WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:29.980 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 00:30.000 --> 00:59.980 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:00.000 --> 01:02.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:02.000 --> 01:32.000 01:32.000 --> 01:34.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:34.000 --> 01:36.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:36.000 --> 01:38.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:38.000 --> 01:40.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:40.000 --> 01:42.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:42.000 --> 01:44.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:44.000 --> 01:46.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:46.000 --> 01:48.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:48.000 --> 01:50.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:50.000 --> 01:52.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:52.000 --> 01:54.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:54.000 --> 01:56.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:56.000 --> 01:58.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 01:58.000 --> 02:00.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 02:00.000 --> 02:02.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 02:02.000 --> 02:04.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 02:04.000 --> 02:06.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 02:06.000 --> 02:08.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 02:08.000 --> 02:10.000 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 02:10.000 --> 02:13.680 . 02:28.100 --> 02:30.200 İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. 02:30.200 --> 02:32.300 Bu lastik book is being done. 02:32.320 --> 02:34.680 I am here to tell you, 02:34.700 --> 02:37.200 that an enormous amount of biology that is being done 02:37.220 --> 02:39.080 today is being done on the second premise. 02:39.100 --> 02:42.900 The biological systems are extremely well designed. 02:42.920 --> 02:45.900 It is as if the intelligence design movement 02:45.900 --> 02:47.960 had totally won the day already. 02:48.000 --> 02:50.700 All kinds of biological research is being done 02:50.740 --> 02:52.260 as reverse engineering, 02:52.280 --> 02:54.020 in which it is assumed that living systems 02:54.040 --> 02:56.120 are nearly optimally designed. 02:56.140 --> 02:58.040 Of course the scientists by and large 02:58.060 --> 02:59.620 do not give credit to God. 02:59.620 --> 03:05.620 And I will discuss later in this talk how they explain their findings and give a critique of that. 03:05.620 --> 03:10.620 So a lot of the work that I'm going to be talking about here is in a publication, 03:10.620 --> 03:12.620 this publication available online. 03:12.620 --> 03:17.620 And in this article I quote from and cite many articles from the scientific literature. 03:17.620 --> 03:21.620 It's also based on my own experience from going to physics conferences in the US 03:21.620 --> 03:25.620 and sitting in on some very crowded by physics sessions 03:25.620 --> 03:30.620 as well as personal conversations I've had with well-known biophysicists 03:30.620 --> 03:36.620 including people like Bill Bialica from Princeton who does not believe in God as far as I know. 03:36.620 --> 03:41.620 A general term for this type of thinking I'm going to give you is the word teleology. 03:41.620 --> 03:46.620 Teleology means looking for a purpose or a goal in something. 03:46.620 --> 03:51.620 In design systems we assume that there is a goal that was set and things were done to reach that goal. 03:51.620 --> 03:55.620 In standard evolution there is no purpose and no goal. 03:55.620 --> 03:59.620 So for instance Richard Dawkins titled his book on evolutionary theory 03:59.620 --> 04:02.620 The Blind Watchmaker, No Purpose. 04:02.620 --> 04:06.620 But the literature on biological systems now of people actually doing biology 04:06.620 --> 04:12.620 is full of terms like teleology and purpose and goals and design. 04:12.620 --> 04:18.620 And so all of these imply the idea of not being blind but actually having a purpose in mind. 04:18.620 --> 04:22.620 So I'm going to give you several quotes here for examples of this. 04:22.620 --> 04:27.620 This one is fairly lengthy but I'm going to read some parts of it at length 04:27.620 --> 04:35.620 because this is a famous biologist writing a review article in a well-known biology journal. 