virtually dimensionless compared to that huge distance. All right, so ancient religious people, in this case a Jew, ancient scientific thinkers, in this case a Greek, both agreed that the universe was big. And this was this attitude, this perspective was absorbed into medieval Europe. And so medieval scholars knew the Earth was small compared to a huge cosmos, and they didn't think that was made as insignificant. Now, CS Lewis kind of takes down the. Some of the current use of this myth, even if people don't use the. The bad history. Lewis says, you know, space feels infinite, or at least not with no definite end. And ancient people, he said, and he was a definitely a historian and a philosopher and a literature guy, he said that ancient people, you know, imagined a huge cosmos. And if we think about the possibilities, okay, so the universe is big. What if there were no objects in the, in the sky except for the sun and the moon? And, well, atheists would say no God would create lots of wasted, empty space, therefore don't believe in such a God, you know, and of course, if there's other objects in space, Lewis continues, which of course, there obviously are lots of objects besides our sun and moon. Lewis says if there are other objects in space, they must be either habitable or uninhabitable. You know, two logical possibilities there. And Lewis says the odd thing is that both these hypotheses are used to reject Christianity. And what Lewis had in mind here, just kind of boil it down to real simply. Let's suppose there are billions of habitable planets. I mean, just billions of them out there, and there's all kinds of ETs up there. Well, then the atheists would say humans aren't special. But what if habitable planets are very Very rare. Which of course, Casey, you know, is actually where the evidence points right now. Habitable planets are extremely rare. Well then the atheist can easily turn that against Christians and say, well see, no God would create trillions of sterile planets. What lousy design. So what's weird about this is that the history part of the myth is clearly wrong. The philosophical options kind of that I just ran through, it's a rigged game. It's not really an objective argument that belief in God is irrational. It's just rigging the games that no matter how big the universe is, what's in it, whether planets are habitable or not, there's an excuse available to make belief in God look silly, which makes the whole thing clear. It's really game rigging. Not a rational, not a highly reasonable evidence based argument for connecting a big universe in which belief in God is no longer credible. And as you pointed out, a big universe fits the idea that God might express his greatness through the bigness of the universe. So yeah, the big myth is just that, a myth. But it's useful rhetoric for atheists, nothing more.
[00:16:56] Speaker A: Well, it's tough to go up against heads I win, tails you lose. Logic. But you've done a good job of deconstructing this. Dr. Keyes. Related to this is what I think you call the demotion myth. The idea that Copernicus just showed that our place in the universe is insignificant and generally unimpressive and we're just a speck of lost in this giant universe, not in any kind of an important location. You kind of alluded to this in your previous answer, but is it a fair characterization of planet Earth to say that our place in the galaxy, in the universe is unimportant? And that Copernicus also showed that again, we don't live in any kind of a special location?
[00:17:33] Speaker B: Yeah, the relation between the two myths is the one we just finished discussing is about size. This one's about location.
And as realtors know, location is important. Right. Christopher Hitchens passed away a number of years ago. Very prominent so called new atheists once said in a debate that Christianity's greatest failure was to oppose the Copernican view because the church didn't want to dethrone humanity from its privileged status in the center of the cosmos. But it turns out the history shows almost the direct opposite of this because traditionally, prior even to the advent of the Christian movement. Let's go back to the ancient world of Aristotle bc The center of the universe was not considered the place of honor, it was the place Where Earth is where heavy things fall, and it's the place of corruption. The heavens seem to be incorruptible. That's the impression that ancient people had. Whereas things on Earth tend to fall apart. So center was really the bottom of the universe. And if you put it that way, it sounds less privileged.
So the Earth was at the bottom of the universe and up was considered more honorable or privileged. So when Copernicus came around and he had scientific arguments for Earth moving around the sun, early Copernicans could claim that this was a promotion for Earth. Compared to this cultural backdrop that I just described for you. And Galileo actually once wrote, I will prove that Earth does have motion and that it's not the sump where the universe's filth and ephemera collect. In other words, it's not the trash heap at the bottom of the universe, you know, the ghetto of the universe, because Earth is a planet. And so Galileo framed his pro Copernican view as a promotion, not a demotion. And Kepler made a similar move. Copernicus himself, we'll just end with this. Once wrote that the cosmos was created for our sake. Does that sound like a demotion?
[00:19:34] Speaker A: No, definitely not. Someone has definitely gotten their history of science wrong there. And thank you for correcting it. The next myth is sort of a fun myth. I think people will also be very familiar with this one. You call it the Galileo myth in your chapter in the book. It's the idea that Galileo's clash with the Church shows that religion is at war with science. And Dr. Keys, I'm sure that you remember a few years ago, you and I had the occasion to visit the Museo Galileo in Florence, Italy, together. And even though I had just landed from a long flight and was pretty much heavily jet lagged, I think you had to keep poking me to keep me awake as we went through the museum. I felt incredibly fortunate to visit that museum with an historian of science such as yourself to be able to explain what was going on and enlighten many of these aspects of Galileo's life to me. But tell me, Mike, is it true that the Galileo affair shows that the Church has a history of persecuting science? What is the true story of the Galileo affair?
