Origins of the Universe | Mysteries of Existence

Was the earth created or did it come into existence on its own without any outside interference? That's the question at the heart of the debate that still rages between Evolution and creation and believe me It's quite the debate or as you meet seven experts in their fields who've devoted their lives to Studying this question with the hope of finding some kind of answer. My name is Todd Cantillon, and this is the great debate When it comes to talking about the topic of origins, it's very different to talking about Observational science that put man on the moon or builds our technology Origins is talking about history and the problem with history is that if you weren't there and you don't know everything You don't have access to all information We don't know someone who was there who knows everything who you can trust How could you ever be sure of exactly what happened particularly when it comes to talking about the origin of the universe? When we look at the history of life on earth what we see is a constantly changing panoply of different forms appearing and Evolution is the mechanism that explains how that happens as I study the scriptures There's no way you can harmonize evolution in millions of years with what the Bible says And I believe there are lots of good reasons to conclude that Genesis 1 to 11 is history and not Mythology or poetry or some other kind of non literal literature It becomes very clear that each of our experts believes that the others are putting their own Spin on the data to the detriments of the truth or in a way that serves their worldview each of them's doing it Watch for it The Bible regardless what anyone else claims it to be is unique in the world There is no other book like that that claims to be over 3,000 times the Word of God who knows everything has always been there Who doesn't tell a lie who gives us a very specific history concerning? How the universe came to be creation in six days? I was reared in a Christian family And so I was brought up taught that the Bible is the Word of God and as I studied that I found that that View makes a lot of sense and then alternatives are inherently irrational That is when we take a look at competing systems competing worldviews those that would challenge The biblical authority that they really don't they really don't hold water. They can't account for science. They can't account for Rationality or ethics or any of the things that we take for granted so if on the other hand everything's just an accident of a Big bang billions of years ago and so on Then I wouldn't expect that my mind one accident would be able to understand another accident really so science goes back to a biblical Worldview not not a Big Bang worldview Well when I want to find out about the history of the past concerning how we got here how the earth got here I go to the Bible because that's a history book of the universe You know that's an eyewitness account of what happened And I think that people that don't acknowledge God or don't acknowledge some something higher or some intelligent designer They're really just I mean denying the truth There is no other known mechanism at least none that's been shown to have any evidence for it But of course I didn't say what the mechanism was right you know that the mechanism is simply that that individuals and populations accumulate genetic change over time and Then there's processes like natural selection That refines those differences to to produce adapted forms first Let me say that the best and strongest argument for evolution From an evolutionist point of view is two words Those two words are how else There is no other way There simply is no other way the professional evolutionists. I know I'm not talking about layman. They can have their own little personal private Definitions of evolution I'm not concerned about that To a professional evolutionist there's matter energy time and space. That's it. There's the material world There isn't anything outside the material world and so the thing that I think most upsets Professional evolutionists is my view is that I'm invoking something that is super natural outside of nature why that's unthinkable But it's not unthinkable to science. It's unthinkable to a philosophy called scientism Now that's the homework for the viewer go to the dictionary and look up the word scientism scientism is the belief or the philosophy that everything that is that it exists. That's real is material and thus ultimately at least Explainable by the scientific method. So if God were real bring them on in we have a nice microscope here We'll put them underneath and check them out. See what he's made up Because he'd have to be made out of material matter energy. He'd have to occupy time and space and That is a paradigm a whole world view and the evolutionist occupant works within that world view That nature is the whole show now if I had their starting assumption, I would come to the same conclusion they do and People would say yeah, but it's so improbable that you could put an eye together by chance and my answer would be How else if you don't like my materialistic explanation, what's yours? Very interesting that he just said how else would this have come to be? Of course, he's saying that if he held the opposing view to his current view He also would come to the same conclusion. This is very telling and of course you heard professor Myers say that same sentence how else could this have happened if there is no God then there's no other explanation, but evolution over millions and billions of years However, if there is a creator that's implied in the design we see around us Well, then that has tremendous implications on the religious spectrum and that quickly begins to move into The other spectrums of life and I think that's where many of us start to get a little nervous It misrepresents it to as if there are two camps or a debate it Really it has to do with The whole way our civilization Has expertise, why do we give authority to certain experts the notion that that in this one area science is somehow Gone