04:35.620 --> 04:40.620 And he says that biologists must learn to embrace the idea of teleology. 04:40.620 --> 04:42.620 So he says why is the sky blue? 04:42.620 --> 04:46.620 Any scientist will answer this question with a statement of mechanism. 04:46.620 --> 04:50.620 Atmospheric gas scatters some wavelengths of light more than others. 04:50.620 --> 04:56.620 To answer with a statement of purpose, in other words to say the sky is blue to make people happy, 04:56.620 --> 04:58.620 would not cross the scientific mind. 04:58.620 --> 05:03.620 Yet in biology we often pose why questions as to the purpose. 05:03.620 --> 05:06.620 And not just the mechanism that interests us. 05:06.620 --> 05:13.620 So the question why does the eye have a lens most often calls for the answer that the lens is there to focus light. 05:13.620 --> 05:20.620 And only rarely the answer that the lens is there because lens cells are induced by the overlying ectoderm. 05:20.620 --> 05:24.620 As a group molecular biologists shy away from teleological matters. 05:24.620 --> 05:28.620 Perhaps because early attitudes in molecular biology were shaped by physicists and chemists. 05:28.620 --> 05:31.620 And I'll come back to that in a little bit. 05:31.620 --> 05:36.620 Geneticists routinely define function not in terms of the useful things that the gene does, 05:36.620 --> 05:38.620 but by what happens when the gene is altered. 05:38.620 --> 05:44.620 Molecular and biology and molecular genetics people continue to dodge teleological issues. 05:44.620 --> 05:49.620 And they would continue that if it were not for their field's remarkable recent successes. 05:49.620 --> 05:55.620 Molecular biologists are forced to wrestle with an overtly teleological question. 05:55.620 --> 05:57.620 What purpose does all this complexity serve? 05:57.620 --> 06:02.620 These elements can be seen as the foundation of a new calculus of purpose. 06:02.620 --> 06:04.620 And let me just say that again. 06:04.620 --> 06:12.620 He's saying that biology has to embrace a new calculus of purpose, of design, in the actual biology. 06:12.620 --> 06:18.620 Enabling biologists to take on the much neglected teleological side of molecular biology. 06:18.620 --> 06:20.620 What purpose does all this complexity serve? 06:20.620 --> 06:25.620 May go from a question few biologists dare to pose to one on everybody's lips. 06:25.620 --> 06:31.620 This is a well-known biologist writing in a secular biology journal. 06:31.620 --> 06:37.620 Now, in these next quotes, I'm not going to read them all, but I'm just going to summarize them. 06:37.620 --> 06:42.620 In this one here, again, these are some quotes from the mainstream literature. 06:42.620 --> 06:48.620 Not only teleology, but explicitly the word design is now accepted and common. 06:48.620 --> 06:58.620 In the first quote of here, a non-causal explanation means one looking at the end of the process, not just the beginning. 06:58.620 --> 07:04.620 Aristotle called such things final causes, which is another way of talking about teleology. 07:04.620 --> 07:09.620 One looks for the purpose and then works backwards to find out what things were needed to find that goal, 07:09.620 --> 07:15.620 or to achieve that goal, just like we did with the computer chip. 07:15.620 --> 07:21.620 So, in the literature now, in the article that I did, I did a survey of all of these engineering concepts here, 07:21.620 --> 07:24.620 which are now commonly used in systems biology. 07:24.620 --> 07:28.620 It's not just a language, but it's actually driving the science. 07:28.620 --> 07:34.620 So, the following things are all found in biology and are found to be just the same as engineering concepts. 07:34.620 --> 07:37.620 Feedback loops, thresholding and discrimination. 07:37.620 --> 07:40.620 If you're not an engineer, I'm sorry, I don't have time to explain all of these, 07:40.620 --> 07:45.620 but these are all things that are learned in graduate school engineering. 07:45.620 --> 07:51.620 Oscillators and frequency filtering, control and signaling, information storing, timing and synchronization, 07:51.620 --> 08:00.620 addressing and routing, hierarchies of function, redundancy, fail-safes, interactive adaptation, optimization, and trade-offs. 08:00.620 --> 08:07.620 And actually, in many cases, engineers are learning good methods of doing things by looking at biology 08:07.620 --> 08:09.620 and learning new methods from them. 08:09.620 --> 08:15.620 Here's another quote, which I again will not read these at length here, 08:15.620 --> 08:19.620 but you can see in them how design is now being used. 08:19.620 --> 08:25.620 And in the first quote, this is a writer who is not a believer as far as I know, 08:25.620 --> 08:30.620 who is going to write an entire paper about design in the living systems, 08:30.620 --> 08:37.620 and yet feels compelled for political reasons to say there is no implication of a designer. 