Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast and I truly hope you hear something that edifies encourage, equips, enlightens, and then gets you out there in the marketplace of ideas. But before you go, I want to tell you about this month's truth tool. It's called Have You Ever Wondered? And I absolutely love this topic because if you're like me, going out into the night sky and looking up and seeing a million stars, don't you just stop and think
about God? And are you not in a moment of awe and wonder or looking out over the vast expanse of an ocean and you start thinking, what is man, that thou art mindful of him? And it makes you
wonder about the magnificence of God? I think that sense of wonder was put there on purpose, and this wonderful book includes a composite of multiple authors who have written from their perspective as a scientist, or a historian, or a mathematician or an artist, on why they all have this sense of awe through the work that they do. In other words, the heavens declare the glory. And as it tells us in Romans, we are really without excuse
because his handiwork is everywhere. And this book invites you to walk through the chapters written by people who all have a sense of awe and wonder when it comes to God through their various disciplines in life. It's an amazing book and it's yours. For a gift of any amount, just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58. Ask for a copy of Have You Ever Wondered? And we'll send it right off to you as my way of
saying thank you, because we are listener supported radio. Or you can go online to in the market with Janet Parshall and you're also on the website, consider becoming a partial partner. Those are people who give every single month at a level of their own choosing. You always get the truth tool, but in addition to that, you get a weekly newsletter that includes my writing and an audio
piece just for my partial partner. So 877 Janet 58 or the website in the market with Janet parshall.org consider becoming a partial partner or asking for this month's truth tool. Have you ever wondered? And now please enjoy the broadcast. Hi, friends, this is Janet Parshall. Thanks so much for choosing to spend the next hour with us. Today's program is pre-recorded so our phone lines are not open. But thanks so much for being with us and enjoy the broadcast.
Here are some of the news headlines we're watching.
The conference was over. The president won a pledge.
Americans worshiping government over God.
Extremely rare safety move by a major 17 years.
The Palestinians and Israelis negotiated a truce.
Hi, friends. Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall and a very happy Thursday to you. So glad we're going to be spending the hour together.
In Washington, the State Department is optimistic the cease fire will hold.
There was some activity back and forth, and that has stopped and the cease fire has taken effect, and the president is pleased.
In central Tehran, thousands remain defiant, shouting Death to Israel and death to America.
We don't approve of the cease fire at all. We will continue fighting until we are either martyred or win. God willing, Iran will eventually own a nuclear bomb.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assessed the impact of Operation Rising Lion.
For dozens of years, I promised you that Iran would not have nuclear weapons. Therefore, with all the actions that our fighters have taken, we brought to ruin Iran's nuclear program. And if anyone in Iran tries to revive this project, we will act with the same determination and the same strength to put an end to any such attempt.
President Trump emphasized to reporters, the U.S. and Israel stopped Iran's nuclear program.
They're not going to have enrichment and they're not going to have enough. The last thing on Iran's mind right now is their weapons.
However, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization announced it has begun building a new uranium enrichment facility and said of the regime's nuclear program, our plan is not to allow any interruption. With the cease fire holding, Israel is turning its attention back to the war in Gaza. The IDF announced seven soldiers were killed in a Hamas attack
on an armored personnel carrier. Also, the U.S. backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is asking the UN to stop fighting its effort to feed Gaza's civilians and condemn Hamas killing of several of its humanitarian workers two weeks ago. Chairman Reverend Johnny Moore wrote to the UN silence in the face of such violence is not impartiality or neutrality. It is abandonment. In just a few weeks, the GFW has distributed more than 40 million meals to hungry Gazans. Chris Mitchell, CBN news, Jerusalem.
So many in our culture today are spiritually curious but hesitant about religion. That's why I've chosen. Have you ever wondered is this month's truth to explore how everyday experiences might be the signpost pointing to deeper biblical truths? As for your copy of have you ever wondered when you give a gift of any amount to in the market, call eight 7758, that's eight 7758 or go to in the market with Janet Parshall.
After President Trump left the G-7 summit in Canada a day early last week, it was learned he had received a message from Iran that if the U.S. attacked Iran's nuclear facilities, the regime could activate sleeper cells to launch terror attacks in the United States. The FBI says assets are fully engaged to prevent an attack, and Homeland Security is warning of a heightened threat environment but saying little else.
What information do we know right now in regards to those sleeper cells? How is DHS tracking and following up and seeking information in regards?
I can't necessarily share that with you, but I will tell you that we are continuing to evaluate every single threat and to proactively go after them before they do anything or take any activity.
