Part 5: A Question of Meaning

In this episode, I confront a few of the glaring flaws embedded in a theory that remains the cornerstone of what some call “intellectually fulfilled atheism.” Namely: Darwinism. Is the cultural stigma against questioning Darwin truly justified? Or is it manufactured — the result of a fear campaign by Darwinists and Scientific Atheists, aimed at equating any critique of evolution with an attempt to impose religious theocracy? This episode challenges the implied conspiracy theory that anyone daring to question Darwinian orthodoxy is secretly plotting to drag us back to the Dark Ages. Spoiler: they’re not.

Episode Transcript

(00:06):
The Dacious Theory of Reincarnation, Partfive, A Question of Meaning The Mammoth

(00:37):
in the room when I read doctorDash's introduction to Volume one of Strange Tales
and Wondrous Legends, in which hestated that this had been his first time
creating works of literature filled with somuch wondrous and strange imagery as a vehicle
to exposing the dark side of humanity, which as a writer, he felt
was a solemn duty. I inferredthat he had written in your face parables

(01:00):
to communicate his position as regards ethicsand morality with unapologetic honesty. He even
issued a rallying cry to all writers, urging them not to sugarcoat the truth.
And what marked me the most washis heart wrenching expression of sorrow and
outrage at the January thirty, nineteenforty eight assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, whom

(01:25):
he mourned, honored, and canonizedunder the heading of Gandhi the Prophet of
the twentieth century. Nevertheless, allthings considered, and absent any evidence of
the contrary, I was under theimpression Doctor Dehesh had conceived fictional moral stories.
Then I read the introduction to volumetwo, where right out of the

(01:49):
gate, doctor Dehsh writes, quote, the stories in which I have mentioned
incidences of reincarnation are not imaginary.End quote. Wait what so God read
really did smite a ruthless tribe ofgiants, turning them into the honeybee,
which had never been in existence beforeon planet Earth up to this point,
and force them to forever serve anddefend with their lives the young newlywed bride

(02:15):
whom they publicly executed along with herhusband, and who would reincarnate as their
queen. And mermaids do exist incidentally, and not for nothing. But why
does everyone assume mermaids to be parthuman and part fish? Why couldn't they
be part humanoid and part horpois,you know, mammals. Let that sink

(02:36):
in. Anyway, that story aboutthe quiet conversation that took place between the
wicker basket and the porcelain vase perchedatop the old armoire, which was listening
in on them, actually happened.So, in other words, inanimate things
do breathe the breath of life,as it were, and the spirit can
inhabit them as it would flesh andbone in the Secret of the Wicker Basket,

(03:01):
which was penned on December thirty,nineteen forty four, in Beirut,
following the initial version that was writtenon December ten, nineteen forty four,
we learned that and if you willindulge my adding a technical spin on it,
thus potentially ruining the lyricism inherent inthe story. Not only did the
spiritual fluid linked to one of God'sangels by divine mandate, accompany another spiritual

(03:24):
fluid, one emanating from an exaltedspirit, that would inhabit profit Moses the
moment he was born on earth inorder to help him achieve the goals of
the heavens. They would also inhabitclumps of bulrushes that grow on the banks
of the River Nile, which Moses'smother would be divinely inspired to cut and

(03:46):
frantically fashion into the coked wicker basketthat would safely cradle him across the water.
Furthermore, not only would the angelicspirit keep a watchful eye on three
month old baby Moses by summoning favorableand gentle winds that would ultimately steer the
wicker basket turned canoe of hope rightinto the arms of adoting Pharaoh's daughter,

(04:11):
that angelic spirit would actually ignite thefeelings of compassion and tenderness in her heart.
And so, according to the wickerBasket, the angelic spirit, or
more precisely, the spiritual fluid belongingto the angelic spirit, would remain in
the nile grass until it passed,And with each passing of the nile grass,

(04:31):
the angelic spirit would depart for theheavens, only to return to inhabit
the reeds over and over again,because its mission was not yet complete at
one point. And in the Decembertenth, nineteen forty four version of the

(04:54):
story, the angels, speaking throughthe wicker basket says, and though my
spirit may be in invisible to people, it shines upon the reads. I
wonder do they know whns? Sometimesthey get a lofty idea. And with
that the basket would reveal that Danishauthor Hans Christian Anderson would, by dint

(05:15):
of searching, become eventually able todetect the souls in all things. By
now you're probably thinking yourself, really, the fact that doctor Dash claimed these
stories were not imaginary is the onlything that jumped out at you. I
know, listen I get it,although from its premises to its revelationses and

(05:36):
bookends a coherent body of thought.The idea that inanimate objects are not merely
sentient, but they can think andcommunicate, yearn love and forgive, and
even hold a grudge is absurd whenviewed through the rational thinking lens, and
at best a purely academic what ifexercise eliciting. At worst, sure,

(05:58):
why not pity reaction. On theother hand, if you consider that matter
is energy, and if you acceptthat they are manifestations of the spiritual fluids
which are sentient according to the heitism, then, and as counterintuitive insane even
as it might appear to be,it really does make sense. Besides,

(06:19):
and from what I've read, themagisterium of science is abounding with absurdity.
To proof to you, I'm notjust making it up as I go along,
I will read you what Richard C. Lewinton, Harvard Professor of biology
and leader in developing the mathematical basisof population genetics and evolutionary theory, wrote
in his article Billions and Billions ofDemons, which appeared in the January ninth,

(06:43):
nineteen ninety seven issue of The NewYork Review, of books. Quote.
We take the side of science inspite of the patent absurdity of some
of its constructs, in spite ofits failure to fulfill many of its extravagant
promises of health and life, inspite of the tolerance of the scientific community
for unsubstantiated just so stories, becausewe have a prior commitment, a commitment

(07:11):
to materialism end quote. So rightoff the bat Lewenton clearly states the scientists
must make and a priori commitment toscientific materialism, or more precisely, methodological
naturalism, which happens to be thephilosophy of science Charles Darwin adhere to,
and which posits a materialist explanation foreverything. In other words, regardless of

(07:35):
whatever obvious conclusions the evidence bears out, no intelligence, creative agency, or
mind could ever be invoked. Itis a non starter. Period. Therefore,
everything must be explained by reference topurely undirected material processes. And that
is why today a materialist worldview stillpervades due to the different iterations of the

(08:00):
Darwinian theory of evolution, which isstrongly lobbied by the new atheists who act
as spokespeople for quote unquote science anddeclare their belief in non belief. As
a result, and according to doctorStephen C. Meyer, many scientists equate
their worldview of scientific materialism with thepractice of science itself. Well, then

(08:22):
there must be an impartial, scientificbased rationale set it under disinterested pursuit of
knowledge. For this bias right wrong. According to Lewenton quote, it is
not that the methods and institutions ofscience somehow compel us to accept the material
explanation of the phenomenal world, buton the contrary, that we are forced

(08:46):
by our a priori adherence to materialcauses to create an apparatus of investigation and
a set of concepts that produce materialexplanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no
matter how manying to the uninitiated.Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for
we cannot allow a divine foot inthe door end quote. Therefore, if

(09:09):
a theory that argues strictly from empiricalevidence so much as suggests a whiff of
an inference to a flawed designer,for after all, we ourselves are not
perfect, that theory is to belabeled as pseudo science. Incidentally, you
might remember from part two The Mechanicsof Existence that doctor Desch told me,

(09:31):
not even the prophets the messengers ofGod have seen God. That being the
case, no one should ever presumeto know what constitutes empirical evidence, let
alone proof that meets the standard ofmoral certainty of a divine foot, let
alone God's existence. As I suggestedin Part three, The Dynamics of Life,
a sliver of a reasonable doubt isenough to falsify the materialist worldview.

