Evolved, or Created?

Hey everybody, you were created.

That's right, you were created. We talk with a doctor here who understands the creation argument better than almost anybody else. He's from the Institute for Creation Research, ICR.org. That is ICR.org. You got to check it out.

Wonderful organization. And we talk about it all. What are the big arguments for evolution?

Is evolution true? ICR.org. And I want to hear from you. Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.

That is Freedom at CharlieKirk.com. Subscribe to our podcast. Open up your podcast application and type in Charlie Kirk Show and get involved with Turning Point USA at TPUSA.com.

That is TPUSA.com. Buckle up everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at NobleGoldInvestments.com. That is NobleGoldInvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to NobleGoldInvestments.com. All are invited to hear how we're going to win in 2024 with the biggest speakers in the movement featuring President Donald J Trump. We're going to fight and we're going to win.

Charlie Kirk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Governor Kristi Noem, Dr. Ben Carson, Steve Bannon, Candace Owens, Laura Trump, Senator Rick Scott, Congressman Matt Gaetz, Bennie Johnson, Jack Posobach, and more. June 14th through 16th. 2024 is our final battle.

In Detroit, Michigan. The great silent majority is rising like never before. Join us for the People's Convention. This is a new ballgame, everybody. You send a message.

We play to win. Register now at tpaction.com slash peoples. President of the Institute of Creation, Dr. Randy Galezza.

I hope I said that correctly. Doctor, welcome to the program. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for the invitation. Well, so, doctor, we are connected by my very good friend, Tom, and he is a big fan of your work. And it is a perfect opportunity to have you on for this entire hour because of the viral clip that Tucker Carlson had on the Joe Rogan podcast. I want to play that piece of tape. It's cut 76 to lay the foundation for our discussion here, because now we have tens of millions of people questioning Darwin, questioning what they have been taught in school, which I think is a terrific thing.

Let's play cut 76. If we don't think people are important, then what do we think is important? I guess that's what I'm saying. It's not necessarily that we don't think people are important, but if evolution is real, and if there is this constant... Is it real? I don't know, but it's visible. You can measure it in certain animals. You can measure adaptation.

Yeah. But there's no evidence that evolution... In fact, I think we've kind of given up on the idea of evolution. The theory of evolution that's articulated by Darwin is like kind of not true.

In what sense? Well, in the most basic sense, the idea that all life emerged from a single cell organism and over time, and there would be a fossil record of that and there's not. There's not a fossil record of transitionary species, like species that are adapting to its environment and they develop... There's tons of record of adaptation and you see it in your own life. I mean, I have a lot of dogs. I see adaptation in dogs through the... Sure.

Litter to litter. But no, there's no evidence at all that... None, zero, that people evolve seamlessly from a single cell amoeba. No, there's not. There's not. There's no chain in the fossil record of that at all.

And I can't even guess. I mean, I have my own theories on it, but they're not proven. What are your theories? God created people, you know, distinctly. Doctor, your reaction to that dialogue is Tucker Carlson correct?

Yes. Tucker Carlson is totally on target. And even though some people after the interview are saying he's somewhat irrational, actually, he's presenting the scientific case, which really out there in the science. When he says there's no transitional forms, you know, I suppose he's meaning there is no undisputed transitional forms. When he says there's really no good evidence that we evolved from a single cell organism over time, he's really summing it up very, very well.

So let's get into that. So let's make the case traditionally the evolution argument based on Darwin's hypothesis is that there is evolutionary and species change over long periods of time. Tucker said that we can observe adaptation, for example, that if you are in a colder climate or a warmer climate and you're a bird, you might have slight adjustments or slight changes. What is the difference between adaptation and evolution? There's a huge difference between that.

And Tucker was trying to really lay that out. Adaptation is the ability of a species to really modify itself. It's a highly engineered, highly regulated mechanism that is within organisms that spans everything from, you know, very rapid physiological changes that we have to acclimatize, you know, how we acclimatize to things. Like you just mentioned, you might go to a cold climate and acclimate to that or to a high altitude and acclimate to that. But then also organisms are able to sense what's in their environment and adjust to that.