08:37.620 --> 08:41.620 Do you see that here? I think I have a laser pointer. 08:41.620 --> 08:47.620 So, he fills in the parenthetical remark to say, even though I'm going to talk in this whole paper about design, 08:47.620 --> 08:52.620 nevertheless, don't take me to be talking about God. 08:52.620 --> 08:58.620 In the second quote, there is the term of information science, which is being used, 08:58.620 --> 09:02.620 and called the essence of all biology. 09:02.620 --> 09:07.620 Now, in the past decades, the term information was rejected by many people to talk about biology 09:07.620 --> 09:11.620 because information intrinsically implies teleology, 09:11.620 --> 09:15.620 gathering knowledge about a system to accomplish a purpose. 09:15.620 --> 09:22.620 In other words, information science is a highly sophisticated type of engineering. 09:22.620 --> 09:31.620 Now, in this next slide, I'm going to show you just one example of the kind of design that we see at the cellular level. 09:31.620 --> 09:35.620 We had a dance just a few minutes ago, a very beautiful dance. 09:35.620 --> 09:44.620 And when we look at these molecules, this is the molecule that is used to reproduce DNA inside of every living cell. 09:44.620 --> 09:47.620 And it is, I would say, a type of dance. 09:47.620 --> 09:52.620 The video I'm going to show is the DNA duplication mechanism. 09:52.620 --> 09:56.620 It's produced by a professional scientific institute in Australia. 09:56.620 --> 10:00.620 And it's based on years of research and computer modeling. 10:00.620 --> 10:02.620 So, let me go forward to that now. 10:02.620 --> 10:07.620 And imagine in your mind the dance that God has put into the cell. 10:07.620 --> 10:09.620 And I think this will start. 10:09.620 --> 10:10.620 Oh, let me go back. 10:10.620 --> 10:14.620 So, it should start in just a minute. 10:14.620 --> 10:24.620 And, oh, one more try. 10:24.620 --> 10:29.620 So, I'm willing to wait because this is a beautiful video. 10:29.620 --> 10:36.620 So, while we're waiting for that, let me just tell you a little bit more about it. 10:36.620 --> 10:40.620 This is a mechanism that is used to copy DNA. 10:40.620 --> 10:50.620 Whenever you have a DNA and two cells, a cell divides into two, you have to take . 10:50.620 --> 10:51.620 Okay. 10:51.620 --> 10:58.620 And so, now you can see this is the weaving mechanism or the dancing mechanism by which the DNA is copied. 10:58.620 --> 11:05.620 And I want to emphasize that this mechanism has to work before natural selection can work. 11:05.620 --> 11:12.620 Because natural selection is based on the idea of copying the DNA from one generation to the next. 11:12.620 --> 11:16.620 So, this whole mechanism has to be there before natural selection can do anything. 11:16.620 --> 11:18.620 Because you have to copy the DNA. 11:18.620 --> 11:21.620 So, let's just enjoy it with the music for a minute. 11:21.620 --> 11:26.620 We can turn up the music a little bit. 11:26.620 --> 11:37.620 All of this is necessary for life even to exist, for the DNA to be copied. 11:37.620 --> 11:42.620 And these are all molecules and each one of those dots was a single atom. 11:42.620 --> 11:47.620 So, duplicating an information string with billions of sites is not easy. 11:47.620 --> 11:52.620 And this is the kind of mechanism that we need in order for that to work. 11:52.620 --> 11:59.620 So, how do biologists who are not believers in God think about these things? 11:59.620 --> 12:06.620 Essentially, they would argue that this high level of design is to be expected as an outcome of Darwinian evolution. 12:06.620 --> 12:11.620 And the argument is that weak organisms will be killed off. 12:11.620 --> 12:16.620 And therefore, since inefficiency generally makes things weaker, inefficiency will increase. 12:16.620 --> 12:18.620 There's two problems with this. 12:18.620 --> 12:23.620 The first is that's not been historically a prediction of atheistic Darwinism. 12:23.620 --> 12:27.620 Just like we did sort of in our thought exercise at the beginning of my talk. 12:27.620 --> 12:33.620 If we imagined that a device was randomly made, we would expect a lot of junk. 12:33.620 --> 12:40.620 And that's historically how Darwinists have actually argued that there is a lot of junk, as Buzz Rana talked about earlier. 