[00:20:33] Speaker B: Well, let me tell you one more true story about our time in Florence. You missed out on a little voyage across to the other side of the valley to Galileo's home that he was in during his time of house arrest. It's a lovely villa, and although the museum was great, Cayce, you really missed out on this other trip. Sorry.
[00:20:55] Speaker A: So it doesn't sound so bad. Maybe if he was in a nice place, though, when he was arrested, maybe life wasn't so bad for him.
[00:21:02] Speaker B: Right. Well, okay, so let's kind of review the. What happened between Galileo and the. And his own Catholic Church, of which he thought of himself as a, as a, as a good member. We saw one of the telescopes in that museum that Galileo used to peer into the heavens. He got quite adept at grinding his own lenses to construct his own telescope. And one of the things he noticed is that Jupiter has moons that go around it. And even more stunningly, that Venus goes through phases very similar to how the Moon goes through phases. And it was the latter, the phases of Venus, that really killed ancient astronomy. But there was another third view that often gets left out of the story that the Jesuit astronomers like at the Collegio Romano, the College of Rome that was right there near the Vatican. The Jesuit astronomers agreed that ancient astronomy was no longer tenable. But there was a third position called the Tychonic view that was championed by a guy named Tycho Brahe, who had since passed away. But his, his views were still out there. And the Jesuit astronomer said, look, Venus could go through phases like the Moon, and it could still be true that Earth is at rest in the center of the cosmos. Now, when I teach this, and I taught observational astronomy for a quarter century to college students, and there's a great visual that I can't show on a verbal interview, that the point that it makes is that according to the Copernican view, of course, Earth goes around the sun, but Venus has a smaller orbit that's contained within Earth's orbit, if you can kind of imagine that. So that sometimes Venus is on the opposite side of the sun as Earth, and it will appear almost like a full Moon or gibbous phase. And according to the ancient Earth center view, you could never get all those phases, especially the big, the. The gibbous phases, where Venus is almost full, by the way, which you can only see with the telescope, really, not with the naked eye. The naked eye, Venus doesn't appear to go through any phases at all. So that's why Galileo's telescope that we both peered through, we were, we stand, we stood about six feet away from his telescope, Cayce, that day. But that famous telescope appeared much further than six feet into deep space, well, deep at that time, showing that Venus has phases. But the Tychonic view said, you know, Earth is at rest in the center, but the sun goes around the Earth and carries with it the orbits of other planets. And so that would include Venus. And so that means that Venus could sometimes be on the opposite side of the sun relative to Earth, similar to the Copernican system. Observationally, the two theories were equivalent when it came to the phases of Venus. And so Galileo did not prove that the Copernican system was true. He fell way short of that. That took another generation or two before that was proven beyond reasonable doubt. And so at the time that the Catholic Church was interacting with Galileo, Galileo overstated his argument, way overstated it, and made it sound like it was a slam dunk that the Copernican view is true, which was not the case at that time. And so the Inquisition, which is not an institution that I'm defending here, but they did, they were right about this part that they concluded that Galileo exaggerated his case for Copernicus. And one of the chief inquisitors, guy named Bellarmine, even said that if the Copernican view could be proven sometime in the future, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the scriptures that appear contrary, because he realized that, and Galileo and many others realized that the Bible really describes the world observationally. So when we use terms like sunrise, sunset, it's not really making a statement about what's really at rest and what's really moving. It's just how things appear. So Galileo and the more enlightened Church leaders realized that that was the case, that the Bible didn't really teach one way or another. And that's why the lead inquisitor, you know, said, look, if you, if you're ever able to prove the Copernican view, then we'd have to understand the Scriptures in light of that. But Galileo never did that.
So the Church was right to question him on this. But of course, the Church was also. The Catholic Church here was guilty of overreach. But this was no intrinsic necessary warfare between science and religion. This was because of the political circumstances of the time. The Vatican was kind of under certain pressures politically from multiple directions. They did overreact to Galileo, but even there, there was a minority of the inquisitors who did not vote to charge Galileo with vehement suspicion of heresy. Galileo did have to read a statement that, you know, he didn't believe in that anymore, that the Earth moves. That was overreach for the Catholic Church. But the simplistic story says that the Inquisition represents Christianity as a whole. But Galileo himself represents Christianity, not just the Inquisition. Right. Galileo represents science but so do the Jesuit astronomers who confirmed his phases of Venus observations. So these were just growing pains for both science and theology, and that's to be expected. There's similar growing pains that we could experience today as people try to figure out how science and scripture fit together. And Galileo had his view, and it wasn't until a few generations later that this finally became settled. This is no simple warfare story. That's a gross exaggeration. And it's a much more interesting and complicated story than that.