It's an internal thing, not an external thing. And increasing evidence indicates that they're able to pass on a lot of that information to their offspring so that offspring are actually born into their environment already adapted to that. And adaptation means you're fitting your traits to specific environmental challenges and you're able to solve those kinds of challenges there. Evolution, to really nail it down and where everybody's really talking about what the argument is really over is not over the fact that organisms change.

Everybody knows that. But it's whether the theory says that we actually descended all of life, all of the diversity of life on earth came from a single-celled organism that was fractioned out over time as they reproduced through terrible struggles to survive. And that the fittest live passing on their genes, which fit them to their environments, which slowly, slowly led to the diversity of life on earth as they became fit to their environments. And so evolutionary theory is really supposed to explain one, why organisms look so incredibly designed, but didn't need a designer. And two, the diversity of life on earth, not just simply adaptation. It's supposed to explain design and it's supposed to explain the diversity of life on earth. And that's what evolutionary theory is in. And that's what the disagreement is over, whether one, the theory can actually do that, and two, whether there's any evidence that any of that actually happened.

So I want to just be clear and in your expertise, there is no evidence to show other than faith that species have evolved from one to the other. Is that correct? Exactly. Faith is it. And it's really faith in a type of religious faith because you're holding faith for information that's going to be coming long after your debt.

Nobody is seeing this information coming right now. And so you're holding it by faith that if it's not here, it will be here. And really what Tucker could have said, but I suppose he's not really up to speed on some of the details of this argument. He could have said first, there's not a scientific paper published anywhere, anywhere on the planet, none, zero to use his words, that shows a natural origin of life. So if evolution is true, you got to get life going naturally without God, that's faith. There's not a scientific paper published anywhere that shows that. And number two, there's not a scientific paper published anywhere, which shows one creature changing into a fundamentally different kind, none.

And I'm making this on your show. So if somebody is out there and they have those papers, they can send them to me at the Institute for Creation Research and I'll change my story. But the reality is there's not a scientific paper published anywhere. And that's why in Tucker's vernacular, he can say none, zero, no real evidence of that. Evidence of change, but faith, always by faith that one creature can change into a fundamentally different kind of creature. Nobody's ever seen it happened. And as far as we know, it really can't happen. So, doctor, since that is the case, as you describe, why is it then such the dominant belief institutionally and academically?

Why is that the case? Well, because it's supposed to explain that why organisms look so incredibly designed without a designer. Before Darwin, when people would see creatures and they would see their ability to fly and fish at the water so well. And then even as anatomy took over a new, you're able to see just incredible detail and fit of so many parts of systems together.

They clearly, clearly indicate that they were highly engineered. And before Darwin, that was the default assumption that creatures looked engineers because they were engineered and they were engineered by one who has knowledge and abilities far above us. That person being God. Darwin came along and through his mechanism, his selectionist mechanism, he supposedly cracked the nut on how you can get organisms to look design without a designer. Therefore, according to his theory, he's not, he doesn't really come out and say there is no God, but his theory says God is essentially irrelevant. Nature can do what God could do all by itself. And therefore there is no need of a God to explain the design of creatures.

That's why it is so highly embraced, because it supposedly explains this design without a designer. I think there's some truth to that, because I think that some people are actual devotees to the evolutionary argument. And I asked some of my scientific friends, some of which are Christians or not, to send in the questions they would ask you. So I'm going to ask you some of them throughout the hour, Doctor, so you're going to be a good sport, because I'm far from an expert on this, but I am a believer in, obviously, intelligent design and all the stuff you're doing. But we're going to go through some of the questions that people have, both from a Christian evolutionary perspective, which I bet you deal with, and a non-Christian evolutionary perspective.

And I think it will be very helpful for our audience to be able to understand that and to be able to see how you navigate it. The Institute for Creation Research is the name of the organization. Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here. For 10 years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. When I say only, trust me, they are the only one.