off the rails And you can't trust what it's done in biology, but it's the rest of science is perfectly. Okay That signals that something else is going on here. And that's something else clearly has to do with with political In the very largest sense But what we have is a number of models for how this could have happened how life could have arisen They are all ultimately Darwinian in The sense that what we think happened was a kind of chemical evolution, which is very much like biological evolution That what happened is that there were various There are various small molecules that could interact and promote the synthesis of other small molecules So what happened is that somehow those chemicals had to be created? And the way we think they happen and they were created is again fairly naturally that it turns out that if you take Just the molecules that existed in an inorganic situation and you subject them to things like pressure heat You cause things like lightning for instance all the sort of stuff it promotes chemical reactions that can produce these complex Smaller molecules now when it comes to those who don't start with the Bible They would say in the beginning matter or in the beginning hydrogen that matter gave rise to life and yet Observational science does not confirm that well, maybe it came from outer space Well, maybe it came maybe you know these things just you know somehow got together and over time this happened But it's just not things don't do that. We know that from our own experience, you know You don't just put all the parts of a watch, you know on the ground and expect a watch to form You know, it's not gonna happen. We know there has to be an intelligence behind that So it really goes contrary to even what our common experience is and what we know Has to happen for these kinds of complex things to come about Darwin himself worked explicitly in the context of the theory of the concept of Design that is that the explanation for life as we see it was Distinctly and explicitly Designed by a creator This is what I tell people when they ask me So there's always a possibility that some aliens came cruising by in a space winnebago and decided to flush the tanks over earth and That's where we came from We can't rule that out The question of of the origin of life the origin of the universe where we came from is a historical question It's a question of origins. You can't go out to the Grand Canyon and recreate the Grand Canyon in the laboratory You have to look at the at the evidence of the rocks and the fossils and try to reconstruct the past What happened to cause that? You know a lot of people think that because the universe is expanding that that somehow indicates a Big Bang The Big Bang is actually it actually came along later The expansion universe was discovered first in the 1920s and then LeMaitre came up with the Big Bang in 1931 he came up with the idea that the universe has started from a point that point had expanded out and so that is an Explanation for that expansion, but see there are other explanations for that expansion, too Just because something's getting bigger doesn't mean that it exploded into existence billions of years ago I mean you can inflate a balloon, but that doesn't mean it started as a point started smaller But it didn't start as a point. In fact LeMaitre's first model in 1928 I believe actually did not start with a point He started with the universe with finite size and then it just expands and that's basically what I believe is a creationist God created the universe with a finite size and it's expanded some sense then for whatever and for whatever reason Now you're watching their answers You don't see my questions, but I am asking the questions on the other side of the camera It might be fun for you to note down how many times it seems like I've asked them How how does this happen and you can also see that I'm not really getting much of an answer am I? It's near here at the Creation Museum when the secular media come in here others in the secular world to interview me most of the questions are not about evolution most of the questions are about the age of the Earth and the reason is because if you don't have an incomprehensible amount of time You can't postulate evolution. You've got to have an incomprehensible amount of time You've got to have millions of years and that's why they're so Emotional and adamant about the millions of years and yet much of the church has said we can have the millions of years which Actually undermines the authority of scripture The only evidence they can trot out for instance is if you're creationist is the Bible Which is a kind of evidence, but it's very poor evidence for a scientific hypothesis In particular we know that the authors of the Bible weren't around in the Cambrian So they have no qualifications to speak of what happened However the rocks were there and it's when we analyze the rocks We find more accurate evidence what happened at that time the evidence is clear and the evidence doesn't speak for itself Okay, DNA doesn't talk rocks don't talk and fossils don't talk I speak for them or everybody speaks for them. And so what do I think about those things? What do I think how did they get there? What did they show every piece of evidence out there? supports what scripture says Motor okay, doesn't that suggest to you like a motor company a designer doesn't that suggest to you the fact that a motor is made Up of many parts that if one of the parts isn't working the whole thing's gonna stop working Don't you know like I know that if you stop putting oil in the engine of your car You're gonna be in big trouble doesn't that suggest to you the idea of irreducible complexity and of course professor Myers Suggests that I'm pushing the metaphor too far, but I'm still not convinced that I am I'm just a layperson and you say motor and I think motor. What can I say? it's hard for me to understand actually how people can look at that and study that and research that and not Acknowledge that there is some some something greater. Okay than what they're looking at It's not just nature