12:40.620 --> 12:46.620 Secondly, although this might work as an explanation for some improvement of efficiency, 12:46.620 --> 12:52.620 it does not explain why everything is so exquisitely well done, so nearly perfectly well done. 12:52.620 --> 12:56.620 So, I'm not going to go into great length about the ENCODE project. 12:56.620 --> 13:02.620 We heard from Dr. Rana about all the amazing results from the ENCODE project. 13:02.620 --> 13:04.620 So, I'll just summarize here. 13:04.620 --> 13:12.620 It is still somewhat in debate about how much of the DNA really could be considered to be junk. 13:12.620 --> 13:18.620 But I remember, I'm old enough to remember, that it was just universal that everyone talked about vestigial organs. 13:18.620 --> 13:25.620 Things like the appendix and the tonsils, which now are known to have function and to be part of our immune system. 13:25.620 --> 13:32.620 There are many arguments that have been made over the years about how biological systems are badly designed. 13:32.620 --> 13:44.620 But as I have said, in general, the field of systems biology is moving rapidly toward an optimal view of things in which everything is well designed. 13:44.620 --> 13:55.620 So, when we think about these claims that the design, the efficiency, the optimization of life comes from natural selection, 13:55.620 --> 13:57.620 there are some problems with this. 13:57.620 --> 14:02.620 And I'm not going to go into detail on this paper because it's fairly technical. 14:02.620 --> 14:06.620 But a few years ago, I did some numerical simulations in collaboration with two others 14:06.620 --> 14:12.620 to ask whether it makes sense that natural selection can give optimization to living systems. 14:12.620 --> 14:14.620 People tend to assume this. 14:14.620 --> 14:20.620 And even though they assume this, surprisingly, very little has been done to actually prove that it can happen. 14:20.620 --> 14:25.620 So, just to summarize these results then, I call this the catch-22 problem. 14:25.620 --> 14:31.620 Catch-22 is an English phrase that means a situation in which if you choose one option, you lose. 14:31.620 --> 14:34.620 But if you choose the other option, you also lose. 14:34.620 --> 14:37.620 And this is based on the movie called Catch-22. 14:37.620 --> 14:44.620 If we suppose that living systems can easily add new things, then all kinds of new non-functioning things will appear, 14:44.620 --> 14:47.620 what sometimes are called vestigial organs. 14:47.620 --> 14:51.620 And this was historically what Darwinists predicted, what they thought was the case. 14:51.620 --> 14:55.620 And they felt that living systems should be full of non-functioning elements. 14:55.620 --> 14:59.620 And that's the argument for junk DNA that we heard earlier from Dr. Rana. 14:59.620 --> 15:01.620 But that doesn't lead to optimization. 15:01.620 --> 15:08.620 It leads to creatures carrying around all kinds of useless stuff, hoping that maybe one day it will have some use. 15:08.620 --> 15:14.620 The new thinking on optimal design in systems biology does not allow a lot of useless stuff. 15:14.620 --> 15:24.620 So, to fix this problem, let's suppose that we say natural selection removes such useless stuff because the creatures with useless stuff die off. 15:24.620 --> 15:29.620 That's the main argument I've heard from the optimal design people who don't believe in God. 15:29.620 --> 15:33.620 But if that was the case, then evolution could never move forward. 15:33.620 --> 15:39.620 Because new things that don't have any function will not remain in the population long enough and will be killed off. 15:39.620 --> 15:41.620 And so, again, it's a catch-22. 15:41.620 --> 15:48.620 If there is rapid generation of these useless things, then you have a body full of vestigial organs. 15:48.620 --> 15:52.620 And if there's killing off of those things, then you never develop anything new. 15:52.620 --> 16:02.620 Now, let me just, in my final section here, talk about why teleology was banned from science. 16:02.620 --> 16:14.620 And a very good book on this is by a man named Peter Harrison, who gave a history of the scientific revolution, which happened around the same time as the Reformation in Europe. 16:14.620 --> 16:15.620 And that was not a coincidence. 16:15.620 --> 16:19.620 It was the same kind of thinking that was going on in both spheres. 16:19.620 --> 16:33.620 So, if we go way back to ancient times, it was very common for people all around the world to read science, to read into nature what we might call signs and portents. 