Glenn and the team have been great supporters of the show, which is why I'm so proud to partner with them. Patriot Mobile offers dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the ability to access all three major networks, which means you get the same coverage you've been accustomed to without funding the left. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're sending the message that you support free speech, religious liberty, the sanctity of life, Second Amendment, our military veterans, and first responder heroes. Their 100% US-based customer service team makes switching quite easy. Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade. Their team will help you find their best plan for your needs. Just go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972-PATRIOT. Get free activation when you use offer code Charlie.

Join me and make the switch today. I love Patriot Mobile. Glenn is amazing.

I was just hanging out with him in Scottsdale. Great guy. Great American.

Really terrific what they're doing. Patriotmobile.com slash Charlie. That is patriotmobile.com slash Charlie or call 972-PATRIOT.

Patriotmobile.com slash Charlie. So doctor, I want to ask one of these questions here. What do you have to say for a Christian or a religious person who says God created the single cell organism or something of that case and that evolution was shepherded with God's hand, that evolution was God's plan for humanity to go through this process? How should we think about this? Well, I hear that a lot, and that is a typical response to things, and I suppose the reason why people are saying that is because they believe that the case for evolution has been made and that it's sound and that they don't want to go against the science and therefore they think the case for evolution is settled, but it really isn't settled. So I would respond by saying you really don't have to go along with the case for evolution because there is really not good solid scientific evidence for it. Number two, really there's no difference between the atheistic evolutionary scenario and the theistic evolutionary scenario.

They're both looking at it from the same mechanisms. They think things go from a single cell organism in advance through struggles to survive life and death, and so there's really no mechanism. So why would you hold to a position which makes your belief in God totally irrelevant?

And that's what evolutionary theories do. It's to show that God is irrelevant. So you're basically committing a type of spiritual suicide by buying into the mechanisms in the process which are fundamentally atheistic and anti-theistic at the very at the very core. Three, it's not really scientific at all because these interventions of God that you're talking about to either start life and then supposedly intervene at different points of time cannot be identified scientifically. So it's just a matter of faith and so there's really no way to point out how God was doing any of this. And then four, it's completely against the biblical narrative. So if you're a Christian and the Bible is your authority in life, the Bible says that creatures and man and woman were directly created by God, not through a long process. This was a direct creation of them and that there was an instantaneous creation and the Bible says organisms reproduce faithfully after their kind which is exactly what we see scientifically as well. And so you really start to make the Bible say whatever you want it to say which goes down a terrible slippery slope.

And the Bible no longer becomes your authority but the thinking of man becomes your authority. So there's lots of reasons why it makes no good sense scientifically and biblically to hold to these unidentifiable interventions by God to supposedly shut along the anti-design mechanism for the origin of life and for the design of life. So really quickly, doctor, just what do you have to say to the claim that the evidence of common ancestry for organisms is immense? It is an immense.

It's not immense at all. It's built on a lot of speculation and imagination. What we really see, we see major gaps between organisms. Life doesn't demonstrate that it is fundamentally continuous from one single-celled ancestor down over time. What you do find are common ancestors for each type of creature such as common ancestors for horses and common ancestors for humans.

And you can find huge variety within that particular kind of organism and you can find different kinds of species of those altogether. You can find that, but you don't find any direct evidence indicating that they are connected. For instance, I've said there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that evolutionists would point to and the biggest area is in genetics. And so they have two common arguments is that there's a lot of conserved genes between organisms. And then one of their strongest arguments is that humans and chimpanzees supposedly are 98 or 99% genetically identical.

But both of those assertions have been really debunked in recent years. Everybody's known really for 20 years in terms of geneticists that we are not one to 2% different from our closest assumed ancestor, which are chimps. In fact, the latest genetic analysis shows that we're only 80% at best genetically similar. And if you look at chromosomes like the Y chromosomes between males, we're somewhere 50% or less similar.

So that assertion is completely debunked. And in addition, when you look over the 20 to 25,000 genes that humans supposedly have, depending on what number you take, there's at least 1200 of those genes, which are unique completely to humans with no ancestry whatsoever of them. They're just essential for life.