This week, federal immigration agents have arrested 11 Iranians here illegally. One arrested in Alabama was an Iranian Army sniper. Another in Houston was carrying a loaded pistol. Counterterrorism expert Barak Seener in London says Iran, defeated on the battlefield, may see a sleeper cell attack as the only way it can hurt the United States.
The entire identity of Iran is a terrorist state. The reach is As global um. It attempted to conduct a proxy attack in the UK, in Sweden, in Argentina, Cyprus, Thailand.
And he believes Iran took full advantage of the Biden administration's open border policies, in which millions of illegal migrants entered the U.S..
Hundreds, if not thousands of Iranian nationals passed through the doors of the United States.
CBN's Chuck Holton has reported from Panama's Darien Gap, where migrants must cross on their way to the United States. And he says he encountered many Iranian men.
Every Iranian that I met in the Darien Gap was a military age male, and I didn't meet any Iranian women at all. They mostly spoke English, so they were well educated. And none of them were with their families.
Last year, the Justice Department uncovered an Iranian plot to kill Donald Trump before the election. Washington also knows that a Hezbollah sleeper cell called unit 910 is operating in the United States, ready to carry out Iran's orders. Iran, though,
may also take a different route a cyber attack. The Commission on the National Defense Strategy warned senators last year that the United States is unprepared for a devastating cyber attack that will bring life in towns and cities across America to a standstill.
The public is essentially clueless about the massive cyber attacks that could be launched any day by our adversaries, not just nation states, but rogue actors as well.
Iran in the past has hacked into water systems in several states and could use what it's learned to attack America's critical infrastructure, including internet power, transportation, and financial systems, in an effort to make almost everything from phones to gas pumps to cash machines to traffic lights suddenly stop working.
We're in a cyber cold war today. We've got vulnerabilities with air traffic radar systems. We've got vulnerabilities in our 911 systems.
The potential targets for Iran are numerous, and defending everything will be difficult. Dale Hurd CBN news.
Well that was kind of like drinking from a fire hose wasn't it. I just gave you a whole bunch of news from the Middle East with Chris Mitchell talking about Iran and Israel and whether or not the cease fire will hold. And Dale Hurd and the concern of Iran's sleeper cells. So you know what? Just think on these things. Remember that God's in charge. Interesting time to be alive. Pray for those in authority. Pray for the
innocent people in Iran and in Israel. And just remember that all of this is an indication that he is coming again. His return is imminent. One day closer than we were yesterday. And I don't know about you, but I go to bed every night saying, even so, come, Lord Jesus, we got lots to talk about. Stick around. We'll continue right after this. So many in our culture today are spiritually curious but hesitant about religion. That's why
I've chosen. Have you ever wondered is this month's truth tool explore how everyday experiences might be the signpost pointing to deeper biblical truths. As for your copy of have you ever wondered when you give a gift of any amount to in the market, call 877 58, that's eight 7758 or go to in the market with Janet Parshall. Oh, have I been looking forward to this conversation. So put on your thinking caps because we're going to think critically
and we're going to think biblically. First, I want to take a little bit of time here to introduce our guest, because I think he's an absolutely fascinating. Yes, yes, unbelievably gifted, but a fascinating gentleman. Doctor Casey Luskin is back on the air with us. He's a scientist and an attorney. Now, either one of those two career paths could have taken up your entire life. This gentleman pursues both. And I want to flesh this out a little bit because again,
I'm going to use the word fascinating. Scientists and attorney. He's got grad degrees in science and law, so that makes him an expert in both the scientific and the legal dimensions of the debate over evolution. So let me tell you what his curriculum vitae says. He's got a PhD in geology from the University of Johannesburg, as in South Africa, where he specialized in paleomagnetism and the early plate tectonic history of South Africa. Not everybody does that,
by the way. That's pretty impressive. He's earned a law degree from the University of San Diego. And guess what? He focused on First Amendment law. Kind of special to us on this program and education law and environmental law. Not one three areas of expertise. His undergrad degrees are in earth sciences from the University of California, San Diego, where he studied evolution extensively at the graduate and undergrad levels and conducted geological research at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
He has been a California licensed attorney since 2005, and he practices primarily. If you didn't know this area exists, it does. And cases there in the area of evolution, education in public schools and defending academic freedom for scientists who face discrimination because of their support for intelligent design. So his role at the Discovery Institute, and that's where
he joins us from. He works as an associate director of the center for Science and Culture, where he helps direct ID 3.0 research program and assist and defend scientists, educators and students who seek to freely study, research and
teach about the scientific debate over Darwinism and intelligent design. Now, I don't usually read a bio in its entirety, but I just want you to know that we have on our side, ladies and gentlemen, people who are academically gifted, who have all of the acumen necessary to engage intelligently in this debates. We are not contrary to an initial impression made by the Washington Post. Poor, uneducated and easy
to command. Far from it. And the credentials in this particular case before the jury of our peers has to be that these are people who are learned, they've done their homework, they understand the science. And our peer reviewed, multiple degreed published and out there in the academic arenas. I say that because this is not science for dummies, okay? This is people who really and truly think this through.
