0:04

ID the Future, a

0:06

podcast about evolution and intelligent

0:09

design.

0:12

Welcome to ID the Future. I'm your host,

0:14

Andrew McDermott. Today I'm excited

0:16

to welcome to the show Dr. David Berlinski

0:19

to discuss his book, Science After Babel,

0:22

available from Discovery Institute Press.

0:25

Dr. Berlinski is a senior fellow at Discovery

0:27

Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

0:30

He received his PhD in philosophy from

0:32

Princeton University and was later

0:34

a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics

0:37

and molecular biology at Columbia

0:39

University.

0:40

Dr. Berlinski has taught philosophy, mathematics,

0:43

and English at such universities as

0:45

Stanford, Rutgers, the City University

0:48

of New York,

0:49

and the University of Paris.

0:52

And of course, he's author of numerous books, many

0:54

of which you'll have heard of, including A Tour

0:56

of the Calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm,

0:59

Newton's Gift, and The Devil's Delusion.

1:02

His latest is called Science After

1:04

Babel.

1:05

It's a collection of essays challenging the

1:07

prevailing beliefs and pronouncements of

1:09

contemporary science with his unique

1:11

blend of deep learning, close reasoning,

1:14

and sharp wit. In

1:16

it, he reflects on everything from Newton, Einstein,

1:19

and Godel to catastrophe theory,

1:21

information theory, and the state of modern

1:24

Darwinism. David Gelernter,

1:26

professor of computer science at Yale University,

1:29

calls Science After Babel a striking

1:32

and beautiful and absolutely necessary

1:34

book. David Berlinski at his

1:36

spectacular best. David,

1:39

welcome to the show.

1:40

Thank you so much, and thank you for that magnificent

1:43

introduction. Oh, absolutely.

1:46

Well, this book, Science After Babel,

1:49

it's an anthology of your essays related

1:51

to science, some of them recent and

1:53

some of them stretching back a while.

1:55

If you had to single out one or two of

1:57

the most prominent recurring themes in the book,

1:59

the book, what would you say they are?

2:02

Well, you know, every

2:04

writer likes very much to think

2:07

that there's a deep inner continuity

2:09

in his books. I've written, I don't

2:11

know, 15 or 16 books now. And

2:14

in the privacy of The Night, when

2:17

I contemplate those books, I like to think that they're

2:20

really deeply connected. Perhaps

2:22

other people will find it a little bit of

2:24

a stretch to find the point of continuity,

2:26

but certainly in this book, the essays

2:28

that are collected in this book, there's

2:30

a general theme of neither

2:33

quite perplexity nor mystification,

2:35

perhaps puzzlement is the better word, about

2:37

the relationship between

2:39

the most abstract part of

2:41

the sciences, which is mathematics,

2:44

and the physical world that ostensibly

2:47

it illuminates. I've always found

2:49

that mysterious and many of

2:51

the essays in this book,

2:53

especially the more technical ones, play

2:56

out in that rather

2:58

striking mystery that this enormous

3:00

apparatus of entirely abstract

3:03

concepts should prove to be fundamental

3:06

in the physical sciences, not

3:08

quite so fundamental in the biological

3:10

sciences, and just why is

3:13

that? Those are the kind of questions

3:16

that I think link

3:18

one essay to another in a kind

3:21

of daisy chain. And I can't think of anybody

3:24

who would be better to address some of these

3:26

things than you. I like

3:28

the metaphor you pick for science in

3:30

this book. In the introduction, you

3:32

set it up for as you describe modern science

3:34

as an immense tower.

3:36

Some parts of it are sound and sturdy,

3:39

others less so. If we are moved

3:41

to admire its size, you say, we

3:43

are also bound to acknowledge its faults.

3:46

So why, where did the tower

3:49

analogy come from? And why is it a good way

3:51

to look at things today? Both the

3:53

tower analogy and the title of the book

3:56

really go back to Breughel's magnificent

3:59

painting, the tower.

3:59

or Babel, and

4:02

the painting goes back to the biblical story

4:05

of Babel. A great tower

4:07

is constructed and God

4:09

looks at the architects, sees their ambition,

4:12

which is to reach the heavens, and

4:14

in an inspired moment of

4:16

confusion,

4:18

sees to it that the architects cannot

4:21

communicate in a common language. So

4:24

that the tower increasingly is

4:26

constructed, but it lacks all

4:29

coherence, and it cannot rise

4:31

past a certain point because of the confusion

4:33

of the architects.