They're unique to humans. And at least 10 to 20% of the genomes of all creatures that have been studied show this type of unique genetic genetic history that is only unique to their kinds. So the strongest argument of genetics really, really falls apart under the weight of modern scientific analysis. So then, so Dr., I want to now ask, and again, some of these questions were sent in just for kind of argument's sake and for understanding and contextualizing the argument, which is, some people would say, but if you believe human beings were created, how do you then navigate some of the evidence that suggests that the earth is millions of years old?

Well, there's actually, there's two different, two different issues altogether. You have an age of an earth issue, which is, it's very, very important for evolutionary scenarios to work because they need long periods of time to overcome just tremendous improbabilities of things to happen. And in their view, if you give enough chances to pick a lottery ticket, eventually you're going to win one and you're going to get lucky. So they need these very, very long periods of time in order for their theory to work. But both scientifically and biblically, there are good evidences to reject that altogether. One, scientifically, we know that the radiometric dating methods that they use are inherently unreliable. And in fact, every time they've dated rocks of known ages, they come off with wildly, wildly incorrect ages. For instance, we had rocks enough that were dating Mount St. Helens 29 years after erupted rocks that were just brand new. And they came back dated at millions of years old. And the same inconsistencies really happened to a lot of times for radiometric dating in terms of carbon 14 and other dates on that. And so their best argument for that is radiometric dating really, really falls apart. And then biblically, the Bible doesn't really give any indication that there are any long periods of time inserted into the Bible.

It gives a genealogy. If we look at Genesis as real actual history, real history, not mytho history, not allegories or mythology, but real history, you cannot plug in millions of years of time into that narrative. And unless you want to take words out of their context, like when the Bible says there was evening and morning, day one, something that everybody on the planet has experienced in their life, sunrise, sunset, sunset, sunrise, and a particular day, unless you want to twist those words to mean something different, um, then you, then you really can't get to an old age. And on top of that, even in the 10 commandments, when the Lord gave us the command on how long you should work, he said six days, she worked with rest on the seventh or in six days he created and rested on the seventh.

So there's great harm biblically, and there's no really good reason scientifically to hold to those old ages. And I would suggest that a much better way to interpret the rock record is through, um, a worldwide flood. So go deeper into that. How would, how would that better interpret that?

Yes. And, and that's what the power of a theory is supposed to do. So evolutionists and uniformitarians have their theory that over very, very long periods of time, the continents have moved and they've gone up and down and they've been slowly flooded. Most of the rocks they think were due to water deposition anyway, but, but over a very long period of time, they've been slowly placed. We would argue that a much better way to interpret the rock record record, which fits is that instead of those layers being placed over a very long period of time, they were placed in a one year worldwide global event.

Now, why would I say that's a better way to interpret it? Because when, so when you and I look at the rock record and we look at the layers on them, what do we see? You know, when we look at them, what do you see?

I know what you see. You see layers stacked on top of each other, very, very flat one on top of each other with no evidence of time, no evidence of erosion in between those layers, just bang, bang, bang. And when you see them bent, they're all bent together.

They're not, there's no cracking. We also see literally billions and billions of fossils buried in those layers. And we see very, very thick sedimentary layers, sometimes 15, 20, 30, almost a hundred thick in layers all over the world. So what process would put flat layers stacked on top of each other, burying billions of fossils, very, very thick. Today, there aren't any processes doing anything like that today.

There aren't any processes burying huge coal fields today. And on top of that research that we've done at the Institute for Creation Research, by looking at boreholes all over the world, we can demonstrate conclusively that you find some of the same layers in the exact same order on every single continent on the planet. Now, what mechanism would place those layers that way, but a worldwide flood? So all the evidence that we look at from the rock record, holding radiometric dating aside, indicates that these layers were placed fast and through a violent mechanism, trapping all of those organisms and killing them suddenly in a process which is unlike anything that we observe on the planet today. A critic once said to me when I presented this argument that if a worldwide flood explains the recent history, how do we explain places like Madagascar that have thousands of species that only live there, a separate island off the coast of Africa? Yeah, that goes back, kind of circles back to our initial discussion on adaptation and speciation. In fact, you can find not just isolated groups of animals on these continents on Madagascar, but you can find them on continents like Australia and the like. And nobody knows exactly from either an evolutionary perspective or totally from a creationary perspective exactly how you would explain that because nobody was there. But there are strong indications that the continents broke apart during the worldwide flood, separating them apart, but that there was lots of debris and things in the oceans.

