[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
The Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent Design.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: Welcome to ID the Future. I'm your host, Andrew McDermott. Today, enjoy the second half of a conversation with geologist Dr. Casey Luskin and his wife, science educator Kristin Murray, as they discuss intelligent design, evolution and and alien life with host Daniel Ray on the Apologetics Profile podcast.
Now, in part two, the conversation shifts from the theoretical framework of intelligent design to the physical and biological hurdles that challenge both Darwinian evolution and the search for extraterrestrial life.
Dr. Luskin also discusses the professional risks and academic pressures faced by scientists who. Who dare to suggest that the design evident in nature may be actual design from an actual designer.
The conversation wraps with a surprising conclusion, that the possible future discovery of alien life would actually be the ultimate disproof of Darwinism, pointing instead to a common design blueprint shared across the cosmos.
Now let's get back to the conversation with Casey, Kristen, and their host, Daniel Ray.
[00:01:21] Speaker A: When people want to invoke aliens to explain the origin of life on Earth, you really are just pushing the question back, okay? Because where did those aliens come from? Did they evolve naturally? You've got to ultimately account for the origin of life in this. Thank you, Kristen, for making that point. That's a important point that I left. That I left out there. You got to, at some point account for the ultimate origin of life.
You can't just keep pushing the question back and kicking the can down the road.
[00:01:47] Speaker C: Kristen, when you talk to students, you're getting students from a wide variety of backgrounds in what you do in your classroom.
You must get some students and the students that are not in public schools, the general public school. I mean, I grew up in public school in California in the 70s and the 80s. I never heard once anything about intelligent design at all. It was just the widespread assumption that Darwin was right and evolution happened, and you just kind of go on and accept that.
But it seems like there is a concerted effort to not only just push the question back, but push the question off the table completely.
We're given information about the origin of the universe and the origin of life in these textbooks. Like, it's just. That's just the way it is, and there's no need to. To ask questions that are beyond that curtain. Do you find that your students, some of the students that come to you are hearing this idea for the first time, and how do they react to this?
[00:02:49] Speaker D: Yeah. So if I was to be totally honest, we're a small program, and thus far, I just being super candid, I think that a Lot of our students are from families that are following Discovery Institute and very excited about Intelligent Design.
[00:03:09] Speaker C: Okay.
[00:03:09] Speaker D: That doesn't mean all of them fit into that criteria, but I've definitely had a significant number of students that are already thinking about Intelligent Design.
But I think what is refreshing is that they, some of them, like. I can think of one student that I had actually this last year in his free time is on a debate team.
And it was so cool to see him in a course like this, have that same mindset.
He would pleasantly surprise me sometimes with his ability to actually think about what would be the response of my opponent.
What would someone with a materialist perspective, what argument would they make?
And to do so not in a way that was disparaging or exaggerating, but genuinely engage with what would be the other side.
And I think what I would say is, you know, I. You mentioned your experience growing up in California public school. Like, I attended a private Christian school, but went off to a large public university for my university experience.
And I also, Daniel, do not recall at any point in my courses hearing about an Intelligent Design perspective. Some of the same discussions that we might have, say about the Stanley Miller experiment. Those were in my college texts, you know, or the, the one pager on how the first cell came to be, you know, and it was just said done and let's move right along. Right.
It's refreshing to be in a course with students where we probably unpack and flesh out the origin of the first cell in chunks over the course of an entire year.
[00:05:14] Speaker C: Wow.
[00:05:14] Speaker D: Right?
What a complete deviation from my college experience where I, I think it was a one and done in one day.
[00:05:23] Speaker C: Yeah, yeah, it's. It's almost, it's. It's like a broad, sweeping generalization that you just. We don't want to go into the details because for fear of opening. I think Richard Lewontin's famous phrase, giving a foothold to. To divine intervention, even the suggestion of a divine foot is reprehensible. And I've always been curious about Lewanten's phrase, choice of phrase, a divine foot in the door, because it is the foot in Genesis that crushes the head of the serpent. And so if the serpent can just get rid of the foot, then there's no head crushing in that sense, theologically. Casey, I wanted to transition to you again. Let's get back to DNA. But even prior to DNA, I want to mention something that I know, you know, you guys at Discovery talk about Fred Hoyle a lot, who was a agnostic atheist Astrophysicist, cosmologist, who coined the term Big Bang just because he thought it was nonsense.