16:33.620 --> 16:41.620 Looking for things in the natural world or in the holy scriptures that would be sort of personal messages to me from God. 16:41.620 --> 16:51.620 And this led to very bad science and bad theology because there was no limit to the speculation and imagination people might have to interpret something. 16:51.620 --> 16:57.620 And so, one could say the Reformation in Europe was a revolution of sober or non-superstitious thinking. 16:57.620 --> 17:03.620 Of people saying, let's hold back from wild speculation and interpret things as they are. 17:03.620 --> 17:13.620 And this led to a very straightforward looking at the Bible and it also led to a straightforward look at science. 17:13.620 --> 17:16.620 And that led eventually to the scientific revolution. 17:16.620 --> 17:24.620 After the Reformation, after the scientific revolution, the enlightenment which followed, which gave rise to what we now call modern secularism, 17:24.620 --> 17:31.620 went further to abolish all ideas of purpose and to create the idea of a universe as a machine with no soul. 17:31.620 --> 17:39.620 But as I have said, biology and physics are bringing back into our terminology the idea of purpose and teleology. 17:39.620 --> 17:44.620 And in the physics world, there's a similar thing going on with what is called fine-tuning. 17:44.620 --> 17:50.620 Where not just biology, but the whole universe looks like it is designed and has purpose. 17:50.620 --> 18:00.620 Now, many modern people fear that the intelligent design movement will lead us back to the bad old days of superstition 18:00.620 --> 18:05.620 and looking for portents and miracles in everything that we see. 18:05.620 --> 18:15.620 But for at least 200 years after the Reformation, many leading scientists, really I would say the majority, 18:15.620 --> 18:18.620 were active Christians who saw God's purpose in nature. 18:18.620 --> 18:22.620 Not going on flights of fancy, but being very careful in their science. 18:22.620 --> 18:30.620 So, in the following, I'm going to just give you a survey of famous scientists, and I will not be reading these quotes at length. 18:30.620 --> 18:39.620 I just want to survey them to show, in fact, that belief in design does not imply a return to mysticism and superstition. 18:39.620 --> 18:44.620 So, my first example is Isaac Newton. 18:44.620 --> 18:50.620 Many people do not know that Isaac Newton and most of the founders of modern science were Christians who believed in God. 18:50.620 --> 18:53.620 And this was not just a nominal belief. 18:53.620 --> 19:00.620 And when I say nominal, there are many people who would say, I'm a Christian, and by that they just mean I was born in a Christian family. 19:00.620 --> 19:02.620 They don't actually believe it. 19:02.620 --> 19:04.620 But Isaac Newton was not that way. 19:04.620 --> 19:10.620 believed strongly in God and actually wrote two books on science and four books on theology. 19:10.620 --> 19:13.620 He was someone who believed strongly in God. 19:13.620 --> 19:16.620 And he brought his beliefs into his science. 19:16.620 --> 19:22.620 And so, for instance, in these quotes, Newton really is making fun of people who don't believe in God, saying, 19:22.620 --> 19:25.620 he's really, you could say, dismissing people as foolish. 19:25.620 --> 19:29.620 And he says here, atheism is senseless. 19:29.620 --> 19:35.620 William Harvey is considered by many people the founder of modern medicine. 19:35.620 --> 19:41.620 And he used his belief in God actually to drive his science. 19:41.620 --> 19:48.620 Because when he was looking at the body, he wanted to deduce how the blood system worked. 19:48.620 --> 19:51.620 And he assumed that it was well designed. 19:51.620 --> 19:56.620 And so, when he found something he didn't know what it was doing, namely the valves in the blood, 19:56.620 --> 19:59.620 he assumed that it was for some good purpose. 19:59.620 --> 20:03.620 And he reverse engineered to find out how the system worked. 20:03.620 --> 20:10.620 And so, he says explicitly in his writing that it could not be that there were so many valves there without design. 20:10.620 --> 20:14.620 So, that drove him to look for the purpose of those valves. 20:14.620 --> 20:24.620 Blaise Pascal, a very famous mathematician, also a very dedicated Christian, said, 20:24.620 --> 20:26.620 Men despise religion. 