(09:54):
But I was just warming up whenI said that, when all is said
and done, not only I havedemonstrated that the alleged creative power of the
Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting onrandom mutation as a sham given the infinitesimally
limited amount of time and resources ithad at its disposal to supposedly blindly self

(10:16):
organized chemical raw materials and eventually buildthem into biological forms, living biological forms.
No less, I will also havedemonstrated that although we humans could never
see, let alone comprehend, God, we can still detect evidence of mind
inside the biological cell. And alongthe way, I'll be discussing, among
others, sundry relevant topics such asthe curious case of the Vatican endorsing Darwinism

(10:41):
the bedrock of atheism, while rejectingthe theory of intelligent design, which,
come to find out, offers compellingscience based evidence that some sort of mind
or intelligence lies at the heart oflife. To be sure, this is
not about making an argument from ignorantarrance in which we declare victory on account
of science's current inability to corroborate theclaims that Charles Darwin made by using abductive

(11:09):
reasoning. Please hold that thought todraw an inference to the best conclusion.
To paraphrase doctor Stephen Meyer, authorof Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt.
In Darwin's Doubt, Meyer writes,quote, Darwin himself adopted this methodological
principle. His term for a presentlyacting cause was a vera causa that is,

(11:30):
a true, known or actual cause. Darwin thought that when explaining past
events, scientists should seek to identifyestablished causes causes known to produce the effect
in question end quote. And so, according to Meyer, Darwin invoked the
vera cause of principle to argue thatpresently observed microevolutionary processes of change could be

(11:54):
extrapolated to explain the origin of newforms of life in the past Meyer rights
quote. Since the observed process ofnatural selection can produce a small amount of
change in a short time, Darwinargued that it was capable of producing a
large amount of change over a longperiod of time. In that sense,

(12:15):
natural selection was causally adequate. Endquote. And just in case you weren't
paying attention in class, I shouldadd that in Darwin's mind, no creator
is needed. You see, thatplot twist is key to the Darwinian theory
of evolution, which is why anyonewho feels intimidated or bullied by those who
like to lord it over us meremodals by projecting a suppose it scientifically based

(12:37):
pretense of knowledge pertaining to the purportedproof of God's non existence, should really
pay close attention to the knowledge I'llbe sharing with you in which I have
gathered after traveling through the Darwinian theoryof evolutions rabbit hole. First, however,
and just in case this is newto you, allow me to give
you a condensed primer on abductive reasoning, which is often illustrated using this thought

(13:01):
experiment. If you see a lifeturtle stuck a top a fence post,
your most logical rational conclusion is that, well, somebody must have put it
there. Now, let's set thataside for a bit while I briefly discuss
deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive orbottom up reasoning starts out with a hypothesis

(13:22):
or a premise and examines the possibilitiesin order to reach a specific logical conclusion,
that is, one that is logicallyvalid and true. For example,
assume all architects can draw. Beingthat Mario is an architect, the logical
conclusion has to be that Mario candraw. Therefore going from the general to

(13:46):
the specific or bottom up, andfor deductive reasoning to work, the hypothesis
must be correct. Also in therealm of deductive reasoning, if something about
a group of elements is true,then it's necessarily true for each one of
the members of that group. Ofcourse, the problem with deductive reasoning is

(14:07):
that even if the generalization is nottrue therefore a total lie, it's possible
to draw a logical conclusion that isalso a lie. For example, consider
the following proposition that says althose whoare anti science systematically reject the Darwinian theory
of evolution. Since Mario rejects theDarwinian theory of evolution. The logical conclusion

(14:31):
is that Mario is anti science.Here, although the conclusion is the result
of a logical argument, it isuntrue because the original statement is false.
Why is it false? Well,and here I'm jumping way ahead. My
assertion echoes the theme of a meetingof world class Darwinian biologists in November twenty

(14:52):
sixteen at the Royal Society of London, who, although they publicly defend Darwinism,
they expressed doubts about its central tenet, namely the alleged creative power of
the canonical Darwinian mechanism of natural selectionacting on random mutation, and will be
certainly reviewing all that. But asI said, I'm jumping ahead here and

(15:16):
delivering the punchline, which is quitesimply that despite what we're told, surprise,
Darwinism lacks creative power. Listen,We're not talking small changes or microevolution
whose existence no sane person would deny. For example, as a dog breed,
the modern boxer has a shorter faceand an upturned muzzle. It has

(15:39):
certainly evolved, however, it's stilla dog. Darwinian's, on the other
hand, will argue that no,it's on its way to becoming something else.
Hence, they will argue that theDarwinian mechanism has creative power or generative
power, the power to create newbody plans and blueprints that warn't available before.

(16:02):
Ergo macro evolution. That is,a land cloven hoofed grass eating animal
becoming an ocean dwelling krill eating whale. Now let me just say that,
theoretically speaking, if we had unlimitedtime and resources, anything is possible.
However, the next few episodes willshow that the Darwinian theory of evolution is

(16:26):
a great science fiction story, onethat is highly improbable, unless, of
course, those brilliant biologists can showus a testable manner through which Darwin's mechanism
can create new forms of life unaided. Remember, for the evolutionary mechanism to
be deemed truly Darwinian, it cannotbe aided or guided by things such as

(16:48):
computer simulations that set goals and endowedwith memory, all of which would be
provided by software engineer, in otherwords, an intelligent agency. Oh and
by testable, well, I alsomean predictable. So just because the reasoning
is textbook deductive and logically valid,that does not necessarily make it true.

(17:10):
One could end up on death rowdue to sound deductive reasoning applied to incomplete
or tainted evidence and even an unjustlaw. Next, we have inductive or
top down reasoning, often known assyllogism. For example, Mario is an
architect. Mario can draw, thereforeall architects can draw. Or cobras are

(17:33):
venomous. Cobras are snakes, thereforeall snakes are venomous. So, starting
with an assumed to be true premise, inductive reasoning allows for a conclusion to
be false. For example, imagineCaptain Haddock for all you fans of Tintin
or Tantana for your purists out there, saying water and whiskey makes you drunk.
Water engin makes you drunk, Waterand vodka makes you drunk. Conclusion,

(17:59):
water makes you drunk. By theway, and in case you didn't
know, Captain Haddock is allergic towater anyway, And before you throw shade
at inductive reasoning, please consider thatwhile at the outset, it may not
always produce a true conclusion. Anduntil they gather more data than information than
knowledge, then hopefully wisdom scientists haveto apply inductive reasoning to certain hypotheses in