4:35

And some of that is true of modern

4:38

science, but at the same

4:40

time we must recognize if that

4:42

is a fact, it is also a fact,

4:44

that the tower is still standing.

4:47

In many respects it's like a cathedral,

4:50

incomplete. The aspirations

4:53

of a gothic cathedral are always

4:55

incomplete because the cathedral cannot

4:57

penetrate the heavens. It can only suggest

5:00

the heavens, but at the same time the

5:03

cathedral of modern science is incomplete.

5:06

Perhaps more in Bruegel's sense because

5:09

the architects are not really speaking

5:11

the same language. They're not communicating

5:14

successfully.

5:15

Yeah, and that can certainly make it hard with all

5:17

the different scientific disciplines, the

5:20

tendency to overblow results

5:23

or at least make them worth the

5:26

funding, the

5:28

media not understanding certain

5:30

aspects of science. It can

5:32

take somebody from within to point

5:35

out the frailties, and

5:37

that you certainly have done. Well,

5:39

the first section is titled Darwin

5:42

Checking In.

5:43

Here in four essays you give Darwinism

5:45

its due without ever falling into

5:47

anything like boosterism for the theory. In

5:50

fact, there are moments when one could be forgiven for

5:52

seeing you as damning evolutionary theory

5:54

with faint praise. Is

5:57

Darwinism really do anything or are you just

5:59

having fun at a different time?

5:59

dying theories expense in this section?

6:02

Having fun at a dying theories

6:05

expense? No, I don't think

6:07

that was ever my intention. Look,

6:10

there is something right

6:13

about Darwinian theory. I'm

6:16

not talking about the evidence,

6:18

say the fossil evidence or the genetic

6:21

evidence or

6:22

the common idea of universal

6:25

common descent. I'm not talking about those

6:28

evidentiary patterns which may or

6:30

may not support the theory. I'm talking about the

6:32

idea that

6:33

it was a relief to

6:35

the biological sciences in the 19th century

6:38

for a time at least to get rid of teleological

6:41

notions, to get

6:43

rid of theological notions, and

6:45

see what they could accomplish without them

6:48

by imagining

6:50

a mechanism that had no

6:52

power

6:53

of forward contemplation that

6:56

worked in the present by

6:58

something like an optimizing process.

7:01

That's the essence of

7:02

Darwinian thought. And the mathematical

7:05

model for that, or the mathematical structure,

7:07

is a Markov process which was clarified

7:09

in the 20th century. A finite state

7:11

Markov process or a probability

7:14

transition system so

7:16

that some system reaches a certain state.

7:19

It is now the present. It's being

7:21

influenced by the environment. And

7:23

between its state and the environment

7:26

and its probability

7:27

calculus, it goes

7:29

to the next state. It goes to the next state

7:32

blindly. That turns

7:34

out to be quite a powerful idea.

7:36

It did not

7:39

turn out to be as powerful

7:41

as it really is until quite

7:43

recently with the advent of chat

7:45

GPT, which is simply

7:47

at its heart

7:49

a finite state Markov process, a Darwinian

7:51

process. That's not all it is,

7:54

but anyone who says,

7:56

as I may have said in the past, poo-poo, this is

7:58

a system that can't do anything is wrong. It can

8:00

do something, but it can do something

8:03

only in a highly constrained,

8:06

designed environment. That's something

8:08

worth noting too. So if I said poo

8:10

poo in the past, I reject and denounce what I said.

8:13

Not quite poo poo, not making

8:15

fun of a dying theory, but I

8:17

like your formulation very much, giving

8:20

the devil his due. I

8:23

like the way you put that. And I also

8:25

like the idea of walking

8:27

away for a time from our religious

8:30

comforts, if you will, collectively,

8:33

and giving this

8:35

idea, this methodological naturalism,

8:38

this materialism, this

8:40

stuff a chance. And

8:43

in the process, being able to explore

8:46

and illuminate its limitations.

8:49

So I really like the way you phrase

8:51

that. I think you're absolutely right. I think there are

8:53

two things to appreciate or to be sympathetic

8:56

with. And there are contraries.

8:58

They're not the same thing. On the one hand,

9:01

in order to understand physical

9:03

phenomenon, we know perfectly

9:06

well, say from 20th century physics, that

9:08

you need a variety of habeously

9:11

complicated mathematical structures.