[00:26:18] Speaker A: Great explanation. Thank you so much for that. So let's go to the last myth here, what you call the skeptic myth. The idea that science was pushed forth only by those who threw off the shackles of religion and that religious scientists made few important contributions to science. I mean, obviously you just debunked that in your previous explanation, talking about how it was Jesuit scientists who were making important contributions to science. But tell us about the skeptic myth. Is it true that it was those who got rid of religion that were able to make progress, or is this just a myth?
[00:26:51] Speaker B: It's a myth. And it was celebrated and further proliferated by means of the 2020 Cosmos TV series that Tyson hosts. Neil Degrasse Tyson and I particularly pick on the example that the producers of Cosmos used as kind of the poster boy for the heroic skeptic that helped to bring about modern science, and that was Spinoza. Now, Spinoza was definitely a skeptic. He turned his back on Judaism, and his God was no longer the God of Abraham and Isaac, but nature. In his view, God had no freedom. Nature was just, you know, deterministic, and that's God. Now, what's ironic about this is although the Cosmos TV series promotes this, as, you know, you know, Spinoza helped to promote science, and he didn't believe in God, at least in any traditional sense. But Spinoza, in resisting the theistic view of God, helped to undermine one of the very ideas that helped to bring about modern science. And this is the Judeo Christian idea that God is not a necessitarian being, He's a being of freedom. He could choose to create or not create the universe. He could choose to create this particular universe, the one that we're in, or different sorts of universes with different natural laws and so on. So this undercut the. The ancient pagan view that Plato and Aristotle championed, that the cosmos is a necessary entity, that it couldn't be otherwise, there's only one way the cosmos could be. And that necessitarian view of the cosmos was not friendly toward testing multiple hypotheses or possibilities about how nature might operate. Because if there's only one way the cosmos could be, well, then you just sort of deductively reason to that way. Whereas the Judeo Christian view that Spinoza helped to undermine helped to promote testing multiple hypotheses by observation and even by experiment. And so Spinoza actually helped to undercut science, fostering culture, the very culture that famous scientists like Galileo and Kepler fostered. And Galileo and Kepler not only helped to show the connection between Christianity and its friendliness towards science, they were actual scientists and made discrete contributions to science. Kepler, for an example, he believed that mathematics exists in the mind of God and that God freely chose certain mathematical principles to instantiate into natural laws, such as the law of the ellipse, planets move around the sun in a solar system. Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, now still in astronomy textbooks, owes part of its inspiration to his theology. And he was very explicit about this in his books, you know, that he thought that because humans are made in God's image, we can discover the natural laws, because, in effect, we're rethinking God's thoughts. The rationality of God that makes the universe also makes our minds and our minds operate, although not perfectly, but still quite rationally imitating God's mind. My favorite Kepler quote is that when we discover these natural laws, we share in his own thoughts, that is God's thoughts. So that idea of the divine freedom, Spinoza undermined that idea, divine freedom, which helped to encourage multiple hypotheses and testing and observation, even experiment. Whereas Kepler, who was a very devout Christian, he not only agreed that God had freedom, he showed how that kind of theology was very productive in guiding him in doing science and making discoveries that are still in astronomy textbooks today.
[00:30:28] Speaker A: And of course, there's so many examples of people who made huge contributions to science that were nonetheless religious. So I know that you have many, many more examples you can give. So, Dr. Keys, in the final analysis, is religion at war with science after we've debunked all of these myths?
[00:30:45] Speaker B: Well, of course I focused on the Judeo Christian tradition. And by the way, that's not arbitrary, because the interaction between science and religion, if you look at that globally, most of that interaction took place within the Western tradition, where you had the Judeo Christian cultural underpinnings to that tradition. But even if you look at other world religions, you'll find many of them had at least some perspectives that at least didn't conflict with science. Maybe they weren't as science friendly as the Judeo Christian tradition, but, but at least they weren't like at all out war. So there's many rumors of war, but much evidence for peace. And particularly where the most, where you have the most historical data to even make that judgment is with the Judeo Christian tradition because that was the cultural context in which modern science arose. So there's a lot more data points that you can access than to look at that particular tradition. But overall, yeah, there's really no good reason to think that religion even in general is intrinsically necessarily at war with science. It's a big fat myth.
[00:31:52] Speaker A: Well, thank you so much, Dr. Keys, for sharing your expertise with us today. I want to commend our listeners to read not just your chapter in the book Science and Faith and Dialogue that I think is a fantastic summary of this issue, but also your book, seven Myths about the History and Future of Science and Religion. It goes into much more detail about why many of these myths are wrong, although your chapter in the AOSIS book, Science and Faith and Dialogue is also a great place to start. Thank you so much, Dr. Keyes, for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with us today.
[00:32:24] Speaker B: Okay. And the next time we're in Florence together, let's go to Galileo's home. Okay.
[00:32:27] Speaker A: That sounds like fun. I'll get there early so I'm awake. I'll make sure I'm not jet lagged anymore. All right, very good. Great. Well, it's been a lot of fun having this conversation. Stay tuned for more on ID the future. Thanks for listening.
Visit us@idthefuture.com and intelligent design.org this program is copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