And so animals migrated to different places through land bridges, which were exposed at the time because the water levels were much lower at the time, and also probably through floating log mats and other things, of which when they landed, where they landed, because they were distinct and in small groups, they repopulated those areas, of course, with the organisms that were there, which would lead to a type of biological isolation from one another, and therefore you would end up with distinct creatures at particular locations. Can you speak to the improbability mathematically of evolution? This, I think, is one of the more compelling arguments. How improbable is it that the human being especially, putting aside other animals, would actually be in its current form as we know it today, with consciousness, with our ability to breathe, to oxygenate ourselves, to have the organs? What does the math show as far as the improbability that such a theory would be true?

Okay. Well, the math indicates that it's highly, highly improbable. First of all, nobody really knows where consciousness comes from, and there's strong indications that it is not produced by your brain and it's not produced biologically. But when you think about what evolutionary theory has to explain, it has to explain every single molecule and their systems working together in system elements for every feature on your body, most of which are connected in chicken and egg scenarios. In other words, you need products to make products and you need those products to go back to the initial conditions and highly circular systems. It's just highly, highly implausible. In fact, it takes great leaps of imagination, very vivid imaginations to even kind of conceptualize what this would happen. So when you try to add up all of the things that must evolve together, nobody's done the math on that because the numbers are so incredibly small from a probability standpoint that it's really just not going to happen. And you would have to ask evolution, what mechanism is doing this? Are you really going to believe that random mutations, random genetic breakages are going to lead to all of these things? Highly improbable.

The world is in flames and biodynamics is a complete and total disaster, but it can't and won't ruin my day. Why? Because I start my day with a hot America first cup of blackout coffee. It's 100% America and 0% grift. Blackout coffee is 100% committed to conservative values from sourcing the beans to the roasting process, customer support and shipping.

They embody true American values and accept no compromise on taste or quality. Look, you've got to check out right now, blackout coffee dot com slash Charlie or use coupon code Charlie for 20% off your first order. That is blackout coffee dot com slash Charlie.

Be awake, not woke. That's blackout coffee dot com slash Charlie. Check it out.

Promo code Charlie. Doctor, can you go a little deeper into debunking Darwin and challenging some of his beliefs? He is still considered to be very well thought of in the academy. What did he hypothesize that we can now you're refutably say is not true? And should Darwin be taught at all in our schools?

Well, I really don't think from a scientific standpoint it really should be taught because it's a very, very weak scientific theory, particularly explaining biological functions. And so if you want to know what Darwin in his day really taught and what his big coup de gras was, what his claim to fame was, is he came up with the idea of natural selection. And that was really Darwin's idea altogether. And what he did is he had compared nature to a human breeder and he saw that breeders could select for certain traits.

And over a period of time, they could get really diverse creatures. Well, he hypothesized that over a very long period of time, nature could act like a human breeder and select for traits and then eventually lead to the diversity of life on earth. Well, that analogy really was debunked initially by many of Darwin's colleagues in the day, but then about two decades later really took hold. And how it was debunked initially was, as I said, this is a phony analogy. It's an illegitimate analogy. You can't compare nature at all to a human being because humans have a real brain and humans can make real decisions and humans have real volition.

And there's nothing in nature, which would allow you to do that. But what it allowed Darwin to do was to project onto nature, to project onto nature in a, in a illegitimate way, but a very imaginative way that nature could somehow see, select, save, and build traits over time that nature could somehow select for things or work on creatures or favor creatures or act creatures. And so it allowed Darwin to turn nature into an operative agent in lieu of God's agency. And that is what really captures the thinking of many peoples. They see that natural selection is this omnipresent force working on creatures and molding and shaping them when it's really illegitimate. And we can demonstrate that this so, because you can just ask someone, well, show me the selector, if this is doing it, or how do you quantify a selection pressure or what in nature is equivalent to a human brain to allow you to even, even project onto its selector abilities, or what is the, so what, what is the act of selection or what is even being selected? The answer is nobody can answer those questions.