9:14

General relativity, for example,

9:17

or quantum field theory. These are

9:19

not easy things to assimilate into

9:21

grass.

9:22

On the other hand, to understand

9:25

the variety of

9:27

other phenomena, it's

9:30

a big mistake to ignore some very simple

9:33

mathematical structures, like a finite

9:35

state Markov process. It's a big mistake to

9:37

say it must be mathematically

9:39

exotic and elaborate. That doesn't

9:42

seem to be the case.

9:43

So the ability to acknowledge simplicity,

9:46

where it exists,

9:49

is important in science. Well, we can get it,

9:51

sure. But that

9:53

sort of follows the historical

9:56

development of Western science, I

9:58

like to say.

9:59

because it's a convenient formula,

10:02

that all of Western science, this incredibly

10:05

elaborate panorama, is really

10:07

based on

10:08

two distinct ideas. One is the idea of the

10:11

algorithm, which is nothing more

10:13

than a sequential series of steps ending

10:15

somewhere or other. And that idea

10:17

goes right back to the 17th century, and

10:21

it's completely discrete.

10:23

The other idea is the calculus,

10:25

the body of mathematical analysis based

10:27

on the continuum, which is not discrete, it's

10:30

continuous. And these two ideas

10:32

inform every part of intellectual

10:35

life, but in quite different ways. And very

10:37

often you see them competitively engaged.

10:41

What can be done algorithmically

10:43

can't quite be done in terms of

10:46

the analytic apparatus of mathematics

10:48

and vice versa. They're very

10:50

distinct. You see the distinction

10:52

emerging again and again and again.

10:55

But to have those two ideas fixed

10:57

as the chief ideas of

11:00

Western science, I think it's very helpful.

11:02

Well, once you check in with Darwin

11:04

and the theory these days, the

11:07

next section in your book is checking out of

11:10

Darwin. It begins with you checking out

11:12

of leaving the US and going to Paris.

11:15

That very quickly becomes about you checking

11:18

out from the great house of Darwinism, so to speak.

11:20

That first essay in this section is particularly

11:23

evocative, I thought. You tell about your

11:25

time in Paris with the great mathematician

11:27

Marcel Schutzenberger. Much

11:29

of this essay reads like a novel, not

11:31

surprising, since you've had some success there.

11:34

But what we find here is that Schutzenberger

11:37

is a very colorful character. And

11:39

that you and he begin building a mathematically

11:41

rigorous case against modern Darwinism.

11:44

This is what, the 1970s? And

11:47

we later see these ideas taken up and

11:49

further developed by Bill Demsky,

11:51

Stephen Meyer, Douglas Axe. So

11:54

for those of us who follow the history of the evolution

11:56

debate, it's pretty exciting stuff.

11:59

Tell us about that. to Paris and those meetings

12:01

with Schützemberger, Marco, as you

12:03

came to call him. Yeah, everybody called

12:05

Schützemberger Marco. That's how

12:07

he liked to be called. He was not

12:10

only an unforgettable character for me,

12:12

but for almost everyone who knew

12:14

him. He came from an old, established,

12:17

distinguished Alsatian family. His father

12:19

was a very important physician, and he

12:21

himself was not trained as a mathematician.

12:24

He was trained as a physician,

12:26

and he practiced as a physician. But

12:28

he was overwhelmingly interested

12:30

and curious about mathematics, and

12:32

he became a self-made mathematician,

12:35

which is an unusual accomplishment, a very, very

12:37

distinguished self-made mathematician,

12:39

interested chiefly in finite mathematics,

12:42

graph theory, and algebra.

12:43

But he had an extraordinary life.

12:46

I don't know whether I have even begun

12:49

to suggest the full scope of his life.

12:51

He was in the resistance during the Second World

12:53

War.

12:54

And as he said to me, well

12:57

after the Second World War had

13:00

been ended, almost everyone in France

13:02

now claims he was in the resistance or she

13:04

wasn't the resistance. He asked me to

13:06

take that with a grain of salt, but he was also

13:09

deeply involved romantically

13:11

with someone, a Chinese woman involved

13:14

in the revolution. And he said he came within

13:17

a whisker

13:18

of following her into the maelstrom

13:20

of the Chinese Revolution. At the last minute,

13:23

he drew back, and she disappeared forever

13:25

into the revolution. An extraordinary story

13:27

of its own right.