alone So to speak because the complexity is so immense and when you look at that it just sort of speak screams You know, this is designed. I mean, this is created. This isn't just by chance They became convinced by about The second third decade of the 19th century that there are natural groups and not merely man-made groups and Louie Agassiz who's the person I've most closely studied the professor at Harvard University wrote in 1857 essay on classification in which he said All of these are there in nature and therefore it's a further dimension of What we would call natural theology that such order can only have been created by an ordering mind that that order reflects God's intelligence you have to have DNA for all of these things because DNA Gives you the proteins which which make up the cellular components Okay So it's kind of like which came first the chicken and the egg problem because you got to have the cell to protect the DNA But you got to have the DNA to make the parts of the cell So it becomes kind of a problem in that sense about which came first, but the thing is is that with the DNA? You can't just throw a bunch of DNA bases together Okay in a test tube and expect them all to come together and form something that's going to give you a certain protein It doesn't happen. It won't happen. It's a random putting together of DNA Base, it doesn't lead to anything but a big mess and that that is the central issue is how do you get this genetic information there? How do you I mean we're finding even in DNA, you know, we talked about the gene You know the parts that codes for protein but the stuff in between the 98% of our DNA that they call junk It isn't junk. It does something. It's really really important in regulating those genes. So this is very complex How do you put this together by random chance over time? No one would think that you know, we look at forensics and all those things today That just wouldn't make any sense. You would know it was designed you would know that and again I think it all goes back to just denying that because they don't want to be responsible to the Creator God She's saying that genetic information is a problem because she means that it's a problem for the evolutionists How can information so detailed be by accident? Does it look like to you? There's a designer on the other side of it As far as we know information doesn't come about by a random chance process anytime you pick up a book and there's information in it You wouldn't say well that was an explosion in a typewriter You'd say well somebody wrote that book that information has to come from the mind And therefore the information of DNA has to come from minus consistent with creation not consistent with mutations and natural selection producing that information We believe in mutations and natural selection, but we don't believe they add brand new information to the to the genome Again a good point. You got to give it to him a book suggests a writer You know if you were to assemble a bunch of letters and just randomly shake them up You wouldn't end up with the book It's ridiculous to us and I think this is one of the key questions when it comes to the difficulty many people have with the theory of evolution that you just put a bunch of things together and poof a world All right, so listen carefully to what you're about to hear and see if you can satisfactorily make the connection between myself and the fly Because last time I checked I looked nothing like a fly and I must admit I have a hard time imagining that 700 million years ago That would have been different. I accept natural selection. You can see it This is not a theory natural selection is something we observe Artificial selection the same way artificial selection man does the selecting or people do the selecting like selecting for dogs with desired traits Natural selection we would say nature is doing the selecting so And one of the things that evolutionists would say I mean the ideas are that well over time, you know You start with one cell and then it becomes two cells It has to replicate or you're not going to get anywhere like you said, you know, you've got to have replication but over time Changes are going to occur, you know additions of genetic information are going to happen Mutations are going to happen and natural selection is going to be there and it's going to select what's best for that environment and over time This leads you from some sort of single-celled organism to us today For instance now we have humans and chimpanzees, right? We have no problem distinguishing the two for most of us But what we're saying is if you go back to the root if you go back to roughly six or seven million years ago There was a population of primates That gave rise to both humans and chimpanzees Take a note as the conversation continues of how many times it seems like the answer is well It just happened Of course that to me suggests happenstance and it's just a normal guy living in the normal world Not too many things in my life happen by accident most of the time there's a controlling intelligence behind it But of course, I'm betraying my bias there So you do the work yourself see if you can find how many times in the conversation Happenstance seem to be the governing factor Now mutations cannot be produced according to need You can't have a creature that would love to fly. Let's say some reptile saying I'd really like to fly I think I'm going to put a lot of thought to it and evolve some wings. It doesn't work that way random purposeless goalless mutations Would have to come up purely by chance with no objective or goal in mind Come up with all of the genes all the integrated gene products to produce wings and then you could select them They believe that one kind of animal changed into another but the study of genetics Shows you can have great variation within a kind you can see natural selection You can see speciation, but it's always within a kind and the biblical kind is more like a family Level of classification following class order family gene species. The problem is those mechanisms don't work I mean we