But he observed how.
How carbon was produced. It was called the triple alpha process. I'm not entirely sure about all the science, but he. He realized there was a certain resonance of particles that needed to be at a certain frequency in order to stick together and become carbon.
And Hoyle said this. It's a famous quote. You hear it all the time. Would you not say to yourself, some super calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atomic, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. End quote.
CASEY and now, so that's like, at the base, you need the carbon before you even get the helix. And it's remarkable that you have that function at the carbon level and that that carbon level becomes the helix and the conveyor of information in cells. This is amazing. Why didn't Hoyle see. I mean, he seemed like he sees design, but he's not willing to concede it to the extent that. That maybe he. I think it's because. Do you think, Casey, it's because of the academic peer pressure of this environment today?
[00:07:44] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, Hoyle is an interesting case.
He supposedly was an atheist, but at the same time, he talked a lot about Intelligent design in a very friendly way. In fact, frankly, Hoyle was one of the early adopters of the actual term Intelligent Design. He wrote in a 1982 book, he said, quote, if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials and their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of Intelligent design. Okay, so I don't know exactly where he stood, to be honest with you. He may have been, you know, there are supporters of Intelligent design who are not religious, who are, but they see that there's evidence for design, but they kind of are agnostic about who the designer is.
And so you might call them an atheist or an agnostic, in a sense. And he might have. So I don't want to speak for Hoyle. He actually, obviously passed away many years ago, but he clearly supported Intelligent Design. And I'm sure that he took heed for adopting views like that. By the way, that quote that I just read was from a book in 1982 that was really arguably even before the modern Intelligent Design movement got started. I marked the origin of the modern ID movement to the publication of the book the Mystery of Life's Origin in 1984.
Because those guys who published that book, that was the first time that scientists actually were explicitly appealing to an intelligent cause. And it was from people who got involved with what is now the Intelligent Design movement, the authors of that book. But Hoyle, he did make that argument for an intelligent cause for sure, but he was never part of the later ID community, but he was using that term. And so it shows kind of that he was probably one of the guys who helped to bring that term into the way that we use it now. He was one of the early adopters, you could say, and probably influenced people who were the founders of the Intelligent Design movement. So, yeah, I don't know exactly where Hoyle stood religiously in light of his. His statements about intelligent design, but he certainly professed to, you know, be an atheist at various points.
[00:10:00] Speaker C: Well, I know in. In his autobiography called Home Is where the Wind Blows, he said this about the idea that the universe is teleological.
He's not really giving his own personal opinion here so much as he's just saying what would happen to you if you want to press the idea of a teleological, a purposeful universe. He says this. The latter view, of course, the teleological view is common to most religions, but it were better for a scientist. I like how he uses the biblical language here. It would be better for a scientist to have a millstone hung around his neck than he should admit to such a belief. Yea, verily, if he does so, his papers will be rejected, he will receive no financial assistance in his work, the publishers of his books will receive threatening letters, and his children will be waylaid on their home on their way home from school as well. Might he seek to pass through the eye of a needle, for to hold such a view is the greatest possible scientific heresy?
[00:10:59] Speaker A: That is a great quote. And I want to steal that quote from you, Daniel, and use that. Wow, I've never heard that quote.
[00:11:06] Speaker D: Yeah, I'm chiming in. I want dibs on this quote.
[00:11:10] Speaker C: Okay, okay, yeah, it's on page now. You could get the book if you want to. It's on page 257 of Home is Where the Wind Blows. And I have a hardback used copy That I have and I pulled that from. But I will, I will be happy to email you that quote anyway, Case, I'll do that for you for sure.
[00:11:29] Speaker A: I'll order the book right now. But that's very. And there's a number of scientists like that, by the way, folks who are coming from an evolutionary perspective.
Definitely a not standard intelligence. I'm perspective. Oh, home is where the wind blows. It's only $124 on Amazon. Well, maybe I'll pass on that. Yeah. Wow. We'll have to get my wife's permission to buy this book. Oh, no, the hats. The paperback. The hardcover is only 1291 that I'm allowed to buy without permission.