13:29

He was a very combative personality,

13:32

very engaging, very, very funny.

13:34

He spoke English with a thick French

13:37

accent, but he spoke it perfectly, grammatically

13:39

perfectly. And of course, like all

13:42

highly intelligent men, he had nothing

13:44

but amused contempt for

13:46

everyone else,

13:48

except for a handful of distinguished

13:50

mathematicians. And when I say amused

13:52

contempt, that's exactly the feeling he had for

13:54

me. Affectionate fond, amused

13:57

contempt.

13:57

He thought I was rather a slow withered imbecile.

14:00

And he probably had good reason to think

14:02

so. He was extremely fast, extremely

14:05

sharp, and extremely skeptical

14:08

about everything connected with Darwinian

14:10

theory for two reasons. One, he thought the

14:13

structure of the theory was absurd, but

14:16

also he thought there was a very important tradition

14:18

in French biological thought which had

14:20

nothing to do with Don being

14:23

unjustly neglected.

14:25

For example, he was very close to the great

14:27

zoologist Pierre Grasset who

14:29

wrote, I think, 10 volumes, a history

14:32

of animal forms or something like that. I

14:34

have the title in French somewhere. It's not really

14:36

read in the United States in the English-speaking world, but

14:38

an extremely important book in the French

14:40

zoological tradition. And

14:43

Grasset was also completely

14:45

indifferent to Darwinian theory, said it was

14:47

missing the fundamentals in the organization

14:49

of life. And Marco, of course, felt a

14:51

very French solidarity

14:54

with that strand of French

14:55

biological thought, which to this

14:57

day is not deeply committed

15:00

to Darwinism. So very much

15:02

a Darwin skeptic for mathematical

15:05

reasons, it sounds like. Mathematical,

15:08

cultural, traditional, historical.

15:11

Marco always said that when he read

15:13

someone like Richard Dawkins, he simply

15:16

could not construct a real theory

15:18

around it. And I think he was right.

15:21

When he tried to construct a real theory

15:23

around it,

15:24

he found that the theory very quickly

15:27

opened up to any number of

15:29

serious difficulties. And I was extremely

15:32

pleasantly surprised. Oh, maybe

15:34

six months ago, Andrew, I

15:36

picked up a journal. I don't

15:39

remember why it picked up. You know, I was a member

15:41

of the Institute of Advanced Studies outside

15:43

of Paris for a year. And I knew

15:45

all the mathematicians there. And I picked up one of

15:47

their journals. I saw an article by an outstanding

15:50

French mathematician, a man by

15:52

the name of Gromov, G-R-O-M-O-V.

15:54

And I was just

15:56

thumbing through the article. It was his own take

15:59

on the philosophy of the world.

15:59

biology from a mathematical perspective.

16:02

And I was astonished to see that one of the arguments

16:05

that Marco had been advancing in the late 70s

16:07

and early 1980s was right there on the page.

16:10

Gromov, of course, had not read our work, but

16:12

he had come to the same conclusion independently. It

16:15

was an astonishing indication

16:17

of the way certain ideas, even

16:19

if not fully developed, have a serpentine

16:22

way of slithering through history and

16:24

reappearing at a later time.

16:26

Yeah. Well, that's especially

16:28

interesting given that in chapter

16:30

six of your book, Darwin and the Mathematicians,

16:33

the essay, you say that until recently, mathematicians

16:36

had been skeptical of any discipline

16:38

beyond mathematics. And

16:41

Schutzenberger, a very good example

16:43

of that. But you say that changed. And

16:46

one of the agents of change there being

16:48

Erwin Schrödinger and his 1944 book,

16:51

What is Life?

16:53

Did Schrödinger encourage the biologists

16:55

and physicists in their materialism?

16:57

What was changing around this time?

17:00

No, no, I think Schrödinger appealed

17:03

to the biologists because they knew he was one terrific

17:06

physicist. And he was a very sympathetic

17:08

physicist, bear in mind, not quite

17:10

like Heisenberg, who was not sympathetic at all,

17:13

and certainly not like Einstein or Bohr. But

17:16

Schrödinger had the ability and certainly had

17:18

the genius to approach biology from

17:21

the perspective of a physicist. No question about

17:23

that.