know from science today what we call observational science that we can do in the lab We know that yes mutation does occur and natural selection does occur, but it doesn't add anything It doesn't make new structures. It doesn't make new things. You can't go from an apple to a lemon So to speak you're not going to get there by the mechanisms that we know of today By mutation by natural selection now, they might say well, there's some mechanism. We just don't know about Okay, you know and so that's a problem and that's why it really helps us know That's why we have to go back to our starting points. What are our starting points? Is it that God did this or is it that nature did this by itself? Some mechanism that we're just not quite sure about you can tell she's not happy at all with that Answer she's looking for something more and watch for it. You'll notice a little later that dr Myers makes the exact same statement. He's just not Quite sure. Are you happy with that answer? as you start with a fish that Is living in a marginal environment kind of brackish water perhaps or water? that's you know, sometimes gets rather unpleasantly stagnant and what you've got there is a fish that needs a way to breathe and What they'll do is they'll do initially they'll do simple things like gulp water or go bear I mean it'll rise to the surface and take a gulp of air and That gives them the oxygen to keep going and we've got fish like this like that that do this right now Then there would have been other adaptations things like building stronger fins because they're in shallow water and they need sometimes if you're really shallow water, it's more efficient to use your fins to move along the muck rather than to swim as a more deep water fish would do and These fish acquired a set of pre adaptations the acquired a set of properties that Allowed them to cope with the environment outside the water and So it was a fairly small step after that for one of the fish to Emerge, you know, not not all the time. It would come up every once in a while to get a snack at cockroaches in the land or whatever and Then there's selection now for for these land fish to be more and more tolerant of an arid environment Notice the fairly fine point that we cannot self-select Mutations that we think will be advantageous to us This of course from an anatomist and this flies in the face of what PZ Myers is suggesting when he's talking about the fish That you know begins to find a way to adapt its fins so that it can effectively walk in the shallow water Of course eventually setting its offspring up to be the first fish that walked up onto Dry land if we can't select for mutation, then it just happens by chance I think that is perhaps the hinge of much of this debate do things happen by chance or do they happen by design? You're gonna have to answer that one for yourself We define evolution as molecules to man Okay going from some sort of thing on outside an organism to people today Whereas what they talk about a lot of times or what they're seeing is when they say evolution They're seeing things on a very small scale so to speak changes within a kind of animal like the Bible talks about like it We see this today. We see this happening, but they're saying oh just give it enough time If you just give it enough time You're gonna see you know, whatever a dinosaur evolved into a bird But the problem is the mechanism does not work mutations and natural selection simply don't do that. Nothing's perfect Everything has to change a little bit and so what we've got is chance mutation this that's that's generating a diversity of forms and Then you've got selection that's imposing itself on these and those forums that happen to have a combination that Makes the most efficient Replication will then take over the environment. See the key is how do you get genetic information? How do you get information that will make a placenta or a liver or a kidney? Or an eye this isn't just a single dumb luck stroke. This is a whole integrated system of complexity Sort of like when the symphony orchestra plays when they're tuning up you think no way We're not going to get any music out of this group. It's chaos, but the conductor goes tick-tick and And the music happens and it's beautiful and you went from complexity to integrated complexity See the word science means knowledge and Usually we use the word science to talk about our technology, you know observational science ability technology But you can have knowledge concerning history and knowledge that you gain by observation Because when you're talking about science what you're talking about is a process that is built on evidence Now we have to have ways to test our hypotheses. That's that's fundamental to doing good science a Scientist wants to understand cause So that you didn't simply look at the earth and record Well, where is it this kind of rock or that kind of mineral but try to understand why it's exactly the way it is And and the evidence became overwhelming that there was a history to it Lyle proposed the principle that scientifically We should always prefer to find Causes that we can understand creationists and evolutionists all have the same observational science That's why you can have a creationist and evolutionist working side-by-side on the Hubble telescope Or building a jet airplane or working in a laboratory mixing chemicals together because they're the things you can all do in the present and agree upon Creationists and evolutionists can build a rover spacecraft and put it on Mars and they'll agree on that But what they disagree on is the origin of Mars. So that's that's the real issue That's the difference and that's what we need to understand probably the most common objection. Is that we're not doing good science We're not scientists. We're not doing good science, even though I have a PhD from a well-respected University I'm not doing science. But again, it goes back to the definition of what is science? Okay and and we need to really divide it into two categories that we're talking about science that we go in the lab and do because I Can do that just