And one of the reasons why I'm such an ardent supporter of the Discovery Institute is because it really is this panoply of thinkers, intellectuals, scientists, people who are in the humanities. It's just this great group of people that remind us that there is a strong intersection between faith and public policy, faith and science, faith and critical thinking.
And KC really is exemplary of that. KC, I do want to get into this challenge to Charles Darwin, but I got to back up a little bit because you are in many ways a Renaissance man. So the amalgamation between science and law to me is I'll use the word for the 19th time. Absolutely fascinating. What's your problem? You couldn't pick a major? Or did you want to see the two pulled together?
I did have that problem, Janet. And. Wow, you really talked me up so much. Now, I hope I don't, you know, defeat your expectations here. Uh, but but, yeah, I mean, I did have the problem of trying to pick a major. I was one of those students where I finally picked a major when they forced you to. And you had so many credits that they said, hey, if you don't pick a major, we're kicking you out.
So I chose Earth Sciences because that allowed me to study chemistry, biology and physics and computer science all in one major. And those are all things I enjoyed. So. So yeah, it was one of those kind of guys.
Wow. But then the law I mean, this is something I know a little something about. And you decided to have a focus on First Amendment. Explain that to me.
Well, yeah, I mean, I originally Janet, I went to law school because I just thought I needed to get a job. You know, I had this degree in earth sciences. Well, what can you do with that? You can go dig for oil in the desert. And I really didn't want to do that at that stage of my 23 year old life. So I decided to go to law school to get a job. But as I as I started going to law school, I. I realized there are so
many important issues that intersect with the law. Originally, I wanted to do environmental law, which is a very important issue. But beyond that, you know, things that pertain to our worldviews and what students learn in the classroom. I began to realize that the law really intersects with some very important aspects of society. And so I specialized in First Amendment law because I was really concerned about what students are learning in public schools and how they were being
indoctrinated on the topic of evolution. So that sort of led me down the path that I'm on today of dealing with the teaching of evolution in public schools and defending scientists. Yeah.
Wow. Wow. Now and again, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the gift of the time that you're giving me. I get the opportunity to ask a few follow up questions because of the gift of your time. And I'm fully cognizant that I can't replace it. So, Casey, that really does mean a lot to me. So let me go back to something in your journey, which is I get it, you want
to put bread on the table. Law might be a good way to do it, but somewhere along that part of your Pilgrim's Progress, you had this aha phenomenon moment where you realized that there really was a crush against academic freedom, that you had to toe the line on this particular area of scientific investigation, or you were going to pay a price for it. Well, how did that evidence start to manifest itself in your journey? When did you begin to say, Uh-Oh, there's a pushback here.
Well, yeah. So it started for me, actually, when I was an undergraduate student at UC San Diego. UC San Diego was one of the largest public universities for biology research in the country. And I was taking all these courses in evolution because that was just a topic that interested me. I was fascinated with the study of our origins, and I wanted to learn about it. And meanwhile, I was in my own time. I was reading books by people. I know you're going to recognize these names, Janet. People
like Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells. And I was realizing that there's this fascinating scientific debate going on over our origins between proponents of intelligent design. Those are all proponents of intelligent design for those who are not aware. And then also about what I was learning about evolution in my coursework at UC San Diego, and I realized that there's really this fascinating debate going on between intelligent
design theorists and evolutionary scientists. But this debate was being completely left out of all of my science classes, really, I would say professors were either just completely unaware of this debate, or in some cases, they were sort of deliberately censoring it from the students and not allowing us to talk about this. So when I was an undergraduate at UC San Diego, I started a student club to help students to talk about this issue of where do we come from? And is it the result of evolution
or intelligent design? We call this little club the Idea Club intelligent Design, evolution awareness. And that helped me then to realize that we need a venue, a way for students to learn about this. And that played into my desire in law school to help students be exposed.