Yeah. So anyway.
Yeah, but there's a lot of. There's quite a good number of, I would call them evolutionary scientists who were committed to a materialistic account of origins, probably even in, you know, sort of an atheistic worldview, who said similar things to the quote you just read where they would say, look, as soon as you challenge Darwin or as soon as you support intelligent Design, you become Persona non grata. You become an outcast or a pariah in the scientific community. And I think it's important for your listeners to appreciate that it's not just us ID proponents who are saying, look, when we come out of the closet as an ID theorist, we lose, you know, our academic freedom. People give us a hard time. You can see people who are from a different perspective saying the exact same thing. So we're not crazy to be saying.
[00:12:45] Speaker C: Kristen, what is, how do you introduce this, this, this topic of. Or does it come up in your chemistry classes where, you know, you're, you're giving the kids wisdom or warning or somehow that if you advocate this out in the real world, you're going to get waylaid? Like Dr. Hoyle says, do you, do you talk about the philosophical implications or the, the theological or the cultural implications of accepting intelligent design in this day and age for the kiddos?
[00:13:14] Speaker D: You know, I think in a lot of ways I very intentionally, in the course try to put the students in a mindset that we're going to stay focused on the science, particularly just because it, it is a chemistry course and there is a lot of chemistry to be covered. I mean, even if you don't discuss the ID component of the course, there's a lot of ground to cover.
But I think what naturally happens as you, for example, like returning to how origin of life stuff comes up within the course, naturally what begins to happen is, you know, if we if, for example, if we just walk through the steps that a student might consider all of this through, how do we get our first building blocks, our amino acids, our nucleotides, how do we link those together? How do we polymerize those into a larger, longer macro biomolecule? How do we enclose those within a membrane? And a membrane, hopefully, that keeps the bad stuff out and allows the good stuff in.
Naturally, as they're kind of progressing through that, and naturally, as they're encountering ways that a blind and guided process would be very challenging and insufficient to account for those various steps in the origin of life progression naturally, I think students begin to realize that this does strongly suggest intelligent design.
And if. If a student is coming into the course from a Christian perspective, it is very affirming of their belief in a Creator.
If they're not coming into the course with a Christian perspective, it naturally raises the question, which is why I'm sure people are fearful of this, of course. Okay, well, it seems like it's designed.
What am I going to do with that? And as you said, what are the implications of that? What is the philosophical or the theological?
It just naturally kind of raises those questions. As an instructor in the course, I don't make a huge deal about that. I just examine some of these different phases of the origin of life with students.
[00:15:39] Speaker B: They.
[00:15:40] Speaker D: They can draw those implications quite intuitively as a student.
[00:15:45] Speaker C: Okay, okay, yeah. Taking the science up a little bit, Case, when we're talking about DNA, we've already talked about panspermia a little bit. We've already talked about Shannon, information in your research and field and understanding and engagement with the secular science side of things. What are the current leading theories for the source of information in DNA today? What's out there cutting edge right now? What are people postulating in terms of Darwinian natural selection?
[00:16:15] Speaker A: Sure. So we could talk about that in the context of the origin of life or the context of the evolution of life. I think for the origin of life, there really is no explanation for the origin of information in DNA.
You have basically maybe the RNA world hypothesis, which claims that somehow in the early primordial earth, you had RNA that was both carrying genetic information and also performing catalytic reactions like what enzymes do today.
However, the problem is that in the RNA world prior to the origin of life, there's no reason if, let's say that somehow you could get a huge pool of gazillions of RNA molecules, you know, that some somehow hoping that one of them would be able to catalyze its Own self replication, okay, that's kind of like the holy grail for the origin of life. Well, no question. To get an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing its own self replication would require a very precise sequence of nucleotides in that RNA molecule. But prior to the origin of life, the origin of replication, there is no reason why any nucleotides should be any, in any particular order in that RNA molecule. So, so basically all you have going for you is sheer dumb luck, as David Berlinski puts it. Okay? There is no, there is no natural selection prior to the origin of replication, prior to the origin of life to somehow, you know, preserve certain sequences of nucleotides. So really, the likelihood of you getting an RNA molecule to catalyze its own self replication with the nucleotides in the right order to be able to do that is so small that many origin of life theorists have considered it to just be impossible.