like anyone else can and really what I do in the here and now as far as science in the lab Kind of thing that gives us MRIs and airplanes and and vaccine has nothing to do with Darwin nothing many of the scientists of Darwin's time did not accept that even though they liked the idea that there was a Materialistic explanation of origins for example Thomas Huxley being an atheist loved the idea that Darwin seemed to have a way To explain how everything come to be without any kind of divine intervention all by a natural process He loved that aspect and thus was a champion of Darwin But Thomas Huxley himself was never really convinced that Darwin's explanation of random change in natural selection Could achieve the results that we see in biological systems In Darwin's day, they had a very complex view of the cell they recognized it There had to be some interesting phenomena going on in there That there was no there was no claim That it was a simple bubble of protoplasm Charles Darwin himself Published a number of papers where he used this this wonderful tool They had the microscope which reached the limits of resolution in about the time Darwin lived This using the microscope to look inside cells and see what's going on But no they didn't have the idea that things are simple they knew There was a lot of complexity there, and they also knew that there of necessity had to be complexity there because cells reproduced And the mechanism was unknown, but they knew there had to be something amazing going on in there. What is science? You'll see that the professors from the creation Museum Emphasize that question time and again They say that just because we can do science today in the lab that we can all agree on you know kind of things that Make airplanes fly and help us discover vaccines and etc doesn't mean that looking back We can say with any kind of authority or certainty that we know 100% how all of this came to be and I think they would say that it's important to know the answer to that question The Cambrian explosion to us is a powerful evidence against evolution you have all these different kinds of creatures and body plans Just appearing out of nowhere. There's no precursors. No transitional forms in the Precambrian rocks to explain how any Single-celled microscopic creatures could evolve into trilobites or whatever and For from a creationist perspective we view the the Cambrian what is defined as the Cambrian as the onset of the flood That is the the rock layers below the Cambrian are probably pre-flood sediments Maybe even sediments from day three and creation week when God caused dry land to appear they're devoid of fossils by and large and And then you have this explosion of complex life Do you believe that there is an organism in the fossil record that clearly? Represents a stage in the evolution of A to C by way of B In other words a transition No, we have no way of knowing whether that's true in fact as evolutionists themselves have declared There's no way to be certain that any particular fossil we see in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other What would be a better name that I might be willing to accept than transitional form? You could say do you believe that when you look at biological systems or fossils or living animals? Do you believe that you see? Traits physical traits that are sort of between a and C. Yes Yes, I see people that have long arms and medium-sized arms and short arms I see people with different shades of hair When I look at living creatures I can see that the eyes of a horseshoe crab are very different than the eyes of cats or dogs or people The question is are those differences best explained by being an evolutionary transition Which is arguing that we know that the organism was trance Transitioning from A to C. We don't know that if you tell me there's some Structure that's sort of intermediate in appearance for a particular thing. I Can accept that as you seem unreasonable to me is what does it mean? That's it. That's the issue. I Think the point is unique to the Christian perspective that those coming from the atheist evolutionist side would be defying the evidence because they don't want to submit themselves to the God that would exist on the other side of the creation equation Of course, I'm not proposing spin I'm describing the facts of the case That for instance if you if you look at the evolution of the universe Founding of the Discovery Institute and the intelligent design movement you look at Philip Johnson He wasn't at all shy about saying that he was an evangelical Christian Who wanted to correct the materialist biased bias in this country and return us to our Christian roots? I mean he said things like that. Dr. Eugenie Scott Who's an atheist who was in my office interviewing me for the BBC when the Creation Museum was open said you start with the Bible I said that's right. You're not prepared to change what the Bible says in regard to creation in the flood and so on That's correct. She said see that's not science That's religion because she said we start with evidence and develop our theories and we're prepared to change our theories as new evidence comes Along she said that's science and that's the problem with you guys. You're not on about science. You're on about religion And so then I said to her dr. Scott. You're an atheist. Yes, you don't believe in God. That's right So the Bible is not relevant to this discussion, that's right and I I said so You you don't believe the Bible is real history or anything like that. No, and you're an atheist, right? There is no God That's right. So are you prepared to change that? That conflict in the 17th century Stimulated very well-meaning people to say surely since God We all agree Created the world and therefore it as well as Inspiring the Bible God has given us two books and metaphorically is the literal book Of the Bible and then the other book the book of nature So this encouraged the view that It could not be harmful to religion to study nature because God had created nature You know a lot of Christians haven't really thought about these issues