20:26.620 --> 20:28.620 They hate it and fear it is true. 20:28.620 --> 20:34.620 To remedy this, we must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason. 20:34.620 --> 20:38.620 And he wrote many things about his religious faith. 20:38.620 --> 20:42.620 Leibniz, the father of calculus. 20:42.620 --> 20:45.620 Actually, Newton claimed also to be the father. 20:45.620 --> 20:47.620 They had a debate between them. 20:47.620 --> 20:53.620 But Leibniz believed that the observation of nature showed the handiwork of God. 20:53.620 --> 20:58.620 He says, in reflecting on the works, we are able to discover the one who wrought. 20:58.620 --> 21:00.620 The one who made them. 21:00.620 --> 21:05.620 William Thompson, who was raised to be Lord Kelvin. 21:05.620 --> 21:13.620 The father of, considered to be the father of thermodynamics, had a very active Christian faith. 21:13.620 --> 21:20.620 And he argued that our existence itself is evidence that nature is not just a fortuitous concourse of atoms. 21:20.620 --> 21:30.620 He says, the fact that the scientist is even thinking about whether there is a creator is evidence that there is not just dead matter, 21:30.620 --> 21:33.620 but there are people with brains and souls who are thinking things. 21:33.620 --> 21:40.620 Because we are not blind, because we have purpose, in some sense it proves that there is purpose in the universe. 21:40.620 --> 21:43.620 Because purpose doesn't just come out of nowhere. 21:43.620 --> 21:46.620 And finally, I think I have one more. 21:46.620 --> 21:53.620 In this present century, or I should say the 20th century, there's been many more examples. 21:53.620 --> 22:03.620 Werner von Braun, the father of space travel, said finite man cannot begin to comprehend an omniscient, omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite God. 22:03.620 --> 22:12.620 I find it best to accept God through faith as an intelligent will, perfect in goodness and wisdom, and revealing himself through his creation. 22:12.620 --> 22:17.620 So notice all of these scientists are saying that God can be seen in what is made. 22:17.620 --> 22:20.620 They're not just saying take an irrational leap. 22:20.620 --> 22:23.620 They're saying believe because of what God has made. 22:23.620 --> 22:25.620 And there are many others. 22:25.620 --> 22:32.620 One I know personally is Dr. Bill Phillips, who won the Nobel Prize for his work in cold atoms. 22:32.620 --> 22:42.620 So we see in this short survey that believing in God, and in particular believing that God has designed the creation with purpose in a good way, did not stop people from doing good science. 22:42.620 --> 22:43.620 Quite the opposite. 22:43.620 --> 22:45.620 It led these people to do very good science. 22:45.620 --> 22:49.620 So let me finish up then with my conclusions. 22:49.620 --> 23:01.620 In this brief survey I've tried to show that in fact biology and biophysics are moving rapidly toward a view of a good design of things, of living systems in particular. 23:01.620 --> 23:06.620 Which is to say teleology, the idea that things are designed with a purpose. 23:06.620 --> 23:13.620 Many types of biology, such as systems biology, very little reference is actually made to evolution. 23:13.620 --> 23:17.620 Often times in the first paragraph they will say, well of course evolution led to this. 23:17.620 --> 23:21.620 But then they immediately go on to talk about all the design. 23:21.620 --> 23:27.620 And the emphasis is on reverse engineering of what we see in living systems, with the assumption that it is very well made. 23:27.620 --> 23:34.620 These scientists do not by and large acknowledge the existence of God, but attribute this good design to years of blind evolution. 23:34.620 --> 23:37.620 But as I have discussed, no one has showed how that is possible. 23:37.620 --> 23:45.620 And by my own numerical simulations, it would indicate that it's a very difficult problem to make it happen purely through natural selection. 23:45.620 --> 23:48.620 So there's still debate about these things. 23:48.620 --> 23:59.620 A lot of it, I would say, is driven by fear that people have that embracing a role for God in our scientific thinking will lead to a return to mysticism and superstition. 23:59.620 --> 24:01.620 But that is not necessary. 24:01.620 --> 24:09.620 In fact, the scientific revolution itself came from people who were religious Christians thinking rationally about their faith and the world that God had made. 24:09.620 --> 24:14.620 Belief in teleology can lead to good reverse engineering. 24:14.620 --> 24:15.620 And so I'll finish with that. 24:15.620 --> 24:16.620 Thank you.