17:24

And come to radical conclusions

17:26

that in the mid

17:28

to late 1940s, biologists

17:31

had not yet seen clearly.

17:33

For example, that there must, there simply

17:36

must be a code script in every organism

17:39

to handle the matter of replication, duplication,

17:41

the next generation. You know, it

17:43

seems so obvious to us now

17:45

we say DNA. Yeah, that's, you know, that's

17:47

it. DNA, one generation to the next.

17:50

Information is transmitted, the cell divides,

17:52

the organism multiplies. What

17:55

could be, well, it wasn't quite so obvious

17:57

or Schrödinger published What is Life

17:59

be the case. And he also identified,

18:02

he said, the code has to be some sort of crystalline

18:05

structure. It's got to be stable enough to be

18:07

transmitted. Here, the book

18:09

is filled with

18:11

not necessarily powerful arguments,

18:13

but powerful insights. It's

18:15

a first rate mind leaving

18:18

his own field of quantum mechanics, addressing

18:21

theoretical biology, and

18:23

reminding biologists in the 1940s of what they

18:26

should have seen underneath their nose.

18:29

So someone looking up and giving

18:32

others in the field and related fields

18:34

the bigger picture. Don't forget that until 1944,

18:36

late 1944, 1945, although

18:40

biologists, biochemists

18:42

knew that there was something roughly

18:45

like DNA in the cell, it had been

18:47

misidentified until Avery's

18:50

great experiments identifying DNA

18:53

as a nucleic acid, not a protein.

18:55

This is another part of the story. Avery,

18:58

who certainly should have won a Nobel Prize

19:00

and was denied his prize, publishing

19:02

his stuff at exactly the moment

19:04

Schrodinger was publishing What is Life.

19:07

Schrodinger's saying, this has got to be

19:09

there. Avery's saying, I found

19:11

it.

19:12

And do you think the human toll of the great

19:14

wars and the looking

19:16

forward to the nuclear age and

19:19

Cold War, do you think all that took a toll rather

19:21

on mathematics and on the sciences?

19:24

No, I really don't. I think

19:26

the history of mathematics

19:28

in the 1940s, 1950s, and thereafter, the

19:31

history of physics in the 1940s

19:33

and 1950s could be written by

19:35

an historian who knows nothing about the First

19:37

and Second World War.

19:39

The only relevance is the number

19:41

of talented mathematicians and physicists

19:44

who perished in those wars. That's something else.

19:46

Sure.

19:47

I think the physicists had a spasm of

19:49

guilt

19:50

after the first atomic bomb was

19:53

exploded in late 1945, August 1945,

19:56

I think so, or perhaps it was July, and

19:59

Oppenheimer's.

19:59

especially, you know, he approached Harry

20:02

Truman with his hands held hands that I have blood

20:04

on my hands and Truman said, get that lunatic

20:06

out of here. But that

20:08

moment passed very quickly.

20:10

Well,

20:11

well, the final essay in Section Two of

20:13

your book is actually new to this volume. So never

20:15

before released, it's titled A Long

20:17

Look Back, the Why Star Symposium.

20:20

Let me just read the opening paragraph for for

20:22

listeners. The Why Star Symposium

20:25

was held in April of 1966. Meeting

20:28

reflected a certain discontent that had been

20:30

simmering in biology for many years. In

20:32

his opening remarks, Peter Medawar put

20:35

the facts of the matter as plainly as possible. Quote,

20:38

the immediate cause of this conference is a

20:40

pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction

20:43

about what has come to be thought as the accepted

20:45

evolutionary theory in the English speaking world,

20:48

the so-called neo Darwinian theory. These

20:50

objections to current neo Darwinian theory are

20:53

very widely held among biologists generally,

20:56

and we must on no account, I think, make light of

20:58

them. End quote. So what

21:00

was the big deal about this meeting? And

21:02

why dredge up a conference from more than 50 years

21:05

ago? What happened there that's worth thinking

21:07

about today?

21:08

It's very, very unusual

21:11

in

21:11

biology or physics or even mathematics.

21:15

It happens occasionally, but it's very unusual

21:18

that you get a group of people together. And

21:20

instead of saying Yeah, yeah, instead

21:23

of giving one jury talk after another,

21:25

a few of the attendees

21:28

indicate a radical sense

21:31

of discontent. I think the first

21:33

and second Solovey

21:35

conference for physicists had something

21:37

of that same feeling, especially the one where Einstein

21:40

and Bohr haddered out about quantum

21:42

mechanics. That was 1927.