[00:17:57] Speaker C: So a common sense analogy for my own brain, what you're saying about RNA DNA. I'm just going to throw out date myself here and use an analogy from the 80s. I grew up on cassette tapes and vinyl records, and I would, I would tape vinyl records and I would give the tapes to my friends, you know, all that stuff. But, but you're talking about RNA is kind of like the tape recorder and the DNA is really sort of the information on the tape. Why would you have a tape recorder before you would have. But in other words, why would you have the structure of replication at all without the idea of cassettes and information on those cassettes? Is that kind of close to what we're talking about?
[00:18:36] Speaker A: Yeah, well, RNA is like the, like the, the actual physical tape that you get a little strip, strip of magnetic material.
[00:18:43] Speaker C: Okay.
[00:18:44] Speaker A: And then the information would be the organization of the little bits of magnetic material on that, on that cassette tape. Okay, so, so, and the question is, why would you want the bits of magnetic material to be in any particular order? There's no reason for it. Okay, here's another. Throw another wrinkle into the situation.
Not only is it incredibly unlikely that you would get the nucleotides in the right order to allow for self replication, there's an origin of life theorist named Steve Benner who's not an ID proponent at all. He has said that if you want to talk about likelihoods, the likelihood of you getting an RNA sequence that would destroy other RNA molecules, basically ripping them apart, is far higher than you getting an RNA molecule by chance. We're just talking about by chance that would create New copies of your RNA molecule. So you're getting a scenario where it's much more likely that you would get an RNA that would actually, you know, basically destroy other, degrade other RNAs. Then you would get an RNA that can catalyze its own self replication, making copies of itself. So really, the RNA world, some people have called it the least bad idea out there for the origin of life. I think that's a very fair. That comes from a mainstream journal article, by the way. I think that's a very fair description of RNA world.
It, it is probably one of the better ideas, but it still has, I would say, some fatal problems. So origin of life theorists really do not have any good explanation for the origin of information in life. I would, I would just leave it there. That's a fact you, that's a fact I believe is true now when it comes to the evolution of life. Now they will say, well, natural selection can preserve random mutations in the DNA, in the rna, whatever your biomolecule is, that help that organism to better make copies of itself to better survive and reproduce. Okay? And that is where they would claim that genetic information comes from after the origin of life. And to some small extent that might work. But you see the problem here, Daniel, is that natural selection hits a wall. Because it is often the case that you have certain traits in living organisms, like molecular machines, like actually frankly, just many run of the mill enzymes that require many mutations to be present before you get any selective advantage. And this actually is taking us right back to that problem we faced with the origin of the first life. You have to get many nucleotides in just the right order, but before it works. Same is true for molecular machines or even just, you know, your average functional enzyme, many amino acids, many nucleotides have to be in just the right order before it will give you any function to preserve. So once again, the likelihood of natural selection, random mutation, building that in a step by step manner is very, very, very low. It's kind of like trying to open up a bike lock, okay. Where the bike lock won't open until you get all the digits in the combination exactly right. Okay. If you could just get one, you could have nine of the 10 digits, right? But if that 10th digit is not right, the bike lock won't open. So the likelihood of you opening that bike lock by chance is very, very, very low. So when you need multiple mutations to be present before you get any advantage, this is where Darwinian evolution gets stuck. And again, it can't build those Kinds of, of complex we call the multi mutation, coordinated mutation features. And this is another problem for Darwinism.
[00:22:07] Speaker C: Yeah. For both of you, as we wrap up here, I want to address a question. We don't have to go too far into the realm of speculative ideas, but let's talk about it in terms of the science, in terms of actual empirical physical evidence that we have of this. Our culture is increasingly becoming more fascinated with the idea of aliens and UFOs. With Steven Spielberg's new movie, with the government releasing more and more images that have been classified for decades, it seems like if there's any intelligent life out. First of all, we don't have any physical evidence in the physical sciences of any kind of life out there elsewhere, even bacterial life in the universe that we know of to the, to the extent of the universe that we can explore. We certainly don't have any physical empirical evidence of aliens. That remains in the realm of speculation and physical science fiction.