Wow, Casey, I have to tell you, that's an absolutely brilliant story of understanding the intersection between the two and really creating the opportunity for open dialogue and even to the scientific side, scientific exploration of all ideas. Follow the evidence where it leads. Doctor Casey Luskin is with us. For the rest of the hour, we're going to get to Intelligent Design and a fellow by the name of Charles Darwin in a minute, but more about Casey's journey
when we return. We're visiting with Doctor Casey Luskin. He is the associate director of the center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. And we're going to get to Charles Darwin and the wager and its intersection with intelligent Design in a minute. Absolutely fascinating. But I just want you to understand the lay of the land. These are so there are so many people who hold a
worldview that says, wait a minute. I don't think the evidence leads to where Darwinian posture of the origin of species, I just I don't think the evidence leads to that end. You could have a boatload of initials after your name. And if you are at certain areas of of academic pursuit. And my husband has represented these people in. Casey knows this as well. They'll just shut you out. They won't let you get published. You don't get tenure at a university.
It is the new modern witchhunt which raises, even though I appeal to you as both a scientist and an attorney, Casey, why the dreaded anathema of intelligent design in what should be a pursuit for scientific substantiation based on where the evidence leads? This is all theory. Why would you completely hack one theory out and say, drink the Kool-Aid? You must subscribe to this.
What you're asking, Janet, is a very important question. It's also a complicated sociological question. In fact, the famous historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, he found that historically, when a new paradigm comes up to challenge a reigning paradigm, he says that scientists are typically intolerant of these new ideas that challenge the reigning paradigm within scientific fields. And this
is fairly, you know, not too hard to understand. Basically, scientists invest their entire careers on particular ideas, particular paradigms that sort of govern their fields. And so they've invested papers that they've published research, they've done instruments that they've done their entire reputations upon these ideas. And so when some new idea comes in to challenge those reigning paradigms,
it's often treated with some contempt. And this is exactly what is going on with intelligent design and Darwinian evolution right now. Neo-darwinian evolution, for better or for worse, is the reigning paradigm within biology for how life arose and and diversified to all the forms we see today. Intelligent design is coming in and saying, actually, there are other scientific ways to look at this question that are not mechanistic,
that are not naturalistic. We can actually use our understanding of what intelligent agents to do, can do to better understand how we can explain the complexity of biology. And so you have all these evolutionary scientists who say, no, no, no, no, no,
we've staked our careers on this evolutionary model. But then with the whole ID evolution debate, you have this additional component that worldviews are coming into play because we're getting this very, sort of personal, very emotional topic of where do we come from? And what does this mean for me personally, in my own worldview, that I hold and the way I live my life? So it's a lot more than just typical sort of scientific sociology going on here.
You also have a lot of worldviews that are coming into play. It's very difficult for people to accept new ideas and be tolerant to them. So unfortunately, as you said, Janet, we've seen a lot of intolerance and persecution of pro-id scientists in academia. We tell many, many stories of this.
Yeah, true. And Casey, you are so deeply involved in this. And I mean, it really is awful to know that someone has worked arduously to advance their career scientifically and academically and simply because of the worldview. And I'm so thrilled that you used that word. We talk about that all the time on this broadcast. It's about developing. We try to develop through this program a biblio centric worldview. But worldviews are not all accepted in the marketplace of ideas.
And so these scientists, these academicians don't get their papers published. They don't get tenure granted simply because of a worldview that they hold, which is egregious to me because it really defies and denies. It seems to me the whole idea of scientific pursuit. As a lawyer, you understand that Lady Justice is blindfolded. She holds above her head the scales of justice, and the evidence tips the scale one way or the other. There's a paradigm parallel here with science.
You are looking at where the evidence leads based on the evidence that's pursued through scientific investigation. What we're seeing in this blind allegiance to Darwinism is don't trouble me with the facts. Don't mess with my mind and what the evidence might be. I need this worldview concretized secured and never challenged because it will impact me in all the ways you just brilliantly described. That means science has taken a step backward, not forward, doesn't it?
That's exactly right. Look, I personally am a big fan of science. I think science is a great tool that can help us to understand the world that we live in. But as you said, science is supposed to be sort of blind. It's supposed to be neutral. That's the great. That's one of the great things about science. It's whatever their worldview, their personal religious views or non-religious views or whatever they are, the evidence is publicly available to everyone.