21:44

I think had some of the same effects. People are still

21:47

referring to the Solovey Congress of 1927 about Einstein's

21:49

thought experiment about

21:52

Bohr's reputation, things like that, which

21:55

led right to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen

21:58

famous

21:58

paper about quantum mechanics

22:01

being incomplete.

22:02

The Wistar Symposium was unusual, first

22:05

because it had really good people there,

22:07

very, very competent mathematicians,

22:09

biologists,

22:11

maybe one or two physicists, people

22:13

who were first-rate, second

22:16

because 1966-1967 was before

22:17

the enthronement of

22:23

Darwinian biology as a contemporary

22:26

orthodoxy. 1966, you

22:28

could and many people did say, now

22:31

that's just a 19th century fairy

22:33

tale, roughly on the same order of Freudian

22:36

psychology. That was perfectly

22:38

acceptable. You know, I was in graduate school

22:40

in the early 60s, and then at Stanford

22:43

in the late 60s as a professor. And in

22:46

the first place, no one ever

22:47

mentioned Darwinian

22:49

theory. It was simply not part

22:51

of the thought horizon of professors

22:53

or students. And in the second place, if you had said,

22:56

as mathematicians very often said, the stuff

22:58

is just preposterous, it makes no sense,

23:01

nobody would have said boo. That

23:03

changed.

23:04

That changed in a way that we certainly

23:07

do not understand. Darwin became contemporary

23:10

orthodoxy in the United States and

23:12

indeed in the English-speaking world very quickly,

23:14

perhaps with the publication of Richard Dawkins' The

23:16

Selfish Gene, which is a great book,

23:18

no question about that. But thereafter

23:21

it became enthroned and enthroned

23:23

became enshrined.

23:25

But in 1966, you could see fault

23:28

lines forming that have persisted

23:30

to this day. Murray Eden, a very good

23:33

electrical engineer and a friend from MIT,

23:36

and Marco from the University of Paris, just

23:38

here, where I later taught,

23:40

both presented some very serious

23:42

arguments that continue to resonate

23:45

to this day. You know, when I look back and

23:47

read Murray Eden's stuff from 1966, and when

23:49

I look at the contemporary journals, I

23:51

think I might have put it in this paper that I wrote. Every

23:54

now and then I'll come across somebody who said, you know,

23:56

I just read Murray Eden's paper from 1966 and nothing's

23:59

changed. Protein space is still

24:02

a mystery. When I was corresponding

24:04

with Dan Taufik in Israel about

24:07

his work in protein chemistry, he

24:09

said the same thing, you know, at the beginning

24:12

there's something like a miracle, which is roughly

24:14

what Murray Eden said.

24:16

And I think it's the problem that's been repeated

24:18

again and again and again, one generation after the

24:20

other, with the acknowledgment as

24:22

from Dan Taufik in Israel, a lot of other protein

24:25

chemists say the same thing. Well, look, yeah, yeah,

24:27

that's an

24:28

interesting problem, but sooner

24:31

or later evolution will figure it out. You

24:34

know, Crick, of the

24:36

famous Watson-Crick DNA

24:39

discovery, he was perfectly aware of this

24:41

problem and he wrote about it a little bit. He couldn't,

24:43

he had nothing to say about it, and that's, I think,

24:45

is true to this day, 2023. We

24:48

do not know how the protein family

24:50

originated and what

24:53

the topology in the entire

24:55

space of proteins is that

24:57

makes possible the development

24:59

of new proteins. It's still largely

25:02

unknown. Paul

25:03

And your book certainly reveals this

25:06

and is very honest about this. And just

25:09

like the Wistar conference,

25:11

it's a breath of intellectual fresh air. Well,

25:14

David, we need to leave it there for now.

25:17

I could be talking to you all day for

25:19

sure. David Okay, good talking

25:21

to you. Paul Thank

25:22

you, David. Listeners, I've barely

25:24

scratched the surface here with this book's

25:26

riches. I want to encourage you to get your

25:28

own copy and read it for yourself.

25:30

Order it at signsafterbabble.com.

25:33

That's the website. Hop on it, signsafterbabble.com.

25:37

For ID the Future, this has been

25:39

Mr. David Berlinski and Andrew

25:41

McDermott. Thank you for listening.

25:59

you