But I think, Casey, you had mentioned in a recent article that you had written that if there are something like the typical gray alien that we see, this would be an example of convergent evolution. I thought that was an interesting fact. I thought maybe you could take a minute to explain that. And then, Kristen, how prevalent is the idea of aliens in the minds of your students these days? And do you, do you use that in any way to relate to the, to the realm of, of chemistry? So, Case, you can go first and Kristen, you can follow up.
[00:23:30] Speaker A: Yeah, Kristen was really hoping you were going to ask her some questions about aliens today. I can tell you that. No, that's not true.
So I'll take this one. So, yeah, so I wrote an op ed a few weeks ago. I think it got
[email protected] about this exact question that basically, if those stereotypical gray aliens were to show up on the White House lawn and say, take me to your leader, I'm not expecting this to happen, by the way. But if it were to happen, that would be the biggest disproof of Darwinism ever. Okay. Because the likelihood of Darwinian evolution producing another creature from another completely different planet that had the same basic body form, we do, you know, two arms, two legs, two eyes, a head, a nose, a mouth. The likelihood of that happening, that same body plan evolving independently on two different planets is so small that, that most evolutionary biologists would consider to be impossible. It would never, ever happen, not even by chance.
So that means you would have to look for some other explanation. If you were to see that, I would say, look, the Only game in town that's gonna explain this is going to be common design where we were both designed by a designer, but the alien species and humans that built us according to a very similar body plan. That is a much better explanation than as you called it correctly. That's what they would call it, Daniel, convergent evolution, where two different independent evolutionary lineages stumble upon the same basic form just by chance. I mean, even if there are similar selection pressures, the likelihood of you getting the exact same body plan by chance is extraordinarily low. So conversion evolution, I think is not going to be a good explanation in this case. I think that common design where designer is reusing the same blueprint, the same parts in different systems is a much better explanation. By the way, we have lots of experience with designers reusing parts that work in different designs. We know that we reuse wheels on both cars and airplanes. We reuse keyboards on both cell phones and laptops. We reuse the same computer programming modules in different programs all the time. We, when we do computer programming. So it's actually a good design principle that intelligent engineers, intelligent agents will reuse functional components in different, different systems. So we have good, I think, precedent from our experience with what designers do to expect to see this reusage of blueprints.
[00:25:58] Speaker C: Yeah, and I talked to astronaut Charlie duke, who was 10th man to walk on the moon a couple of years ago. And Charlie and I spent a few minutes talking about the suit that you need. How the women at NASA were sewing this together, just like your grandmother would make you clothes and you would have to, if you didn't trust the suit, you didn't walk out on the lunar surface. You don't walk out on the moon when shorts and a T shirt.
But, but Charlie was saying that in order to experience the glory of God on the lunar surface, you needed to have your suit and it needed to be function and it needed to protect you. When you see gray aliens, they're, they're not suited up. They're always just, you know, bare naked skin and everything. And if they are carbon based biological entities that popped up on another planet in our, in our universe, that is that they wouldn't need a spacesuit. Again, that gets the connotations of that would be like, well, you must be on another Earth like planet. What are the chances that the atmosphere and the gases in the position from the star and its position in the galaxy and its position to be able to travel from now you're not only lining up a convergent evolutionary idea of alien beings Being like us. But you're also now dealing with planetary science and getting into what Jay and Guillermo have talked about. Now, is there another planet like Earth? You know, that's another. Add that to the improbability question as well. I think, Kristen, what, what, what is aliens and chemistry and your high school students, does that ever come up or where, where are you on the alien question?
[00:27:19] Speaker D: Well, you know, when you first raised this, I thought, boy, what on earth am I going to say to this question?
But you know what, as I was reflecting, I have to say I think I can take this discussion and take it one step back from what you guys are discussing. You know, Case is talking about, as are you, what are the chances of having a life evolve that is similar to ourselves?
But I think a question my chemistry students could ask, and they're uniquely, I think, positioned to ask this is what, what are the chances of life evolving, period?
Right.