We can all see the evidence and see what it's saying. And so science is supposed to be sort of this neutral arbiter of truth. But unfortunately, science is also an endeavor run by human beings, and human beings are not always perfectly objective robots. Uh, as much as we would like them to be, we just aren't. And so people get into political situations where, I mean, this is true in every field of science. And if you think that, yes, it's not true that this is sort of a wake
up call. Scientists are human beings, and they're very capable of engaging in politics and maneuvers to sort of marginalize certain ideas that they don't like. And we see this throughout scientific fields, even the fields that are totally non-ideological. Anybody who's a scientist that listening to this right now knows what I'm saying is true. They've all experienced this. Science can be highly political, and unfortunately, sometimes views don't
get the hearing they deserve. The evidence is not weighed as it should be within the scientific community. It's just just the way it is.
Absolutely. And if you don't mind, I love the richness of this conversation. So let me dig a little bit deeper, because really, I want our friends to learn how to think critically and biblically. So there's a continuum here not to go on a rabbit trail, but to take exactly the framework that you just identified. And I want to pick it up and drop it over another section of
a current cultural debate that allegedly involves science. And that is our inability nowadays to identify who is a man and who is a woman, based on scientific evidence x x x y. Now, because of the confusion, as you so rightly noted before, of politics, of an agenda, of a particular worldview, I don't bother me with the facts. My worldview needs to be advanced at any cost, ever. Not only is that bad science, it's situational ethics, and
it makes science step backwards rather than step forward. Now, Casey, I could do the rest of the hour on this with you. What a wonderful conversation. But I want to go back to Charles Darwin and a challenge that you at Discovery Institute just put out. And some of the theories that old Mr. Darwin held and whether or not there is an intersection, did he stumble on one an
intelligent design. We'll talk about that when we return. Jesus told us to go into the world and not run away from it, and he didn't say it would be easy. In the market with Janet Parshall is a program designed to come alongside and walk with you into the marketplace of ideas. Partial partners are those friends who support our program on a regular monthly basis. They know the mandate of influencing and occupying until he comes. So why don't
you become part of the inner circle of support? Call 877 Janet 58 or go to in the market with Janet Parshall. Oh, what a treat and a joy to spend time with doctor Casey Luskin. He is the associate director of the center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. I have links all over my info page so you can learn more. If you don't know about the Discovery Institute or you are missing something. Get to know these people. Wonderful work that they do. They are
influencing the culture in such a profoundly important way. Casey, as I noted earlier, is both a geologist and an attorney by training, and that makes him a real expert when it comes to this intersection between science and the legal dimensions of the debate over evolution. So, Casey, you put a piece out through discovery called what? Actually, it showed up in Evolution News, where basically the title was
most intriguing. Intelligent design passes the Dawkins test. Now, okay, so Richard Dawkins is out there, uh, subscribing to the idea that he doesn't believe in the concept of intelligent design and yet put out a kind of wager in some respect. Now, for those of us who do not have all of the initials after their name like you do, move slowly through this one. So tell me, first of all, for people who don't know about Dawkins and The God Delusion and his work, um, why did he decide that
there would be? Why did you decide that a challenge had to be put before Dawkins on this particular subject of intelligent design?
Yeah, sure. Janet. So I'm sure that many listeners have heard of Richard Dawkins. He's one of the world's most famous evolutionary biologists and also an outspoken and aggressive advocate for atheism. You mentioned his book, The God Delusion. It was very much a came out in 2006. It was a very aggressive book against belief in God, against the biblical God and all those things. So at Discovery Institute, we've been reviewing Dawkins work for many years and also
keeping up with the scientific literature. And we recently discovered that he has put out a very clear test for determining whether evolution or intelligent design is true. And we were talking earlier about science, how you're supposed to be able to, you know, weigh the evidence objectively. Well, how I just do that. Well, typically, when scientists will weigh the evidence, they will make. See, if a theory is
making predictions that you can test. And Dawkins is actually laid out a clear prediction for evolution and also a clear prediction for intelligent design. But the problem for Dawkins is that it turns out that the prediction did not go, I believe as he expected, as he as he expected. And the data actually fulfills a clear prediction that he laid out for intelligent design, rather than the prediction that he laid out for evolution. So the test that he
laid out is like this. He said that if Darwinian evolution is correct, then every gene in a group of organisms in their DNA will give approximately the same tree of life. Okay. When you see those evolutionary trees in textbooks or on PBS Nova documentaries that show how different organisms are related, what they do is they will sequence the genes of organisms and compare those genes, and based upon which organisms have more similar genes, they will group
them closer or more further apart on those trees. So what Dawkins said is that every gene in a group of organisms will give you approximately the same tree of life, or even the perfect congruency between different trees of life. But if idea is correct, on the other hand, he said that the designer could have picked and chosen the best proteins for each job in each organism. And in that case, he says that the genes would not all give you the same tree of life. You would not
get consistency. When you look at one gene, it might give you a different tree of life rather than each gene giving you the same tree of life. So it's a simple test that Dawkins has set up two competing predictions for evolution, one for intelligent design, and he says that evolution predicts perfect congruency among different representations of the tree of life. And he says this evidence is so powerful,
his words that it proves evolution is true. On the other hand, he gives sort of conflicts between these different trees of life based upon different genes as the prediction of intelligent design, or what he actually calls the alternative to evolution. So this is sort of the test that Dawkins has laid out for us.