(18:22):
order to eventually answer specific questions aboutscience. We immere mortals use it every
day. When you buy a cartonof eggs and one of them drops and
cracks, therefore confirming that it wasindeed an egg, and short of candling
your other eggs or cracking open eachone of them, you have to assume
that the other still uncracked eggs arein fact eggs. Basically, inductive reasoning

(18:45):
makes broad generalizations from specific observations.For example, imagine you have a box
filled with hundreds of equally sized squaretiles with letters on them. Think of
them as your data, whence youwill your conclusion. So imagine you draw
three tiles in a row, andeach one of the tiles has the letter

(19:06):
A stamped on it. Now,given the odds involved in pulling three letter
a's in a row, you'd bejustified, even if mistaken, in concluding
that either all or a significant numberof the tiles are a's. Or say,
for example, you come in touchwith a never before seen form of
life that definitely looks as though it'sbent on eradicating humanity. You can tell

(19:27):
because it just ates your neighbor alive. Literally you're conflicted. You don't know
whether to shoot it or to thankit, or maybe both. So until
you gather more information, your kneejerk reaction is to draw the general,
perhaps utterly erroneous, conclusion that whateverthat species is, it is a danger
to humanity, although in time,and like the polar bear, this species

(19:48):
might well become protected as well.Now we come to abductive reasoning, which
is the kind of scientific reasoning CharlesDarwin employed to arrive at his conclude usions,
or arguably to confirm his bias.After all, he had to remove
God from the equation. Now,using abductive reasoning, scientists and crime solvers

(20:11):
even start with an incomplete set ofobservations and end up creating the likeliest possible
explanation. It's essentially a matter ofusing whatever information is on hand for building
and if possible, testing, ahypothesis in order to extrapolate the theory that
is the most feasible. In chaptersix of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Sign

(20:33):
of the Four, in response todoctor Watson, Sherlock Holmes delivers one of
his famous aphorisms and says, howoften have I said to you that when
you have eliminated the impossible. Whateverremains, however improbable, must be the
truth. So imagine you catch yourfour or five year old red handed as
they are walking out of the pantrywhile chomping on a cookie they somehow are

(20:57):
able to nab from the cookie jare resting on the topmost point of the
tall kitchen pantry cabinet with pullout shelves. Bewildered, dazed, and confused,
you wonder how your child was ableto reach the cookie jar, especially that
you don't even have a ladder inthe pantry, or a chair for that
matter. All you have in thereare heavy duty pull out shelves designed to

(21:18):
support heavy Look wait a second.That's when it suddenly hits you. After
you've ruled out all possible scenarios,including levitation, your little diabolical genius had
to have figured out a way tomake a makeshift staircase out of the pullout
shelves. You're torn between calling MENSAInternational and grounding your child for life.
In any case, you will havecome to this only plausible conclusion by using

(21:42):
that process I mentioned earlier described asinference to the best conclusion. By ruling
out all possible explanations until you're leftwith the most plausible one given the evidence.
Mind you, in this fictional scenario, which incidentally, you should never
try at home, because in everyinstance the pan cabinet, shelves and doors
were closed. Therefore your child madesure to cover their tracks. You really

(22:04):
didn't have any premise or premises toeither deductively or inductively prove your conclusion.
But that notwithstanding, it is justifiable, being that at least in your mind,
you were able to concoct a plausibleexplanation of the events in any case
by using abductive reasoning, doctor StephenMeyer would arrive at a conclusion that is

(22:26):
the polar opposite of that of CharlesDarwin's, who incidentally, and among others,
knew nothing about the information bearing capacityof DNA, which would have been
a major plot twist and hurdle forhis flawed assumptions, which he used as
a springboard for his gratuitous extrapolations thatnow have become canonized into an institutionalized worldview,

(22:49):
ultimately becoming an orthodoxy that is aggressivelypromoted by several high profile intellectuals in
the secular West who reject teleology,namely the doctrine that promotes the existence of
design and purpose in nature. Butfirst, let's be clear on the fact
that we'll be employing abductive reasoning toarrive to the conclusion that not only is

(23:11):
Darwinism flawed, but that the popularstigma associated with attempting to argue against Darwinism
is artificial and unwarranted, born ofthe fear mongering that Darwinists and scientific atheists
have been engaging in as part oftheir agenda to scare us into believing the
implied conspiracy theory that anyone who darechallenge Darwin is out to insidiously establish a

(23:37):
theocracy. Second, let me justsay that what follows is not hard to
understand, but it does require adegree of concentration, as I will be
touching upon different areas of knowledge which, although together form an incongruent, disparate
mess at face value, hence asfrustrating to decipher as a three D image
hidden insider random dot autostereogram, theydo form an ensemble, so there's a

(24:02):
lot of subtlety involved. The goodnews is that it's not as onerous as
trying to prove that one plus oneequals two and not eleven on that front,
And if reading hundreds of pages stuffedwith thense mathematical notation does not phase
you, and you'd really like tosee what it takes to prove one plus
one equals two, do check outPrincipia Mathematica by Alfred Whitehead and Bertrand Russell.

(24:25):
You're in for a real treat,so thank you in advance for your
patience and willingness to follow me asI guide us down the many rabbit holes
created for us by Charles Darwin,whose argument is that no living creature has
ever been created by any creator,rather that it evolved from a single original,
first biological life whose genesis is stillcloaked in mystery. In fact,

(24:48):
and to help you visualize what we'reup against, here's a fictional dramatization of
Charles Darwin's elevator pitch based on thesimilarities between species and to a degree,
the poor fossil record, which clearlyhas gaping holes in it, so it's
imperfect and should not be taken literally. Albeit it's good enough for me to
cherry pick and weave into a sequenceof events that back my claims. I

(25:12):
Charles Darwin, believe all life evolvedfrom one single organism, gradually, progressively
and adaptively. And so wake uppeople. This notion of design is an
illusion and it's still ongoing mind you? Oh yeah, blindly as in randomly?
What's that? No, I don'thave any idea where the original form

(25:33):
came from. Hey, anything ispossible, right, could have formed in
a warm pond. Yeah, that'sa good idea, warm pond. Pass
it on. I'm sorry you went. Oh you want me to supply you
with evidence that everything that lived orlives got here through blind, undirected,
random, gradual, progressive and adaptivemutation. Oh are you one of those?
I'll tell you what. How doyou want better? How about you
prove it didn't happen that way.So there and so, ladies and gentlemen.

(25:56):
The preceding dramatization, which I hopeyou, summarizes Charles Darwin's argument.
Basically, he challenged us to provea negative. So don't be intimidated by
the books, the conferences, thepretense of knowledge, and the complicated mathematical
equations. It's all smoke and mirrors. That is not to say that all

(26:18):
those who are actively trying to provedarwin right to moral certainty are Charlatan's.
Rather that they are fooling themselves,having invested so many years and so much
talent into what ultimately amounts to amythology that is being peddled as true science.
And I assure you nothing I justsaid affects anything that goes on in

(26:40):
the laboratories where real science is conductedin which would be none the worse for
wear if Darwinism is called out forthe sham that it truly is. But
Darwinism and origin of life research isbig business, which is why Darwinists are
working quietly behind the scenes to theholes and their precious theory, which they

(27:02):
know cannot account for not just thecreation of life, but the creation of
new life forms and new body plans. In due course, I aim to
demonstrate that certain foundational claims made bythe Darwinian orthodox he are quite simply so
improbable they are impossible. Again,I'm not saying everything in the theory is
wrong. On the other hand,though a broken clock is correct twice a

(27:25):
day, I'm not about to trustit. And so just because parts of
Darwin's theory point to the obvious,that doesn't make its overreaching extrapolations valid and
rest assured we will not be invokingtheology to build a persuasive argument for a
science based inference to intelligence and nature, and hopefully we'll have put an end
to the false narrative that anybody whodare challenge Darwin is insidiously attempting to shoehorn

(27:51):
creationism into science education. Speaking ofwhich, and at this juncture, it's
probably helpful to go over some terminologycreation versus creationism. Apparently, there is
a difference between creation and creationism,which is the belief that God created the
world in six days as described inthe Bible. Unlike some other Christians,

(28:14):
namely the Conservative Protestants in the UnitedStates, who read Genesis literally and object
to the teaching of evolution in thepublic schools, the Catholic Church considers the
story of Genesis to be an allegoryfor the way God created the world,
and it is also worthwhile to notethat there are those in the US that
support teaching both creationism and evolution inschools. Therefore, when someone says I

(28:38):
am a creationist, that means heor she believes in the literal account of
creation as told in the Book ofGenesis, and thus uses biblical Scripture as
the frame of reference. As faras Dasism is concerned, it believes in
creation, but not necessarily in creationism. Let me unpack this seemingly the equivocal

(29:00):
statement for you in Dahshism, andhere I'm giving you the condensed version.
The belief is that we are inthe midst of Genesis number seven hundred and
sixty one, which began after theGreat Flood in around five thousand, five
hundred BC. Therefore, Noah,by stepping out of his arc, marked
the end of cycle seven hundred andsixty of creation and thus inaugurated cycle seven

(29:26):
hundred and sixty one. And fromDashist revelations, we know that life on
Earth has been completely wiped out andreborn over and over again. In other
words, Earth is a whole lotolder than Young Earth creationists believe it to
be. And while I cannot provideyou figures based on Dashist revelation, I

(29:48):
have no compelling reason to reject whatscientists are confirming, which is that the
age of the observable universe is aroundthirteen point eight billion years and Earth is
around four and a half billion yearsold. What I can tell you is
this, However, human life onEarth has been punctuated by many episodes of
violent and sudden extinctions. Now,while we have no idea what transpired during

(30:12):
those events of great dying, doctorDehesch provided us with a tantalizing hint in
his short story he published in StrangeTales and Wondrous Legends, Part two,
Journey of a musk Rose. Inthis excerpt, we read the travel diary
as it were of a musk rosewho had fallen from the hand of a

(30:33):
young woman who had been breathing itsfragrance scent while standing close to her young
betrothed aboard a ship sailing for America. And so the musk rose recounts the
amazing events it witnessed during a fourday journey across the open sea. At
one point in its journey, themusk Rose recounts, and darkness began to

(30:55):
cast its mantle upon the surroundings littleby little, as I was gliding aimlessly,
subject to the whims of the movingwaters. Then nightfall marched in with
its titanic armies, and the tenebrousgloom immersed the immense ocean, And suddenly
a dazzling light glowed in the sky, illuminating the sea, as if the

(31:15):
sun had risen, and this light, which dispels darkness, approached. Then
a moving body descended from space,falling with miraculous lightness and speed. And
it turned out to be just likea saucer, with its perfect roundness.
Its diameter was forty meters, andone could hear the light musical rumble of

(31:36):
its engines through the glass windows thatfilled its circumference. I could see pencil
sized blue men moving to and fro. And as the musk rows approached the
saucer and bumped up against its edge, it saw blue pencil sized women whose
blueness was permeated with red stripes,discussing among themselves. And so it listened

(31:57):
in more closely, and this iswhat one of them was saying. And
now we shall go to Hiroshima andNagasaki in order for us to present a
report on the effects of the nuclearbomb that annihilated more than one hundred thousand
people in the year nineteen forty five. And the day will come when we

(32:17):
will reveal ourselves to the sons ofthe Earth, and at which time our
Emperor will order us to either colonizetheir earth or to destroy it over their
heads. For they are evil anddissolute, and nothing can hold a candle
to their immorality. And I stillremember that my grandfather had informed me about
the event involving the destruction of Sodomand Gomorrah. After the news of their

(32:40):
wickedness had reached our emperor's grandfather,an emperor in his own right, he
warned them to renounce their wickedness orelse he would do away with them.
But they paid no heed. Thenhe sent two envoys an a luminous ship,
and he annihilated them. And Lotthe Righteous had thought there were two
angels, whereas there were none otherthan the Emperor's messengers, and they were

(33:05):
from the line of giants. Forgiants on our planet rival earthlings in terms
of body height. Based on whatI had heard from reliable sources, there
were cases in which human civilization hadreached a far greater degree of advancement in
scientific breakthroughs and technological achievements than wehave currently attained. Therefore, in each

(33:27):
genesis cycle, humanity is marked bya pattern of change similar to what we
see in the fossil record. Thatis, evolution stability than utter destruction,
a reboot, as it were,in any case, Adam, unlike any
other earth dweller, human or otherwise, was not born from human parents,
but was spontaneously created in the Gardenof Eden, which was hidden from the

(33:51):
rest of humanity. Adam was theembodiment of all the spiritual fluids belonging to
some of the loftiests of all sinspirits, which dwelled in Level one hundred
and fifty of the world of theSpirits, also known as the Divine worlds.
And you might remember from Part twoThe Mechanics of Existence, that the

(34:12):
highest or purest of these divine worldsare called the Heavens, the Realm of
God Almighty. The long and assuredof it is that a very large group
of spirits carried out a premeditated attemptto breach Level one hundred and fifty and
to cross over into the heavens inorder to see the greatness of God and
to unveil the divine mysteries that farsurpass even their spiritual capacity for imagination.

(34:38):
They failed miserably and suffered even morewretched consequences for having dared to disobey a
divine directive and attempt to enter aforbidden realm which Sadly, they would have
been eventually allowed to enter had theybeen patient, They, or rather their
respective spiritual fluids, were made tofall precipitously all the way down to Earth,

(35:00):
which, if you remember, sitson the threshold of the first level
of Hell. And remember when Iexplained that spiritual fluids emanate from the mother's
spirits. Well, that's exactly whathappened here. And for all you know,
one of your spiritual fluids might havebeen involved in that tragic saga.
And once again I'm skipping over manydetails, including the number of spirits involved

(35:21):
and their hierarchical chain of command.What is important to know is that those
spiritual fluids were made to coalesce intoAdam inside an earthly paradisaical realm hidden from
view called the Garden of Eden.There was another spirit, the chief instigator
of this tragic debacle. He wasmade to coalesce into a hideous creature known

(35:45):
as the Serpent. He had ahuman face and eyes that overflowed with deception.
Therefore, chronologically speaking, and followingtheir grave infraction, a fantastic number
of exalted spirits minus one became,as it were, Adam in the garden
of Eden in around nine thousand BC, so about eleven thousand years ago.

(36:09):
Eve would later enter the scene andwould be created from one of Adam's spiritual
fluids one thousand years after that,therefore around ten thousand years ago, and
so Adam, Eve, and theserpent all hailed from the highest level of
the realm of the spirits, andtheir interactions, as we shall learn in

(36:30):
the future episode, ushered a cascadeof incredible events that would ultimately lead to
the arrival of Dehesh, the belovedguiding Prophet. For now, however,
and as far as the Darwinian evolutionis concerned, please know that doctor de
has taught that man and chimpanzee didnot evolve from a common ape like ancestor

(36:51):
not that there would have been anythingwrong with that, especially that Daheshism teaches
that every human being has a spiritualfluid connection to one or more animals right
of passage. Have you ever lookedat someone and thought they somehow reminded you
of an animal, either by theway they look, or act or walk.

(37:16):
If so, more than likely youare instinctively detecting an actual connection to
that particular animal. Oh and newslash unlike their human full time staff,
cats can actually remember their reincarnations inany case, and at this juncture,
I might as well tell you thateveryone on this planet has a spiritual fluid

(37:36):
that connects them to one or moreanimals. So does that mean you literally
were and your totality and animal beforereincarnating as a human being. First,
the short answer is not necessarily.And second, I need to clarify a
point for the sake of this ambiguation. The Dashes theory of reincarnation conflates,
so to speak, both the traditionalnotion of reincarnation and attempsychosis, also known

(38:01):
as transmigration, and while those twonotions are similar in terms of mechanism,
they differ in terms of purview.Generally speaking, reincarnation involves the quote unquote
human soul being reborn in a newhuman body, so the operative word here
is human, Whereas during the processof metempsychosis, also known as transmigration,

(38:25):
any soul human or otherwise can migrate, as it were, from one body
to another, may be human,animal, vegetable, or even inanimate.
Therefore, and unless otherwise noted,and in the interest of economy, the
Dash's theory of reincarnation also connotes transmigration. With that out of the way,
and as regards where we in theliteral sense animals before we were reborn as

(38:51):
humans, remember that spiritual fluids constitutea complex interdimensional network. Therefore, more
than likely one or more of yourspiritual fluids merited to be born on earth
as an animal or as part ofan animal. But however, many spiritual
fluids are involved. Rest assured thatevery human being, at one point or

(39:13):
another was, in a matter ofspeaking, one or more animals. But
just because you might have had aspiritual fluid from a penguin and your gait
shows a slight waddle, that doesn'tnecessarily mean you relish cold weather or eating
fish for that matter. And forall you know, you could end up
being best friends with someone who hasa spiritual fluid belonging to the leopard seal

(39:36):
that had you for lunch. Inany case, and as I said,
Dahcism teaches that early or anatomically modernhumans and chimpanzees did not evolve from a
common ape like ancestor. And ifit did, and though there would be
nothing inherently objectionable about such a notion, Danitism would then be supporting a scientific
idea that is statistically speaking highly improbable, as I will discuss later. And

(40:00):
yes, I am fully aware thatscientists who had sequenced the genome of the
chimpanzee found that humans are ninety sixpercent similar to the great ape species.
Now, in terms of nomenclature,the genome is the total amount of DNA
or deoxyuriabu nucleic acid present in thenucleus of every cell and sometimes outside of

(40:23):
it known as plasmids. In anycase, DNA is the actual structure that
stores the genetic information or code necessaryfor life, and the genome is the
total amount of that code. Now, if you've ever written computer code,
you'll most certainly relate to this.A measly couple of percent difference in the

(40:44):
genetic code, when converted into actualletters or bays bears as they are called,
comes out to millions of characters thatwould need to be randomly altered without
any deleterious effect. Practically speaking,and if we basar calculations on the widely
accepted benchmarks setting the human genome tolittle over three billion letters, the number

(41:07):
of randomly generated mutations that need tooccur will be in the millions. But
hold on, if, according toan article that Veritas, the Genome Company,
published on July eighteen, twenty seventeen, the real human genome comprises sixty
four point billion letters or base pairs, and not the mere three point two

(41:28):
billion as was originally determined by theHuman Genome Project, then even a one
percent difference would yield sixty four millionletters that would have to be mutated and
in the right sequence, again atrandom. And forget computer simulations. They
are not Darwinian because they involve thingslike goals or targets and memory or push

(41:52):
down storage. Oh and the programmerthat's behind it all. Now, I
ask you, in your experience,using quote unquote common sense in rush thinking,
can you honestly imagine a scenario inwhich a computer code where one random
alteration wouldn't mess it all up?Let alone sixty four million. And just
in case you're wondering, we havesuddenly veered into a discussion about software programming,

(42:14):
because evolution boils down to editing DNAas though one were updating or altering
software code. And please hold thatthought, as I'll get back to that
very shortly in the meantime. Andjust in case, you're not familiar with
its history. The Human Genome Projectwas a thirteen year effort that began in

(42:34):
nineteen ninety and was completed in twothousand and three, and which led to
the discovery of the twenty thousand totwenty five thousand human genes and making them
accessible for further biological study. Andin case you've forgotten, a gene is
a section of DNA. As tothe human genome itself, it consists of
all the DNA of our species.The Hereditary Code of Life, as Francis

(42:58):
S. Collins, the leader ofthe pro describes it in his book The
Language of God, a scientist presentsevidence for belief, which incidentally is pro
Darwin and as such espouses something calledtheistic evolution, which I will address later.
But just know that doctor Collins isa rigorous scientist who happens to be
a believer in a transcendent God,and his book argues that belief in God,

(43:22):
as he put it, can bean entirely rational choice, and that
the principles of faith are in factcomplementary with the principles of science. And
though I admire his courage to goon record with such an assertion, regarding
faith and science. I do havescience based reservations about his support of the

(43:42):
Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting onrandom variation, while of course rejecting its
atheistic implications, and I will beaddressing that as well in any case.
In his two thousand and six bookThe Language of God, Collins describes the
human genome as a newly revealed textthat is three billion letters long and written

(44:04):
in a strange and cryptographic four lettercode. Such is the amazing complexity of
the information carried within each cell ofthe human body, he writes, and
apparently a live reading of that codeat a rate of three letters per second
would take thirty one years, evenif read NonStop, day and night,

(44:24):
and printing these letters out in standardfont size on letter sized bond paper would
result in a tower the height ofthe Washington Monument or five hundred and fifty
five feet or little over one hundredand sixty nine meters tall. Of course,
we would need to double these valuesif the human genome is indeed six
point four billion letters and not aneasily three point two billion. And as

(44:49):
to the matter of editing DNA andAUDER two as it were introduced, new
genetic information well, and oddly enough, it has been shown that some species
have evolved by losing information. Soif an organism, in order to evolve
and survive, must shed weight interms of its DNA code, then,
aside from that, contradicting the Darwiniantenet that things evolve from simple to more

(45:13):
complex, where did the original morecomplex DNA come from? And even if
we were to argue that, well, it started simple, then it gained
complexity, then adjusted to meet outsidepressures. The sound reality is that time
is not our friend when it comesto non deliterious, massive random alterations to
DNA. That is why some ofthe biggest names in science have entertained the

(45:36):
theory that life on Earth had tohave originated from microorganisms or chemical precursors of
life present and outer space directed panspermia. As Carl Sagan explained, life must
have somehow been transported to newly arisingworlds. However, the theory that teleradiation

(45:59):
pressure prepared he held little spores oflife from world to world, as proposed
by the Swedish chemist's Vante Erenius aroundthe turn of the nineteenth century, did
not square with Sagan's calculations which showedthat quote, the radiation dose accumulated during
the ejection of an unprotected microbe froman alien solar system would kill the little

(46:21):
beast long before it could arrive onsome virgin world end quote. And if
you imagine the bigger microbe, evenonce surrounded with radiation shielding, it would
be too heavy to be ejected.According to Sagan, how about life on
Earth and other planets having been intentionallydeposited by intelligent beings rather than accidentally wafted
by radiation pressure through interstellar space.In nineteen seventy three, Francis Crick,

(46:46):
who along with James Watson, elucidatedthe structure of DNA, published a paper
titled directed pan spermia, which sheco authored with Leslie Orgel in nineteen seventy
two. The following is the actabstract of that paper. Quote, it
now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organismscould have reached the Earth, either as

(47:08):
spores driven by the radiation pressure fromanother star or as living organisms embedded in
a meteorite. As an alternative tothese nineteenth century mechanisms, we have considered
directed panspermia, the theory that organismswere deliberately transmitted to the Earth by intelligent
beings on another planet. We concludethat it is possible that life reached the

(47:31):
Earth in this way, but thatthe scientific evidence is inadequate at the present
time to say anything about the probability. We draw attention to the kinds of
evidence that might throw additional light onthe topic. End quote. Now,
in the interest of full disclosure,I should mention that when asked what he
thought about directed pan spermia the Februarytwenty eleven event called the Great Debate What

(47:54):
Is Life, renowned evolutionary biologists andauthor Richard Dawkins said the following quote,
I think Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel'sdirected pant spermia was largely tongue in cheek
end quote. Fair enough, directedpan spermia was tongue in cheek or was
it? Well, let's see.In nineteen seventy three, Directed pan Spermia,

(48:16):
a six page paper was officially publishedin Icarus, which is a serious
scientific journal devoted to the publication oforiginal contributions in the field of solar system
studies, and at the time ofthat publication, Carl Sagan was the editor
and the reason we know that isfrom a November twenty nine, nineteen eighty

(48:39):
one New York Times article by CarlSagan himself titled is their life Elsewhere?
And Did it come here? Inwhich we learned that prior to having Directed
pan Spermia refereed and published an Icarus, Crick and Argyll proposed their directed pan
Spermia theory at a conference on Communicationwith extra Terrestrial Intelligence organized by Carl Sagan

(49:02):
and held at the Buracan Observatory inat the time Soviet Armenia in nineteen seventy
one. According to Carl Segen's NewYork Times article, quote, Krick and
Orgyll imagined the Earth to have beenseated, not accidentally, but intentionally,
in an effort by intelligent beings muchmore advanced than we to spread their form

(49:22):
of life through the cosmos end quote. And so if this was meant to
be tongue in cheek, consider thatCarl Sagan, the man who coined the
aphorism extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,not only was the editor of Icarus in
nineteen seventy three when Directed Panspermia waspublished, but he would also celebrate it

(49:44):
in his New York Times article innineteen eighty one. In other words,
Carl Sagen had at least eight yearsto change his mind about it. Therefore,
and assuming they didn't lose a bet, that must have been some running
gag for which Sagan, Krick,and Orgyll would put all their reputations combined
on the line. So no,there's no conceivable universe in which this should

(50:06):
be dismissed as tongue in cheek.Plus, consider the intellectual pedigree, as
it were, of Francis Crick.Historically speaking, in nineteen fifty three,
Watson and Crick would elucidate the structureof the DNA molecule with its four chemical
subunits that run along the interior ofthe helix, in which are called bases
or nucleotide bases. Then, betweennineteen fifty seven and nineteen fifty eight,

(50:30):
Krick, formerly a codebreaker in WorldWar II, proposes the idea of the
sequence hypothesis. As doctor Stephen Meyer, with a conversation with Ben Shapiro explains,
quote, Krick posits what is knownas the sequence hypothesis, where he
realizes that the nucleotide bases of theinside of the double helix are functioning like
alphabetical characters in a written language endquote. In fact, and this is

(50:54):
where the rubber meets the road insofaras thinking about this business of webs whether
or not DNA could have evolved randomly, Doctor Meyer explains that, quote,
it is not the physical or chemicalproperties of those bases that are important to
their function, but rather it istheir sequential arrangement in a chord with an

(51:16):
independent code, which was later elucidatedand we now call the genetic code end
quote. And therefore, the informationin DNA is not merely improbable, it
is improbable and specifically arranged so asto perform a function. And sel Meyer

(51:37):
explains that where DNA is concerned,quote, it's not actually information theory,
but its information theory plus a qualitativejudgment about what the sequence is doing that
allows us to recognize the kind ofinformation we're familiar with in our parlance,
the one the dictionary talks about thevariable sequences of characters for conveying a meaning

(52:00):
or a function. End quote.And given the very specific and complex nature
of the information within DNA that seemsto be operating in a chord with a
symbol convention, add to that somereal practical issues with the notion that such
an abundance of highly specified and functionalinformation might have evolved quote unquote incrementally using

(52:22):
random, undirected processes, we havea real problem on our hands. I
mean, just consider all the othercomplex and highly specified systems that come into
play, not the least of whichis the twenty letter alphabet consisting of amino
assets to build the complex protein machines. And so if you only factor in

(52:44):
these elements, that is without evenworrying about how DNA came about in the
first place. Let me finish consideringthe limitations I will be discussing in due
time, which will seriously challenge this. It's natural selection acting on random mutation,
of course argument, So please holdthat thought. This only leaves one
other dare I say, logical explanationbased on our everyday experience, This all

(53:08):
must have come about as the resultof some sort of intelligence or mind.
Which is why even Francis Krick,a staunch Darwinist who believed that quote biologists
must constantly keep in mind that whatthey see was not designed, but rather
evolved end quote positive that our DNAhad to have had alien origins. In

(53:32):
other words, anything but a divinecreator, because of course that would be
absurd for the record, and asI will be discussing in the future.
Ironically, Francis Crick got it right. Where his proposal comes up short,
in my view, is that heskirts the issue of infinite regress. In
other words, who created the aliens? With that out of the way,

(53:53):
I should perhaps explain why I'm aboutto tell you more than you probably care
to know, and then some aboutbiochemistry and molecular biology. So that happened.
In the spring of twenty eighteen.I won a three week vacation,
including room on board, at ahospital confined to my bed. I was

(54:14):
often told that my hemoglobin count wascritically low. Hearing so much about it
made me want to re equaate myselfwith why that bloody hemoglobin was so important
to my survival. I mean,talk about being rusty, and so I
would become fascinated with one particular areaof knowledge I had always taken for granted
or quite frankly, purposely disregarded,perhaps owing to my natural inclination towards mathematics

(54:37):
and physics. And though I lovedand excelled in chemistry, I even had
two chemistry sets. I couldn't tellyou anything about organic chemistry to save my
life, probably because I slept throughmost of it during my high school senior
year. In my defense, backthen, learning organic chemistry merely consisted of
memorizing an endless parade of complete structuralformulae of organic compounds. It was a

(55:00):
snoozefest, which is why up untilrecently, the mere mention of protein would
make my mouth water with anticipation ofa juicy steak. But when I finally
took the time at the start ofmy year long convalescence to delve into what
hemoglobin was, I found out itwas essentially a beautifully designed hello, protein
molecule formed from a sequence of aminoacids, which first have to be lined

(55:23):
up in the right sequence lest thesequence collapse, and then folded into three
dimensional natomachine. That oh, butwait, did I just say beautifully designed
protein molecule? Allowed? Silly me? How could I forgotten? Richard Dawkins's
nineteen eighty six book The Blind Watchmaker, Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a

(55:44):
Universe Without Design, in which hewrites from the outset that biology is the
study of complicated things that have theappearance of having been designed with a purpose
when I was close. Of course, molecules can be designed into proteins,
because that would imply that some sortof intelligence at work. Duh. Seriously,
though, and to add insult toinjury. In nineteen eighty six,

(56:07):
I was still a graduate student inMIT, working on a thesis that I
would later call Tensile City, whichended up being a diary of a fictional
trip into a city of the futurewhere all habitable environments had to be far
off the ground. In any case, I was immersed in the world of
design and knew firsthand what the processof designing entailed. And I'm not merely

(56:28):
referring to the maximum form follows function, which, though valid, is only
part of the story. Design atany level certainly involves knowledge and skill,
But real design happens when the linebetween form and function is blurred. It
involves both linear and nonlinear thinking.It requires this thing we intuitively refer to

(56:50):
as creativity. Some even call itmagic. And while at the prostitute I
was mentored by visionary architect Vittorio Georgini, who had a sort of reverence for
the natural world. In fact,our mandatory sketch book had to feature studies
of the natural world where complex formsand equally complex functions combined with utility,

(57:13):
structural integrity, and overall design economy. And so, as an architectural student,
a designer in the making, Iwas directed to draw knowledge from the
natural world, which is a nobleendeavor, except this was a case of
mindless and blind nature teaching and arguablyintelligent being lessons about integrating form and function
seamlessly, effectively and efficiently. Noless, the whole thing just sounded absurd

(57:38):
to me because of my Dash's experience, which compelled me to reject the materialist
worldview that there is no mind innature, as I was constantly being reminded.
I mean, doctor Dash even toldmy elder brother Chikri, Earth is
a planet that thinks. In otherwords, it has a mind. But

(57:58):
for all my silent indignation, Icouldn't begin to tell you why none of
it made sense in scientific terms,because I was out of my depth.
Plus, and like I said inPart three, I couldn't, for the
life of me understand why doctor Deshwould always promote science education if it meant
reading bestsellers and textbooks that promoted thematerialist worldview. I mean for crying out

(58:19):
a loud. Richardawkins's book even featuredcomputer simulations, and although today I can
easily pinpoint the flaws in these computersimulations, at the time it was pretty
disheartening, if not overwhelming. Also, in my experience, witnessing the miracles
of doctor Dash did not automatically disposeone to belief in God. I know

(58:39):
of at least one individual, myeighth grade French lit teacher, for whom
I was instrumental in arranging a meetingwith doctor Dash, who remained agnostic after
the fact. In any case,I didn't even know what questions to ask,
let alone finding their answers. Butby twenty eighteen I would catch up
on some of the monumental advances inthe field of molecular biology, in particular

(59:01):
how it related to complex information processingsystems and how information within the cell is
stored, transferred, edited, andused to assemble the raw materials and construct
sophisticated machines and circuits made of weightfor it proteins. And I had no
idea how complex the biological cell,which at the time of Darwin was considered

(59:22):
to be a simple organism, was, I would this time really wrap my
mind around as a knot take forgranted the revelation that a cell as a
nanofactory, where on an unimaginable scale, digital instructions are being used to literally
construct components of set factory. Thehelical strands of DNA supply the information necessary

(59:45):
for sequencing the amino acids to makeproteins. Therefore, we have information in
one dimensional form that ultimately results inthe production of three dimensional machines. And
so I was flabbergasted by how hemoglobinis produced first as a protein chain,
which is then folded and transformed intoan intricate three dimensional nanomachine whose job is

(01:00:07):
to bind and transport oxygen from capillariesin the lungs to all the tissues in
the body. Conversely, this miniaturewonder also transports carbon dioxide from the tissues
of the body back to the lungs. And we have so many of them
inside our body, all working togetherin concert, that it's not even worth
attempting to imagine what that entails.Then I watch the dramatic, cutting edge

(01:00:30):
accurate visualizations of cellular and molecular actiontaking place inside our bodies by cell biologists
and biochemical animator drew Berry of theWalter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
in Australia. Drew Berry's work showedhow astonishing molecular machines that create the living

(01:00:51):
fabric of our bodies are, andthe reenactment of how complex, sophisticated,
precise, efficient, quiet, andrenewed the billions upon billions of molecular biological
factories that keep us alive are isonly matched by the fact all these molecules
are smaller than the wavelength of light, which makes them impossible to view directly.

(01:01:13):
But wait, so I'm supposed tobelieve Richard Dawkins, who, armed
with his own adaptation of William Walsham, howse esteemed him it is a thing
most wonderful at the Reason rally onMarch twenty four, twenty twelve, and
Washington, d C. Would recitequote, it is a thing most wonderful
that on this once barren rock,orbiting a rather mediocre star on the edge

(01:01:37):
of a rather ordinary galaxy, onthis rock, a remarkable process called evolution
by natural selection has given rise tothe magnificent diversity of complexity of life,
the elegance, the beauty, andthe illusion of design which we see all
around us. End quote. Pleasenote that the operative phrase here is the

(01:01:58):
illusion of design. Dawkins continued byreiterating that through billions of years, the
laws of physics, which had neverbeen violated, were filtered through this incredible
process called evolution by natural selection,to give rise to a brain that is
capable of understanding the process of measuringthe age of the universe, which is
between thirteen and fourteen billion years,of measuring the age of the Earth,

(01:02:22):
which is between four and five billionyears. A brain that is capable of
knowing what matter is made of.A brain that knows we are made of
atoms brought together by this and Iquote mechanical, automatic, unplanned, unconscious
process, evolution by natural selection endquote. And to really drive the message

(01:02:43):
home, Richard Dawkins declared, quote, how is it conceivable that the laws
of physics should conspire together without guidance, without direction, without any intelligence to
bring us into the world. Nowwe do have intelligence. End quote.
He went on to profess that anintelligence came into the world late, and
that only through our brains. Thatnow, finally, after four billion years,

(01:03:06):
we have the opportunity to bring someintelligent design into the world. Incidentally,
and as I mentioned in Part threethe Dynamics of Life, scientific atheists
consider that the mind is nothing morethan the byproduct of brain activity, therefore
a physical phenomenon. Dawkins ended hisspeech by declaring, quote science makes us

(01:03:28):
see what we couldn't see before,while religion does its best to snuff out
even that light which we can seeend quote. And the real piastre resistance
came when Dawkins, ever the miltantatheist, called upon the cheering and jeering
crowd to publicly mock and ridicule Catholicsfor believing that wine turns into blood,

(01:03:49):
citing that religion was not off thetable, not off limits. It makes
specific claims about the universe that needto be substantiated and need to be challenged,
and, if necessary, need tobe ridiculed with contempt. Apparently he
was absent from class the day RichardC. Lewington made his declaration pertaining to
taking the side of science in spiteof the patent absurdity of some of its

(01:04:13):
constructs. But seriously, and interms of grasping the complexity of what goes
on inside each one of ourselves,how can modern biology account for the information
present in our DNA. That is, assuming that the information in DNA always
evolves and never devolves to impart anadvantage as I've indicated earlier, can we

(01:04:34):
really chalk it all up the naturalselection? Even though believe it or not,
all the genetic manipulation studies have shownthat natural selection reduces genetic information.
And before anyone screams, what aboutjung DNA, doesn't that prove that Darn
was right? Let me say that, yes, I'm well aware of that
supposedly over ninety percent of the genomeis composed of functionless, nonsensical sequences,

(01:04:58):
and that since time immemorial, untoldrandom mutations must have degraded formally useful parts
of the DNA and left them behindas vestiges. Well, if this were
the nineteen seventies, and owing tothe relatively limited information that we had at
the time, I would be hardpressed to debate your junk DNA hypothesis.
However, the latest genomics research nowprovides already answer to that question. Junk

(01:05:24):
DNA isn't junk, It actually exhibitsa function. The Incode project and other
recent research in genomics have confirmed thisprediction, as reported in a Nature article
INCODE, which stands for the Encyclopediaof DNA Elements, has enabled us to
assign biochemical functions for eighty per centof the genome, in particular outside of

(01:05:47):
the well studied protein coding regions.End quote. And apparently, and here
you'll forgive me for jumping ahead,other research in genomics has shown that those
previously deemed useless non coding regions ofthe genome functioned much like the operating system
in a computer. They direct thetiming and regulate the expression of coding regions

(01:06:10):
of the genome, among other functions. But let's jump back to that point
in time when I was, let'sface it, uneducated with regard to what
DNA really was, and did letalone being able to appreciate the importance of
the junk DNA controversy, or forthat matter, be able to say the
oxy rival nucleic acid anyway. Atthat point I wondered, is there anybody
out there taking Darwin's theory apart andchallenging it on sound scientific grounds. And

(01:06:36):
that's how a search on YouTube ledme to an interview with doctor David Berlinsky.
I was so impressed with his responseas and oratory that I immediately looked
him up online. I learned thatdoctor Berlinsky received his PhD in philosophy from
Princeton University and was later a postdoctoralfellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia

(01:06:57):
University. I learned he had authoredwork on systems analysis, differential topology,
theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, andthe philosophy of mathematics, as well as
three novels. Frankly, though,he had me at postdoctoral fellow in mathematics
and molecular biology. Oh but wait, it says here that he's a senior
Fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Scienceand Culture. Huh, I wonder what

(01:07:23):
that is. Let's see. Oh, no, intelligent design might have to
be intelligent design. How could Berlinskyassociate himself or keep company with anyone connected
with the theory widely described as creationismin a cheap tuxedo? But then,
in a rare moment of clarity,I remembered how crazy I must sound when

(01:07:44):
discussing Dashism, a dangerous idea forwhich the whole nation of Lebanon condemned doctor
dash without even allowing him an opportunityto defend himself either in the newspapers or
in the courtroom, because his fearmongering enemies had waged a vicious, unrelenting
smear campaign against him. And amongthose chief architects of this ruthless campaign to

(01:08:05):
eradicate doctor Deahesh Michelle Sheiha, thebrother of the dashist Marie Hadad. Would
you believe me if I told youhe played a major role in the elaboration
of the Lebanese Constitution, which guaranteesfreedom of opinion and belief. Well,
he did so, I thought,with so many voices attacking intelligent design,
and given the growing number of booksavailable on the subject, written by serious

(01:08:29):
people with serious credentials, there's gotto be something there. Plus. In
the preface of his two thousand andeight book The Devil's Delusion, Atheism and
Its Scientific Pretensions, which was inresponse to Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion,
doctor David Berlinski expressed something that resonateddeeply with me. He wrote, quote,
I am a secular Jew. Myreligious education did not take I can

(01:08:53):
barely remember a word of Hebrew.I cannot pray. I have spent more
years than I care to remember instudying mathema and writing about the sciences.
Yet the book that follows is,in some sense the defense of religious thought
and sentiment. The defense is neededbecause none has been forthcoming. The discussion
has been ceded to men who regardreligious belief with frivolous contempt. Their books

(01:09:16):
have in recent years poured from everypress, and although differing wildly in their
style, they are identical in theirmessage. Because scientific theories are true,
religious beliefs must be false end quote. Right out of the gate, Berlinsky
asserts that quote if science stands opposedto religion, it is not because of

(01:09:39):
anything contained in either the premises orthe conclusions of the great scientific theories.
They do not mention a word aboutGod end quote. And while he admits
that he does not know if anyof what the religious traditions of mankind have
said about quote, the great andaching questions of life, death, love,
and meaning and quotequote are true.And that includes the promise of recompense

(01:10:02):
for suffering and the assurance that aprinciple beyond selfishness is at work in the
cosmos. Berlinsky writes, quote,I'm certain that the scientific community does not
know that it is false end quotethat a self professed agnostic mathematician and scientist
and acclaimed polymath such as David Berlinskyshould write a book in defense of anyone

(01:10:26):
feeling oppressed and held in contempt bymembers of a scientific community led by people
falsely convinced that nature has equipped themto face realities the rest of us cannot
bear to contemplate. Was as illuminatingas it was liberating. The devil's delusion
prompted me to read this two thousandand nine book called The Deniable Darwin,
which to me would become the gatewayand road map to a scientifically based critique

(01:10:50):
of the Darwinian theory of evolution,and I will be referring to other books
as well throughout this presentation which areupsetting the balance of Darwinism. Lastly,
I would like to point out thatif we go with the popular claim that
intelligent design is a theological put upjob, then that makes me an accessory
to an alleged elaborate conspiracy to sneakcreationism into the science classroom. And being

(01:11:15):
that I would never knowingly endorse atheory or a belief that at its core
condemns reincarnation and by extension Dashism.I can assure you that I have done
my due diligence insofar as scrutinizing theinformation before deeming it worthy of serious consideration.
Lastly, I wouldn't reject intelligent design, which is borne from empirical inference,

(01:11:39):
merely on the basis of its theisticimplications. In other words, let's
be clear, it merely presents evidencethat challenges Darwinism, which, while I'm
at it, I wouldn't want removedfrom the curriculum merely on the basis of
its being a theoretical deduction with atheisticaspirations. It's time for a level playing
field, and that brings us tothe end of the dash just Theory of

(01:12:11):
Reincarnation, Part five, A Questionof Meaning. For a transcript, please
visit doctor dash dot com. That'sD O, C. T O R
dash dot com. You may alsovisit dash dot org or dash dot Tv.

(01:12:33):
This is Mario Henry Shakur saying goodbyeuntil next time.