They're inclined to think that all you can believe in the the Big Bang and the Bible and there's there's no conflict or tension there So you'll find many good scientists who also go to church and believe in God and all this kind of stuff But they don't make the claim that their belief is Testable or that there is the kind of physical material evidence for it that we expect of a scientific proposition Here's the bottom line When you don't take God's Word as written in Genesis 1 to 11 And if you're using the secular ideas of millions years in evolution to reinterpret the days reinterpret the creation account you do two things one is You're undermining the history that's foundational to all doctrine The second thing which is really the crux of the issue You're undermining the very Word of God itself just as in a courtroom It's a matter of some jury weighing evidence You begin without presuming the guilt that is you you are you are committed to being questioning and to Suspending your conviction if you're going to be an honest judge or an honest jury the difference between a courtroom where there is a an endpoint that even if The jury may be very frustrated that there are a lot of unknowns They still have to come up with an answer and sometimes they'll say Not guilty when they think the person really is but the evidence is inconclusive all of this illustrates How complex the question is and perhaps even illustrates that for most situations Human beings can't be positive things the idea that well There's a simple matter of the fact here and therefore we ought to be able to uncover it Yes, or no that kind of certainty and truth Classically and still today comes from mathematics where you have given a few certain Assumptions that we will all agree that what a straight line and a point is then QED It will be proved at the end of our of our structure but one of the important developments in Western civilization and Western science is to show that Knowing about the natural world isn't identical to a mathematical proof that it's a lot more similar to Building up a courtroom case. So the word evidence is actually Helpful if we're trying to get a grasp of why these issues are so difficult I believe that there is indeed a greater God and my career working in science, which involved about 40 years of bench Science at some of America's premier medical research institutions It was in no way hampered by my biblical views because I stuck to empirical science the observable the repeatable the testable Never had a single complaint from a student in all those years Because I stuck to what I could see. I Didn't say where did we get kidneys from? I? Said this is the way the kidney looks. This is the way it's put together It's a little different than a camel or a mouse, but it's fundamentally the same The functional unit is the nephron it engages in three processes filtration absorption and secretion Here's where these processes occur if somebody didn't believe me they could go and look for themselves but I never bothered at the end of the lecture to blow smoke in my students ears and Speculate on how we come to have kidneys from no kidneys at all Doctor suggests that he would have been Storytelling if he would have taken that next step to try and explain to his students the origin of the liver I think the implication is that they're telling stories that support their worldview that there is no God and we have no need for a God in our universe if it just occurred on its own and of course the atheists would be very quick to point out that the Creationists are you know telling stories making up stories make-believe stories about this distant God in the sky who? You know by the power of his will Created everything that is out of nothing. Well, which story makes sense to you. That's the real question Every major scientific Discovery has been made by a scientist who thought outside the box of the majority view He started with a different assumption and he came to a different conclusion. And so he found the cure for this or he found a better Technological solution to this problem because he challenged he questioned the assumptions of the majority that there are two separate non-overlapping fields here of what is spiritual or religion Understanding of the meaning of life and the nature of humankind is totally distinct and has nothing to do with biological finding But of course there are other Evolutionists and Dawkins is not the first. He's only one of a long line of evolutionary biologists who have Pushed beyond what their science can and cannot tell us And drawn religious consequences Claiming that if you understand Natural selection properly you cannot simultaneously believe that God is responsible for life You see think about it. Oh, yeah, but the secular scientists say so we can reinterpret this Okay The secular scientists say there never never was a resurrection because I've never seen a man rise from the dead will be reinterpret the resurrection Oh, no, you can't reinterpret that secular scientists say you can't have a virgin birth in humans. Shouldn't we reinterpret that? No, you can't can't reinterpret that secular scientists would say someone can't raise a man called Lazarus from the dead. Should we reinterpret that? Oh, no, I can't reinterpret that. What about over in Genesis? Well secular scientists say big bang in millions years So we do need to reinterpret Genesis So our hour is done as usually is the case when an hour is good. It goes by just like that We hope that we've helped you take a few steps Towards clarity on this issue it's very clear to me watching this and also when I was shooting it that the Seven experts are totally convinced in their own mind of their position. They believe that they know what is right and true It's our hope that throughout this hour we've helped you take a few steps along that path yourself because I think we would all agree that the origin of our species and the question as to what's in play here creation or evolution is Probably the biggest question any of us are ever going to have to answer. Thanks very much for watching. I'm Todd Cantillon