So you write about this in your article. You say that in his 2009 book, The Greatest Show on Earth The Evidence for evolution. This is really where he said he has he from his perspective, this is extremely powerful evidence for evolution. But as you point out, he comes up with a kind of conflicted result. Here. Talk to me about this.
So yeah, so I don't know if Dawkins actually will acknowledges what the data really says, but Dawkins says basically that if intelligent design is correct, then different genes should give you different versions of the tree of life. And if evolution is correct, then essentially every gene should give
you the same version of the life. Well, anybody who has studied the field of evolutionary systematics, which is the field that basically constructs these evolutionary trees, or as they're often called, phylogenetic trees, everybody who works in this field knows that conflicts between different trees is very, very common. And then in fact, one gene will give you one version of the tree of life, and another gene will give you a very different or conflicting version of the
tree of life. And we actually dug up some very recent scientific papers, um, to, to document this. So here's a paper in a book titled phylogenetics in the Genomic ERA. It says conflicting phylogenetic signals between genes is commonplace. Or a paper in proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, uh, says an immediate challenge is to address pervasive conflict observed in whole genome data or phylogenetic conflict, where genes disagree about the tree of life is common across genomes and
throughout the tree of life. So this is all, you know, statements coming from the mainstream scientific literature. And basically what's happening is you are not getting consistency among the genetic code of different organisms. That fits what we would expect if common ancestry is true, the idea that all living
organisms is related. Essentially, we're finding that there are conflicts between different trees because there are similarities and differences popping up in the genomes of organisms that is not being predicted by this idea of common ancestry. So basically, Dawkins prediction for evolution has failed. And instead that he gave for intelligent design has turned out to be correct.
Well, okay, so much to unpack. Now. Again, this is this is talking to me science for dummies. So let me if I can break this down, I thought one of the hallmarks of Darwinism was randomness. So if you're going to look and I want you to break down the tree of life and just put skin on that, show me what that would look like as something I
could see with my eyes. In other words, rather than going into the atmospherics of genomes and DNA patterns, etc., tell me what that would look like if Darwinism was right. If Dawkins's idea is that you would see this replicated pattern, as opposed to an intelligent designer who picks and chooses the proteins that comes out with a different outcome, where's randomness in that first off?
Well, maybe Janet, we could back up a little bit and I could explain how these evolutionary trees are constructed, and that might help to understand why this prediction is so important for evolution, why it doesn't work. So when you see these evolutionary trees in textbooks or scientific papers, or as I said, PBS Nova documentaries, they can be constructed in one of two ways. You can compare the body structure of an organism, you know, its skeletal traits or the organs that it has or, or some of
the abilities that it has. Can it use echolocation to find food? Does it have two eyes or or six eyes? How many legs does it have? You can use the body structures of an organisms. Or the second way you can build these trees is you can compare gene sequences. Essentially, we're talking about the sequence of nucleotide bases in the DNA or the sequences of amino acids in proteins. And those organisms with more similar gene sequence are said to be more closely related. Now, the problem is, is that
genes don't always give you the same tree. In other words, you get similarities between organisms that are not predicted if they all shared a common ancestor. Let me give you a hypothetical example that I think will explain this.
Okay, good.
Let's say that you, your sister and your next door neighbor all did that 23 and me chromosome test. Okay. I'm sure we've all heard of that. And you get back the sequences of your genes. So you look at one gene. Let's say it's the gene for cytochrome c a very important bodies. And this gene tells you exactly what you and your sister and your next door neighbor
might expect. Essentially, what the what the 23 Andme test shows is that your gene sequence is more similar to that of your sister than it is between you and your next door neighbor, right? Because you're more closely related to your sister. So you would expect that your gene sequence is going to be more similar between you and her than between you and your next door neighbor, who
you're probably related to. If you go very far back, but you're not really closely related to your next door neighbor. So let's say you take another gene sequence. This is for another gene in our bodies called beta globin, and this gene shows something you didn't expect. This time, your gene sequence is much more similar to your next door
neighbor's gene sequence than it is to your sister's. So even though you're supposed to be much more closely related to your sister than you are to your next door neighbor, somehow when you look at this gene, it makes it look like you are more closely related to your next door neighbor than to your sister. So I'm making this up. But now let's say let's talk about real world data.