There is, there's, there's no agreement there's dispute over that. So just by asking questions to pin down and to take apart the substitute agent that Darwin put together is the best way to debunk it. Because once you show that selectionism is really just a mystical way to interpret what you see, you've really pulled apart the heart or the guts of evolutionary theory altogether by just debunking selectionism as a mystical way of interpreting the world around you. A Christian who does believe in evolution sent this in, because I sent out a lot of messages, I said, hey, what would you like this to talk about? He said this, he said, breeders are some form of evidence of evolution.

If we can make dogs look massively different in 50 years of intensive breeding, why can't evolution happen naturally over a long period of time? So doctor, let's posit that the earth is millions of years old for sake of argument, okay, for their theory. What would you say in response to that?

Well, I would say, you know, I used to think the exact same thing myself. I held evolutionary thinking even after I became a Christian, and it was the scientific evidence which pushed me the other way. So positing the long period of time and positing the fact that breeders can come up with huge varieties of dogs over a period of time, what would be the problem to thinking that way? Well, number one, I mentioned that nature is not like a breeder. Breeders really do select for traits. Breeders really do pick them and breeders really do shuttle those organisms down particular tracks where they want to accentuate certain traits. It's a highly intelligent operation where you really use your mind, you really do use your volition, and nature can't do that.

It doesn't even know what to pick for or what to select for. And number two, his analogy is actually an argument against it because even though breeders can get these huge varieties of dogs intentionally with real volition, they still consistently get dogs, dog after dog, one generation after another generation, and they hit specific limits that you cannot get past the dog. So unless you just want to invoke a very fertile imagination that thinks somehow some way you're going to jump past these natural barriers or limits, what the breeding experiments show is that organisms actually do faithfully reproduce after their kind.

And the world's longest running experiment on evolution, which was involving E. coli bacteria, which went on for well over three decades, consistently showed that these organisms faithfully reproduced E. coli one division after another after another. And not only do you only hit limits within kinds, you'll actually hit limits with those particular traits because people have been breeding horses for many, many generations, and you suddenly hit the maximum amount of speed that these horses are being able to attain. And you can't even really push past some of those type of barriers to the traits. So breeding experiments, rather than showing that there's unlimited change, actually show that there are definite limits to change. How would you respond or how should we think about what some evolutionist would point to as evidence in their argument when they say that there are certain animals that have character traits that are not useful to them? For example, fish that live in very dark caves have eyes, but no longer work. Whales have hip bones. They would say, wouldn't that the only explanation would be a bright byproduct of evolution? Well, I would say that's the way that it's taught to you in school, and that's the way you were trying to think of it on there.

But that's really an argument from ignorance. So you see these bones in the whales and you assume that they're kind of like de-evolved or vestigial types of hip bones. But when you actually go with the science and you let science operate, you find out that these are not vestigial hip bones at all. These are totally functional bones, which are useful in whales and dolphins today, which are necessary in order for them to copulate underwater.

No easy feat. And so you completely misinterpret what you saw. And then in terms of the blind cave fish, for instance, yes, there are surface fish with eyes, and then you find those same fish in a cave that can actually breed with the surface fish and they're hypopigmented and they don't have eyes. So what you are actually seeing is an activation of internal programming, not a trial and error and hit and miss process that took place due to random mutations. What we actually see is an internal program which enables these fish to live in caves, which purposely shuts down their eyes, purposefully turns down their pigmentation, traits that can be dialed up and dialed down, purposely changes their circadian rhythms, their diet, their heart, their red blood cells, their metabolism, a whole slew of traits activate in these cave fish and other creatures that live in caves in very similar ways, enabling them to fit in caves. So what I actually see here is I see a highly designed, highly regulated mechanism that enables creatures like these fish to pioneer into caves and to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, just as the Lord said, including caves. I see strong evidence for engineering, purposeful engineering, that allows these organisms to pioneer into different environments altogether. And I see no evidence, zero, for random mutations being selected out over long periods of time. I mean, how would these fish even live in these caves?