And I think after, you know, after considering how chance, materialist, blind and guided processes are very unlikely to produce the first cell, I think a student who has considered that question is not going to be readily assumed. Assuming that life would easily evolve elsewhere, they're going to be more skeptical of that. It's not to say that they'll think that the matter is decided or that it's impossible, but they're, they're likely going to be of the mindset that if there is life outside of our, our planet right here, that it's likely the result of design in the same way that we've drawn design based conclusions about our own life evolving here on Earth. You know, and so I think that's really interesting simply because what is usually put forth, and I think cases talked about this at different points, the fact that we have this vast large universe, there must be life that evolved out there. What are the chances? Right. And I think a student who has had some type exposure to origin of life research is going to actually counter that and say, well, actually it's not very likely that life would evolve through purely blind processes. So therefore I'm less convinced that life would be out there, you know.
[00:29:30] Speaker C: Yeah, yeah, I think that's a really bad argument. I think size therefore aliens, I mean, because square footage does not have the capacity to create anything. It's just big. You might as well just build an empty warehouse and assume that books will be filled up in it or something. Right.
And I think that's a really. You've addressed that in your article. I think too, Casey, the idea that the universe is big, therefore aliens is really an evolutionary assumption, even though evolution really couldn't explain aliens if they were there. But the argument is universe, big waste of space if not living people in it.
That seems to be the argument. Right. The idea that it should be filled with living things.
But that's a naturalistic assumption. That doesn't really. It's not. It's a non sequitur, really.
[00:30:16] Speaker A: Yeah. And you just stated it. You just stated the answer to this much more eloquently and succinctly than I ever have. I mean, you did a great. I can't really top what you just said, Daniel. Yeah, I mean it basically that's it. And if life is not going to evolve, you know, full stop, then it doesn't matter how big the universe is.
[00:30:31] Speaker C: That's right.
[00:30:32] Speaker A: I mean it's just, it's impossible for. I mean you would need. The probabilistic resources you would need are so much greater than even what we know of in the observable universe. It's just a non starter.
[00:30:46] Speaker C: Thank you for tuning into the profile this week. We hope the program has been edifying, informative and inspiring for you. And if you would like to have Kristen as your high schooler's chemistry teacher this one fall, you absolutely can. Here is Kristen to tell you more about the program.
[00:31:03] Speaker D: We're really excited about kicking off in fall again for Discovery Institute Academy. And if you are a homeschooling family or co op and you are in need of a science course, specifically a chemistry or biology course, we've got fully online two semester courses that are taught by qualified certified science teachers. Myself, I teach the chemistry course. My colleague Summer teaches the biology course. We would be delighted to have you join us and you can find more information at DiscoveryInstitute Academy. Again, that's DiscoveryInstitute Academy. All the information for course start dates, pricing as well as links to register is there. And I'll just preface if you're a family thinking about this, our courses are flexible in the sense that we're offering three different tiers for families. So tier one is an option that includes the live Synchronous course. Your students will be meeting with Summer and I weekly to unpack material to progress through the science and have some discussion. If you would like a little bit more autonomy, we've got tier two for students that want to progress through the course, maybe be more asynchronously at their own pace, but want to have the chance to drop in once a week for an optional drop in and have that teacher support and then finally, if you're a family that maybe mom or dad is a chemist or a biologist or has a strong science background and you want to go through the course totally on your own, we've got an option for you too. A fully asynchronous option. All three options, in sum, will offer you pre recorded lectures, readings, handouts, assessments and wet labs, as well as virtual simulations. With labster all done, ready to go, we'd love to have you join us. DiscoveryInstitute Academy.
[00:33:01] Speaker B: That was Dr. Casey Luskin and Kristin Murray with host Daniel Ray on the Apologetics Profile podcast discussing Intelligent design, evolution and the question of alien life.
If you missed the first half of the conversation, look for that in a separate episode.
And by the way, Dr. Luskin has written some compelling op ed articles recently on the topic of alien life and intelligent design.
You can look for
[email protected] or on his website, caseyluskin.com again, that's caseyluskin.com for all things Dr. Luskin, including his recent articles covering the search for extraterrestrial life and why it's compelling evidence for intelligent design.
For ID the Future. I'm Andrew McDermott. Thanks for joining us and we'll see you again soon.
[00:33:56] Speaker A: Visit
[email protected] and intelligent designed Automation.
This program is Copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