Now imagine that you have used scientific tools to sequence hundreds, if not thousands of genes across many different species of organisms. And you've now done a similar kind of analysis on the macro scale. And according to Darwinism, all of those species are related through common ancestry. Okay. What you see is over and over is that one gene gives you one version of the relationships between those organisms. One version
of the tree of life. And a different gene gives you a very different or conflicting version of how those organisms are related or, you know, the tree of life. Again, this is exactly what Dawkins says evolution does not predict. But it's what intelligent design does predict. And yet this is what we find. We find that we that organisms, when you sequence their genes and you try to organize, organize them into an evolutionary tree, it does not fit
with a nice, neat evolutionary tree. It's kind of like you might call it a mess. Okay. Now, you mentioned randomness. Well, it's true that mutations in evolution are random. But what is not random are the lines event. Okay. Every organism is supposedly related according to evolution through a line of descent tracing back to a common ancestor. And there's only one way that all of these different organisms are related.
If you go back, you know you're supposedly related not just to every human on earth, but also to your pet dog or cat, also to the birds in the trees and the fungus that are growing on the bottom of your foot. And the tree of life unfolded in only one way. So you should be able to see that tree of life when we sequenced genes, and there should be a consistent tree and we get total inconsistency.
When you look at different genes and the way they're sequenced and the way they paint a picture of this tree of life, it's not what Darwinian evolution predicts.
Casey, that was a brilliant way to understand that distinctiveness. So when we come back, I want to talk more about Dawkins. Now, remember when we talked quickly about his biography? Remember he wrote this book that rocked the globe was a bestseller called The God Delusion. Now, here's where I also find a parallel between Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins. We'll talk about that with Doctor Casey Luskin right after this. Have you ever wondered why music moves us so deeply,
or why beauty takes our breath away? My Truth Tool this month is a thought provoking book that explores those moments of wonder we all encounter. It's called Have You Ever Wondered? Consider how ordinary aspects of life point to the extraordinary biblical truths. Ask for your copy of. Have you ever wondered when you give a gift of any
amount in the market, call eight 7758. That's eight 7758 or go to in the market with Janet Parshall for a fascinating conversation with Doctor Casey Luskin, who's the associate director of the center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. By the way, I've got a link to this article so that you can read it in its entirety on our information page, and I want you to check that out. So we were talking before about his seminal book, The God Delusion, which caused people around the
globe to literally start talking. But just like Darwin set out to disprove God and he makes this clear, I think more in the Descent of Man than the Origin of Species. But I find it interesting that Dawkins likewise has a marked animus against God. In talking about this idea of the tree of Life, he says, and you wrote about this in your article and two interviews. He
did 1 in 2009 and 1 in 2010. The only alternative to it being a family tree is that the intelligent designer deliberately set out to deceive us, and the most underhanded and devious manner. Hmm. An anthropological argument to a God he doesn't believe in. Then in 2010, he says, the only way you could get out of saying that that proves that evolution is true is by saying that the intelligent designer God here identifies him, deliberately, set out
to lie to us, deliberately set out to deceive us. Okay. Methinks he doth protest too much. So his animus toward a god he allegedly doesn't believe in, I find to be very interesting. But more importantly, he's subscribing. Motive. Now this is where worldview comes in, not scientific deliberation. Talk to me about this.
Yeah. I mean, absolutely. Janet, Richard Dawkins has his own worldview. Um, in that delusion, he called the God of the Bible a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist. infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, malevolent bully. I can't even say it. I mean, it's just so, so clearly Dawkins has his own views about God.
And if you think that that does not affect, you know, the way that he approaches science. Well. I'm sorry. He's a human being. I'm not. This is nothing to single out for special criticism. All of us have our own worldviews that color the way that we interpret things. And Dawkins is certainly not alone in having a worldview, but he has a worldview, and we should understand that. It's a pretty strong worldview. So, I mean, I'm look, I'm
not against singling out Dawkins here for special criticism. It's just more to make the broader point that scientists are human beings and that these things come into play when people interpret this data. Um, and so Richard Dawkins, I don't think that he has ever acknowledged to my knowledge that his prediction for evolution and intelligent design that we're talking about here today, that, you know, these evolutionary trees are conflicting. I don't know if he's ever actually acknowledged
that his prediction for evolution failed. I certainly hope he would, because I think that a scientist should acknowledge what the data really says. Um, but I don't know if will his worldview let him do that? I hope it does. But really, that's not for me to say.