The conditions are so different from the surface area, they have to be able to adjust very rapidly. Doctor, you mentioned that you used to believe in some of these arguments. Tell us your story, I'm super interested. Well, I was a good student in school, high school and things, and I studied and I believed what my teacher said. I had a lot of faith in what they were teaching me, and I pretty much accepted it without any questioning on it. And that went on for quite a few years, even after I became a Christian. In fact, I used to argue with my parents, with people like myself, trying to convince my position that I was wrong.

And I hate to say that I even laughed at the former president of ICR who founded this ministry on the radio. But I was laughing from a position of ignorance. I really didn't understand the science and I really didn't understand the arguments at that time. And once I started to dig into the science and I started to see that, hey, when I look at a fossil and I see a living counterpart that today, there's really essentially no evidence of evolution between them, even though tens of millions of years have passed, I see stasis.

I don't see random mutations leading to improvements. I see them leading to diseases and death. And what I really find are systems when I look deep into the biology, which are highly internal organisms and totally regulated within them, which have functions. And I see incredible volumes of information that are in these creatures, which could not come about through random processes altogether. And I start to see that I was believing in something which really made no scientific sense at all.

It was actually counterintuitive to what I would normally think. Purposeless things don't lead to purposeful things. A lack of agency doesn't lead to organisms that exercise agency. A lack of consciousness does not lead to things that have consciousness.

A lack of planning and purpose doesn't lead to things which are highly engineered, highly purposeful. So I was holding the things which were totally counterintuitive. And it was through the ministry way back in the early 1980s of the Institute for Creation Research, looking at their information, which set me free.

And I was kind of like born again, again with this thinking. Three star general Michael J. Flynn, head of the Pentagon Intelligence Agency, knew all the government's dirty secrets. He was one of the most respected generals in the military. Flynn knew what the Intel world had been up to. He understood its funding.

He ordered the first audit of the use of contractors. This set off alarm bells. The explosive new documentary, Flynn, deliver the truth, whatever the cost, and covers the facts behind this scandal. Flynn told the truth. He was the most dangerous person for Donald Trump to hire. I find out the worst enemy that I'm going to face in my life is right here in America. They took my assessment and they wanted me to change it.

I was like, I'm not changing it. They had to get rid of Flynn. With in-depth interviews, archival footage, and never before seen personal record to the man behind the headlines.

I just felt like I was drowning. Flynn, deliver the truth, whatever the cost. Available now. Watch it today. Go to SalemNow.com. SalemNow.com. So doctor, tell us about the Institute for Creation Research. Tell us about the work you're doing. Well, we are a research organization. We have PhD scientists on staff, a whole crew of them amongst various disciplines. We have geneticists. We have developmental biologists. We have paleo biochemists. We have geologists on staff, physicists. I'm a medical doctor and an engineer on that. So we have highly qualified people to do research.

And in fact, amazingly, one of your questions was related to our current area of research. And that is the cave fish. Since the blind cave fish is such an icon of evolution, we decided to do research on that. And so we have major projects.

We have, in my opinion, one of the best fish labs in the country that we have set up. And we are doing experiments on these blind cave fish in terms of their pigmentation and their eyesight right now. We have a large project on geology. And that's the borehole project that I mentioned a little earlier. Every time oil organizations and people are searching for minerals, they go looking, they drill these boreholes into the earth and they log or they catalog what is coming out of the borehole so they're able to document the layers as they go through those types of layers. Well, we're the only organization right now which is actually cataloging all of those boreholes, and I shouldn't say all of them, but literally thousands of those boreholes on every continent on the planet and able to make maps of those in which we're able to demonstrate very clearly that, as I said earlier, you find the same layers in the same order in certain segments of them on every continent on the planet. So we're able to show that there really was a worldwide flood and we're able to fairly precisely document the different stages of the flood. We do research into genetics.