Well, you took me exactly where I wanted to go, Casey. Which is okay. Now. He's been, in the words of the great Bard, hoisted on his own petard so the evidence doesn't support his declaration. So now he he either has to pretend he never made it. And unfortunately or fortunately, in the world in which we live, everything is out there on the internet. And once it's there, it doesn't have a shelf life. There's no carbon dating, it's there forevermore.
So he cannot deny that he made this observation, that he posited this challenge, and the challenge didn't come back the way he wanted it to. So to the best of your knowledge, in reading his papers and doing his research as he merely sidestepped the outcome.
I mean, I have never seen Dawkins circle back around to this particular topic. We were hoping that he might respond to my article, uh, which thank you for linking to that. It's titled, uh, Intelligent Design Passes the Dawkins Test because we think it does. And we asked Richard Dawkins at the end, you know, well, how are you going to respond to this? Will you admit that your prediction has failed for evolution but succeeded for intelligent design?
Or will you say that maybe this prediction was not a good way of testing between evolution and ID, I don't know. We were hoping that he would respond. He has not responded yet. Um, I mean, Dawkins is now I think he's in his, uh, early 80s, possibly like around 82 years old or so. So I'm not sure if he's engaged with the science. And this is really an issue that we've seen in the last 10 or 15 years where we're finding all of these, these evolutionary
trees that are conflicting with each other. Um, I'm not sure how closely Dawkins follows the literature, but as you said, it was 2009 that he wrote his book, The Greatest Show on Earth, and that book was supposed to lay out the best evidence for evolution that Dawkins knew about, and that was part of the place where he laid out this test. So, yeah, I don't know what Dawkins
is going to say, Janet. All I can say is that this is what the evidence says and the evidence fulfils Dawkins prediction for intelligent design.
Wow. So just as a sidebar story, because I have the luxury of picking your well-educated brains for a minute, Stephen Gould doesn't call it a tree of life anymore. He's referring to it as a bush. Is that an internal debate in the camp of the evolutionists?
Yeah. So? So Stephen Jay Gould passed away a number of years ago, but certainly many scientists. And I think Gould would have been one of them, would have recognized that we don't have this nice, neat tree of life. You've heard we've heard people call it the bush of life or the network of life or the tangled thicket of life. Um, I don't have the ability to put a picture up on a on a radio show audio show, but you can see some of the diagrams in scientific papers,
and they don't look like a tree. They look like a tangled thicket. And what this means, basically, is that similarity is popping up between living organisms and places, that it was not predicted by common ancestry. I mean, that's exactly what it means. So this idea that you can explain the distribution of traits and genes and body parts
between different organisms. By appealing to their common ancestry, I think that a very large percentage of scientists today recognize that you can't do that, okay, that common ancestry is not explaining the data very well. Now, they have lots of other ways of trying to explain away the data without losing common ancestry. Um, we call these epicycles. Like
in the geocentric model of the solar system. You would appeal to these epicycles to explain why, you know, you could still keep the earth at the center of the solar system. But I think what this shows is that common ancestry and Darwinian evolution are a theory in crisis, and we ought to be seriously questioning whether or not they're the best explanations for biology that we have today.
Wow, what a brilliant answer. One last question, and it takes us full circle. How do you encourage your fellow academicians who subscribe to an intelligent design worldview on the origin of species, knowing it might cost them their job to mitigate the heckler's veto? What do you tell them to do?
Well, in a couple of seconds. Uh, keep in touch with Discovery Institute. You can go to discovery.org or evolution. Org and if you do find yourself in trouble, reach out to us. We've helped many scientists to overcome and face these discrimination cases, and there's a lot of great people who have been through this. You're not alone. Know that you're not crazy if you think that people are discriminating against you. It's happened many times. You're among good company.
Reach out to us. We'd be happy to help you.
And I'm telling you, Casey is an absolute treasure in this particular area. Academic freedom. Right? The ability to investigate and see where the evidence leads. Casey also said that I do have a link to his article, Intelligent Design Passes the Dawkins Test. It's right there on our information page.
Read it and then pass it on to a friend who subscribes to the idea of the Tree of Life and the evolutionist idea, and just talk about how, in fact, the evidence doesn't necessarily point that way and get to know the Discovery Institute, these brilliant learned people winsomely entering into the halls of academia and I think leaving a profound impact. Thank you to Doctor Casey Luskin and new friends. We'll see you next time.