We can demonstrate that humans and chimps are not 99% genetically identical. Dr. Jeff Tompkins is doing that research. Dr. Clary was doing the research on geology. Dr. Jake Hebert is doing research. He's our physicist on longevity of the patriarchs and also a lot of research into Big Bang.

So we don't have a huge broad range, but we have some very targeted areas, Big Bang, biological evolution, age of the earth, particularly sedimentation, where we really drill down deep and we do the research. We write up articles. They're published. Some of them get published in secular journals. Most of them are published in peer-reviewed creationist journals. And then we go to conferences and we discuss these with other creationists. We go to college campuses. Last year, we went to seven and we did discussions at public universities, public college campuses, and where we kind of take on the evolutionists that are on those campuses. And so these students don't have to do it themselves. These teachers can't give us a grade and we can kind of just take apart their thinking piece by piece. So we are an apologetics creationist organization where we seek to lift high the name of the Lord Jesus as creator and defend Christians.

All right, doctor, you're gonna have to humor our audience here. They've asked a question repeatedly. How should we think about dinosaurs?

Okay. Well, hopefully everybody believes that there are dinosaurs or were dinosaurs on this planet. You can see fossils of them buried by the thousands and thousands all over the world. They were different types of creatures.

I think the best evidence indicates they were not reptiles directly themselves, but they were very reptilian in behavior and form that they were created. The flying ones were created on day five, land ones created on day on day six, just as the Bible says that they co-existed with humans up until the time of the flood of which the time the vast, vast majority of them were destroyed. They probably weren't destroyed by some asteroid or hitting the planet and killing mostly just the dinosaurs, but not many other creatures. So the vast majority were destroyed in the flood. Some were obviously taken onto the ark by Noah brought there.

They populated the earth, many parts of it post flood. There's evidence of people actually making drawings of dinosaur-like creatures. And if you go to our museum at the Discovery Center in Dallas, Texas, we have a whole wall dedicated where photographic evidence shows drawings of people who have drawn these types of dinosaurs up until like the middle ages.

There's even a perfect rendition of one from a temple in Cambodia showing a stegosaurus drawn on this, which was made in the 1400s. So somehow, some way they've either gone completely extinct, but they persisted with humans for quite a period of time. Probably most of the legends about dragons are these dinosaurs. And so they've died out. And they've died out.

And perhaps the main reason why they died out after the flood is that humans killed them like they like they've killed off other organisms on the planet. So that's how I'd say the best way to understand dinosaurs. So, doctor, in closing here, it seems as if that public opinion is moving in the creationist direction in the last 10 or 15 years.

And people are asking questions. You know, Tucker going on the podcast certainly demonstrates that. Do you see that as well?

Well, I wish I could say that I do see that. I'm glad to hear that people like Tucker have thought this through, even though he would not probably be in my camp, but he's thought through the evidence and other people are thinking it through. But by and large, I can't say that there is an overwhelming case where people are moving towards creation.

I wish there was. In the United States, because we have a diversity of thought, there's a higher percentage of people who would reject evolution than across the world. But what I would say is, even if the public opinion isn't always going in our favor, the scientific evidence is. The scientific evidence is coming in very strongly that when organisms adapt, it is due to highly regulated mechanisms that enable them to adapt very rapidly and often repeatedly repeatedly and sometimes reversibly and with traits that are so targeted to the environmental challenges that they can even be predictable. And so the scientific evidence is coming in very strongly inconsistent with evolutionary theory and very strongly in the case for an engineered approach, an engineered explanation for biology. So I think it's just a matter of time before evolutionary theory has to be completely reformulated in many ways. And we are in a perfect time to develop a theory of biological design right now from ICR kind of leading the way and others coming along with us to explain the scientific evidence better than it's explained before with theory of biological design.

And I think when that happens, we will start to persuade people even stronger. Doctor, thank you so much for your time. Everyone check out ICR.org.

That is ICR.org. Thank you so much. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always. Freedom at CharlieKirk.com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless.