So a useful thing to learn about is graph symmetry. Well, that's not really true. Graph symmetry isn't all that useful. It's only useful if you want to do things the easy way. If you want to do things the hardest way possible, you can ignore graph symmetry. But maybe we want to do things in an easier way, so let's take a look at what this is all about. So when I graph, so here's the thing to remember. Anytime we take a look at the graph of any sort of function, we're looking at all points x, y that satisfy the equation of the graph. In some cases, it is possible that if we know one point is on the graph and what that means is that point, the x and y values, satisfy the equation of the graph, then I can immediately determine whether another point, x prime, y prime, is also on the graph. And this is the basis of symmetry. So there's three important cases of symmetry. First, suppose that for every point that's on a graph, so I have some point x, y that's on my graph of y equals half of x. Suppose that I also know that the point negative x, y is on the graph. So if I'm at the point x, y, this is on the graph. If I also know this other point negative x, y is also on the graph. So that's the same y coordinate, same height, but my x coordinate is the negative of what it was. It's flipped across the y-axis. Then if this is true for every point, wherever I am, if I have a corresponding point on the other side of the y-axis, then what I have is all the points on my graph on this side are reflected and show up as points on the graph on the other side as well, and so our graph is symmetric about the y-axis. Likewise, suppose I have, suppose I know that for every point on my graph, x, y, wherever it is, I have another point also on the graph x negative y. Same x coordinate, but my y coordinate is flipped. And so what I've done is I've gone from a point above the axis and I've flipped down to a point below the axis. So suppose this is also true for every point on the graph. So again, I have some point and I have a corresponding point on the other side of the axis. I have a point and there's another point on the other side of the axis. And again, what we see is that every portion of the graph that's up here has a portion of the graph that's down there. And so what's above the axis looks exactly like what's above the axis and so my graph has been reflected across the horizontal axis, the y-axis. And I say that the x-axis and I say that the graph is symmetric about the x-axis. And then finally suppose that for every point x, y on the graph. So here I am, I have a point x, y on the graph and let's say I know that there's another point minus x minus y also on the graph. That's the negative of the x value, the negative of the y value. So if I originally went out and up, I'm going to go back and down the same distances. So if I have a point over here, I have another point over there. And again, if this is true for every point on the graph, then wherever I am, there's another point. This is out x of y. There's another point back x down y right there. And again, for any other point, xy over x of y, back x down y and there's going to be another point there. And here what I have is I have a set of points over here and I know there's going to be a reflection of those points on the other side. And we say that this is symmetric about the origin. Well, how do you find symmetry? Well, to determine whether a graph of an equation is symmetric about the y-axis, x-axis, or the origin. Well, paper is cheap, so let's write down the equation of the graph. And the important thing is that for any point that's actually on the graph, they have to satisfy the equation of the graph. So whatever we write down, we should regard this as a true and unequivocably true statement about a relationship between x and y. So the next thing I'm going to do is I'm going to take my equation for the graph and I'm going to replace x with negative x. And if I end up with something that is still true, then I know that negative xy, my x-coordinate, negative x, my y-coordinate is the same, I know that this point is also on the graph of the equation. And the relationship between these two points, xy on the graph, negative xy also on the graph, tells me that the equation is going to be symmetric about the y-axis. Now I'll restore the original equation, I'll go back to the original equation and this time I'm going to replace y with negative y. And again, if the statement is still true, if I still get a true statement, then the point x negative y is also on the graph. So again, xy is definitely a point on the graph. If x negative y also satisfies the original equation, then this point is also on the graph. And the relationship between these two points, x-coordinates the same, the y-coordinates are opposites. And so that tells me that the graph is going to be symmetric about the horizontal, the x-axis. And then finally, I'll restore the original equation again. And this time I'll replace x with negative x and at the same time y with negative y. And once again, if the statement is still true, then the thing I know about the point negative x negative y is that it's a point on the graph. And that tells me the equation is symmetric about the origin. So for example, let's say I have the equation xy equals 1. Let's see what sort of symmetries we have. So I'll set down the equation xy equals 1. And again, I want to regard this as a true statement that for any point on the graph, I know that the product x times y, the x-coordinate multiplied by the y-coordinate, is going to be equal to 1. Now I do want to replace x with negative x in the equation. And I want to determine whether this is a true statement. And at this point, I have to do some fantastically difficult algebra. And I have to determine whether this statement is true. And, well, here, I know this statement is true. xy is equal to 1. I know that's true. And that says that negative xy equal to 1, that can't be true. If xy is equal to 1, negative xy can't be 1. So I know the statement is false. And that tells me that the graph is not symmetric about the y-axis. Well, I'll do the same thing. I'll replace y with negative y in the original equation. So here's my original equation, x times y equals 1. I'll replace it with negative y. And again, the question is, is this going to be a true statement? So after some fantastically difficult algebra, I then determined that, well, again, if this is false, I might as well take advantage of the work that I've already done. If this is false, this obviously the same statement also has to be false. And so, again, I know that this point x negative y can't be on the graph. And so once again, I know the graph is not symmetric about the x-axis. Finally, I'm going to replace x with negative x and y with negative y in my original equation and see if I get a true statement. So here, x I've replaced with negative x, y I've replaced with negative y. And I have the fantastically difficult algebra to evaluate. And well, I know this statement is true. So the question is, what do I know about this statement? And, well, it's the same statement. So it's a true statement. And that tells me that the point negative x negative y is also on the graph. And that tells me my graph is symmetric about the origin. I'll have another graph, y squared equals x cubed minus 4x plus 7. So again, I'll set down the equation. And I'll note that this is in fact a true statement. And I'll replace x with minus x and see if this is also a true statement. So let's take a look at that. Well, this is x becomes minus x, x becomes minus x. Everything else stays the same. After some fantastically difficult algebra, I get this statement. And, well, I know y squared is x cubed minus 4x plus 7. So that means y squared can't be this other expression. So this is a false statement. And the graph is not symmetric about the y-axis. This time I'll replace y with negative y. So again, negative y goes there. Everything else stays the same. After some fantastically difficult algebra, I get this statement here. And I know that this statement is a true statement. So I know that the statement is true, which means that the graph is going to be symmetric about the x-axis. And finally, I'll replace x with negative x and y with negative y. And I'll do the algebra. And I get this statement. And I already know this statement is false. So this statement is also false. It's the same statement. So the graph is not symmetric about the origin. And I might just summarize my results. The graph is symmetric about the x-axis, but not about the y-axis or the origin.


Alright guys, this is a quick video to showcase my top five apps in no particular order that utilised the Dynamic Island on the iPhone 14 Pro series. Now these are apps that you may not be familiar with and I found on the App Store which I thought might be worth letting you guys know about which are actually free. So let's go ahead and dive in and see how they are. So the first one I wanted to mention is Dynamic Notch. This is a very cool way to utilise the Dynamic Island at the top with some specific wallpapers which just make it seem a lot nicer to look at. I have iPhone 14 Pro Max so I will select this and then I will go over to curated wallpapers but you can also upload any of your own wallpapers that you may have downloaded via the your library button. Let's go and have a look here, so plenty of nice options. I'm going to select this one here and then at the bottom here you'll see a whole bunch of designs that you can select that will change the Dynamic Island. You can see that happens in real time. I really like this Batman symbol here in the sky. There's plenty of options that you can select with the free version. If you do scroll further to the right you'll start to see eventually some premium options down here which you'll have to pay for. In fact I think this one with the cap looks quite nice. All I have to do is now download this and then now I can use that to create my wallpaper in the background. So go to settings, wallpaper, customize, select that from my albums, just zoom out and there you go. It's covered the entire Dynamic Island here done and now it's ready. There you go right there at the top it looks pretty cool. Of course when you do have things playing in the background then this doesn't expand, it might overlap. For example if I play something on Spotify you'll see it just covers the symbol but this is mainly used if you don't have anything playing in the background and there's nothing utilizing the Dynamic Island then that is something that will display and showcase very nice. Like so. Number two is a desk clock. If you're the type of person that you just want to see a clock there which maybe ticks with the exact seconds along with the minutes throughout the day then that's something that you can also add to the Dynamic Island. Now that I've opened the app let's go into settings here, you'll see the option for Dynamic Island there at the top. All I need to do is now toggle this on, close the app and you'll see you've got the calendar and the time listed there in the Dynamic Island. If you just expand that that gives you the full date and the full time. Nice little thing just to have running in the background. If you close the app from the background it will still be there until you go back into the app and manually turn that off. Okay number three I came across this nice cooking app which is called PESL. If you select this there is a premium version that will allow you to find recipes on here itself if you do upgrade to the pro one. If you just want to keep it with the free one you'll have to add recipes yourself manually but there's a very quick and easy way to do that. What you can do is just Google a recipe. So I just went for carrot cake recipe. Let's just take the first one. Make sure you hit the share button and share it to the PESL app. There we go sharing. It's automatically picked up all of the ingredients and the steps required to cook this item so hit save. Let's go back to the app and there it is. So when you go in there if you hit start cooking you can actually add some timers for the various different steps. So step number one you can see you can do all of these things. If I go to next for example this one tells me I need to bake for 25-30 minutes. What I can do is add a timer. I'll be like oven reminder and I'll set that to 30 minutes and then I'll hit start and I'll do that when I'm on that specific step. If I'm on that step now I have 30 minutes to kill while I'm just waiting for the bake to finish in the oven. If I close the app you'll notice it goes to the dynamic island. It tells you that I'm on step three or four of this recipe. And this is how many minutes I have left. It's good to have an alarm on the sound so you do remember to take things out. But once that finishes down then it will give you an alert that it's ready to take out of the oven. You can just tap that and see very easily what step you are for the recipe. This allows you to maybe go ahead and do some other work or just check your social media, check some emails, just play around with your phone while still keeping an eye on the timer. So I think that's a very nice thing for people that love to cook and do use recipes on their phone.  Number four, hit the island. It's a nice game to pass the time. It actually utilizes the dynamic island at the top. It's kind of like a little ping pong game where it's a very common game. You just need to aim the ball to try and hit that dynamic island. It will tell you the scores along the bottom left there. And then it will change different modes as you're playing.  I do try to aim by staying inside my fat burn zone every time I am doing a workout, as you can see, for example, on one of the previous days, this tells me I was at 91% of the time during that workout. I was in the fat burn zone, which is listed there. Let's say, for example, I've now started a workout today. I'll hit start and I'll do a workout for about an hour. But during that time, I want to stay in the fat burn zone as much as possible. So over 90% I hit start. And this is in correlation to whatever workout you're doing. So you can plan that separately. Along the bottom, you have this bar, which tells currently with my heart rate, I'm at low intensity. The orange zone is where I need to be at. So when I'm doing running on the treadmill or lifting heavy weights, I can then make sure that I keep an eye of being in that orange zone all the time. If I close this, you'll see in a dynamic violent at the top. This gives me the total time that's passed. Give me a timer for me to complete the one hour workout. If I select this, I can now very easily see how far I am with my heart rate of being outside or inside of that fat burn zone. And it gives me a total number of calories and how many points I've earned for that specific workout thus far. I think that's a really good way because this is something I do track. And I know a lot of people, especially that do go to the gym quite often and they are very keen on making sure they track their fat burn and calories as much as they can. This will be very useful for having that running in the background in the dynamic island. So I think that's a very nice thing as well. And of course, once you finish, you can hit stop and that will be completed. So these are my top five free apps that I've noticed that are not the most common ones that you guys may already know about for the dynamic island. I'll have them all linked down in the description below. If there's anything else that you guys have come across, maybe in a different country's app store, which might not be available in my UK app store, then make sure to add a comment to let other users know about that. And if you did like this video and you found it useful, make sure to like, make sure to subscribe and I will catch you guys next time.


it relates to the title. We are doing something different as it relates to the title one. If this was not a pandemic year and we weren't getting the federal funds, we utilized the title one money for those title one schools to have, you know, this title one programming. So I want the community to know that's exactly what we did last year. We went as big as we thought we needed to go and that's what I'm trying to replicate. When we send out those invitations, that's regular. That's what we do normally in a non-pandemic year. But this year, as we did last year, we're also sending invitations to students and buildings that have not been identified to receive title one funding. So I definitely agree with you. And I just want to point out that that's exactly what we're doing. That's what we're trying to dream as big as we can. But we know we also have to make sure that we're staffing it with the right people who can provide the level of instruction that we're looking to provide for our students. Thank you. All right, anybody else? So seeing none, Dr. Bode, your superintendent's report. Thank you, Dr. McNeil. Yes, thank you very much. And thank you for all the suggestions. We're going to keep plugging away with this and I will, you know, as we have certain successes and I will keep you updated as to where we are. Dr. Bode? Well, first of all, I just wanted to report on this week. This was another major pivot week in the Allington Public Schools and the elementary. And I would have to say that it's gone very smoothly. There's been, you know, certainly, there's always some bumps along the way as you adjust to perhaps the schedule is not working quite the way you thought and you change, which seems to be the way of this year. But overall, it's really gone very smoothly. And I do want to acknowledge our administrators and our teachers and staff who really worked hard to make that the case. So well, next week we have another week and then we'll be moving into the secondary. So going from there, I want to talk about the, where we are with the high school project. The building committee met on this last Tuesday and approved a number of what they call owner-approved letters with regard to contractors for the project. Right now, we have, that's 97% complete. So when we go out for steel or we go out for tiles, many of those are for the entire project, not for just the steamling of the performing arts. So in terms of the orders, really, they've done a remarkable job as to where we are. One of the, one of the approvals that was given by the building committee was to have terrazzo floors through the entire, you know, the entrance from Mass App, as well as the entrance from the back of the school, actually we'll call it the field side of the school, and through the cafeteria. So that was one of the major amounts that were approved, which it all becomes several hundred thousand dollars. The, all in all, it's really moving along quite well. It's on schedule, it's on budget, so no concerns in that respect. I will say, however, that the hours that people are on the job, even during the weekday as well as Saturdays, has been increased to make sure that we meet the schedule date in which we can move into both of the new additions. And one of the reasons we're needing to have extra hours is some of the delays that happen initially with steel. And, you know, honestly, there was not much that our contractor or our OPM could do about that. So what the plan is to make sure that we have, we continue to have the February 11th, 2022, as the date that we will complete phase one, which are the two buildings that are being constructed on the on-front field. So the other thing I'll report about the high school is that we have chosen colors, finalized that this week, and they're mainly neutrals through the whole school. In the steam wing, we're going to stick with a series of blues that go through the different floors. And the ideas have a different blues. And it's a way of knowing where you are, which is something that was highly suggested by our Disability Commission, Fonte, as well as our architects. When we move to the humanities wing, that's going to be in other former tones of the maroons to sort of a lighter orange to a yellow. So it's going to be more in the warmer tones. But we have moved along in that respect, which is sort of significant, actually. And I remember when we did Thompson, it took us actually a lot longer time with the colors there than it's taken us with the high school. But I think people who run the interiors and are quite pleased and the colors were presented to the whole building community this last Tuesday with some modifications since then. So the other thing I will report was still working on technology, was still working on furniture and equipment, but that is also moving along. The one thing I would also encourage people to look at are the videos that we have on the website there. Our contractor, Consigli, has been working with the communications subcommittee to sort of stay up to date with the project. So that's where we are right now. The next meeting in the building committee is in early May, May 4th. And actually, before I really don't have much more, I just want to report on athletics. I don't know if there's any questions or comments that Mr. Thielman or Dr. Allison Ampe would have who are the members on the building committee. Dr. Vody led the effort to select the colors for the Thompson. They came out great. She led the effort to collect the selected. And does much more than just this, but the colors. The high school is much different. It's going to be very elegant and very much more subdued. It's a high school. Yes. And it's a community center. So it's very different. Yeah, well, I'm complimenting you. I mean, yeah, yes, no. So I would say, yes, Dr. Vody summed up the meeting and where we're at really well. We have more Taraz or Thiel, which is a very nice thing and good thing for, it's a service that lasts longer and is actually better for the ambiance of the building. And the colors that Dr. Vody and her committee picked out are wonderful. And we continue to be very excited about the project. I can't add anything more to it. Percy, Dr. Allison Ampe probably has more to add. She has her. She's got her hand up though. Oh, okay. Can you hear me? We can, yeah. Okay, great. So I just wanted to clarify that the colors that Dr. Vody is talking about are only the accent colors. The main colors for the floors, the walls are more neutral. The accent colors will be found in areas around the light wells, which will be kind of the pop of color in this whole big classroom space. I mean, the whole big hallway space. And I think around the lockers and stuff, we've had pictures and then there'll be like one accent wall in each of the classrooms with these different colors depending on which wing. So I didn't want people to hear this and think, oh my God, there's gonna be like a whole blue hallway or blue classroom or something. Well, thank you. That's actually a great clarification. I should have said that, that these are accent colors. The tone of the whole school is really neutrals, some beiges, light grays. It's, but you can't have the entire building being neutrals. You need some kind of color and so these are exactly right. And so these are exactly right. So if everybody, we should probably come back to the community sometime and show these diagrams. These are very, the light wells are quite large. They're elliptical. And I think on the longest part of it, if you can think of an ellipse, I think of something like 24 feet is quite large, but it's still an accent color just to give some color to the building, but it's going to be generally very subdued. I just want to state for the record that I contributed absolutely nothing to the color discussion. I have no talent, nothing to add. It was Dr. Bodie and her committee, they did all the work. They got the gifts for it. I'm serious, they're very, very good at this color thing. So yeah. Thank you. That's also good. And not that, you know, if people don't like a particular one that you're absolved from this, but I- I know I like it. I'm going to defend it. I'm going to defend it. I know you will. I think it's actually going to be quite lovely. And Dr. Allison Ampe is on the Interior's committee and one thing I will say is that there was high levels of agreement on the colors and what we eventually were given at a high level. People didn't like a particular color and it was pretty much universal. So what I think we ended up with is not ended up with, but what was finally decided upon, I think people are going to be very happy with. All right. The last thing is our athletic program. As you know, we've had four seasons this year and the Boston Globe and the Herald, they caught the Boston Globe and Boston Herald, all scholastic. We've had a number of students that have been honored in that. And I just, I would like to mention their names and what they were honored for. And each of the seasons will have these designations. So the Boston Globe and Boston Herald, all scholastic hockey team was Maddie Krakalko. And then there are three honorable mentions. For the girls Alpine skiing team, there was Catherine Klosterman for the boys Alpine skiing team. We had Oren Avahamie and for the girls basketball team was Claire Ewen. For the Boston Herald, all scholastic hockey dream team, we had Shay O'Day. So I want to congratulate these students. They really represent Arlington High School very well. And from what I understand from my athletic director, these were well-deserved honors. So congratulations to them. Thank you. And that's the end of my report. Thank you, Dr. Bodie. Any questions, Mr. Schiffman? I want to get back to the high school. I heard February 11th as a opening date for phase one, the front of the building. Can I have a brief understanding of the logistics that will occur around February vacation to move from the current building into the front and any impacts on teaching and learning that might come as a result? Well, that is certainly part of the planning that will go on. Some of the moving will actually start taking place a little wherever we can. We'll take place before that. Certainly all new furniture is coming to these buildings. So that will already be in the buildings before the actual move over the February break. But to your point, which I think is a really important one, we want to make sure that we minimize or not have any disruption to student learning. So I think initially the hope was this could have happened over the December break into the first of the year, but it really needs a little bit more time. So the goal is the February vacation that next year. So we're parents of high school students looking forward to what will happen in February. As far as they're concerned, sending the kid to school, getting the kid back home, it's gonna be seamless and there's really, you know. I hope so. I hope that will be seamless. There's certainly a lot of planning that will go on as we get through the summer and have a better idea, but this is going to require a lot of teaming with the contractor and the high school administration. But I have a lot of confidence that that will actually be as seamless as possible. It's not even the move into the building, it's also the moves in the school itself. So what will happen after students start using that the sitting wing and the performing arts is that we're gonna start having a batement that's going to happen in the comm house. That's the front of the entrance, the bullfinch architecture. That whole building is going to be demolished. So any programs, any teachers or programs that are in that building will be moved to the Downs building. So it's in the steam of, of course, it's science, math, technology, or arts program. But for example, the lab program will go to Downs. And so there's going to be a reshuffling that's going to have to take place as well. And then part of the phasing. So maybe we could do once Mr. Heiner takes on his chair, maybe we could have an agenda item around this so that people can understand where we're at. Can I make a point on that, if I could? Go ahead, Mr. Thielman. Yeah, so the Harley County School Building Committee has a temporary use phasing subcommittee. And so that Dr. Janger, Dr. Bori, the construction team, they're all on that subcommittee. And they are talking about this issue and we don't have a final plan yet. They'll have a final plan at some point. When they're ready to report, I think that's an appropriate time to bring someone from that committee, probably Dr. Janger and maybe someone from the design team to the school committee to give a report, but they're not ready yet. They're not ready yet. As long as there's nothing that we need to worry about in terms of our planning to run school next year at this point. No, but no, because that subcommittee is well represented by the school administration. They're all involved in this whole discussion with the design team. So I think it would be good to have that committee, probably Dr. Janger from that group report out sometime to the school committee in the fall. So Mr. Hainer can make a note of that and no. Okay, cause I'm really excited about this. I'm watching this building go up and they're putting in the walls and doing all, it's going to be wonderful. And I'm just sort of excited about the next steps of moving forward into the new building and proceeding with the next phase. It's glorious. I'm just so pleased with the work that's going on and thank you to the building committee folks for making it so easy on our end. Yeah, it hasn't been that. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, thank you. All right, anybody else for Dr. Bodie's report? All right, seeing none, the consent agenda, all items listed with an asterisk are considered excuse me, to be routine will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the committee serve requests in which event the item will be considered in its normal sequence warrant for approval, warrant dated 330, 2021, warrant number 21215, total warrant amount 736,524 dollars and four cents, minutes for approval, school committee regular meeting March 25th, 2021. Dr. Allison Ampe. Can you pull the minutes please? So just the warrant. Hope to approve is presented. Second. Ms. Ecksten. Yes, Mr. Cardin. Yes. Dr. Allison Ampe. Yes. Mr. Thielman. Yes. Mr. Schlickman. Yes. Mr. Heiner. Yes. I am also yes. So now I'm looking for a motion to approve the minutes for the regular school committee meeting on March 25th, 2021. So moved. Second. Any discussion? Dr. Allison Ampe. I'm Mark, both present and absent. I should be absent last week. If you read it, it's the top it says I'm present and then it says I'm absent. I was absent. I'm going to abstain. Thank you. So we can approve the minutes as amended by Dr. Allison Ampe during her absenteeism. Great. Any more discussion on these minutes? Seeing none, Ms. Eksten. Yes. Mr. Cardin. Yes. Dr. Allison Ampe. I'm seeing. Mr. Thielman. Yes. Mr. Schlickman. Yes. Mr. Heiner. Yes. And I am also yes. Policy BEDB agenda format prep and dissemination and JKAA physical restraint of students second read. Mr. Schlickman, do you want to let us know where we're at with this? Where I move approval of BEDB. Second. Discussion. All right. Seeing none. Ms. Eksten. No. Mr. Cardin. No. Dr. Allison Ampe. No. Mr. Thielman. No. Mr. Schlickman. Yes. Mr. Heiner. Yes. And I'm also a no. And the other one. I move approval of JKAA. Move approval of JKAA. Second. Discussion. Okay. Seeing none. Ms. Eksten. Yes. Mr. Cardin. Yes. Dr. Allison Ampe. Yes. Mr. Thielman. Yes. Mr. Schlickman. Yes. Mr. Heiner. Yes. And I am also yes. Okay. Subcommittee, liaison reports and announcements. Budget, Dr. Allison Ampe. Budget will be meeting on Monday on the agenda is the discussion of some financial record requests from finance committee. Not there's not concerns that we did anything that there was any impropriety there. There is Mr. Foskett, who is chair of the finance committee, made a presentation on Monday, past Monday, basically saying that he thinks the schools have been overfunded and he went over a bunch of things and we're going to discuss our response to that. I personally felt that some of the numbers and such that he presented were not actually correct. And so that's part of what we'll be pulling together. So this is, we will be having our, oh, the other thing is that Mr. Karman, also from the finance committee, who's our think-come rep will be there. And I think maybe some other finance committee members, they're tasked with helping come up with the answers to these things. There will be the education budget discussed more on Wednesday night and then there'll be a long range plan meeting on Friday and all these topics are going to be of interest and are potentially of interest to other members of the committee. So I wanna be sure that you all are aware of this and because we're not gonna have another regular school committee meeting in this time. So if you are interested, follow along with budget and pipe in then. So thank you. Just a minute. Can we make sure that the Mr. Fosk, it's presentation is in the novice for next Monday's budget meetings. So we can see what we'll do. Thank you. Community relations, Mr. Heiner. Last Saturday, the school committee chat was with the ELL parents. We had 15 different parents. It was a good turn on, good discussion. This Saturday will be, the focus will be on K to five parents. Thank you. CIA, Mr. Cardin. And nothing to report, thanks. Facilities, Mr. Thielman. Report. Policy, Mr. Schlickman. No report. Thank you. High school building committee, Mr. Thielman. We discussed it. Liaison reports. Dr. Allison Ampe. I'm not a liaison report. I'm going back to budget. I'm sorry, I didn't have notes. I forgot to say that in between our last meeting, we had the finance committee presentation and I wanted to commend Mr. Mason and Dr. Bodie. It was a very well done presentation. It was very well received. Not everything Mr. Fosk is doing notwithstanding. And it, I just wanted to be sure that the rest of you knew that. So that's all. Heather Liaison reports. Announcements. Mr. Heiner. I just want to say publicly that you're going to be a hard act to follow. Thank you. Future agenda items. All right, saying none. We are not having executive session, motion to adjourn. I want to thank the chair for a great year. I want to thank the chair for an awesome year. I think Kathy wanted, if you want an executive session, Kathy. I did actually. I was on here. Sorry about that. It's on here, I just, it's often on here and we just blow right by it. So we are going to executive session. It's very short one. Okay. So executive session to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with union and or non-union personnel or contract negotiations with union and or non-union which have held an open meeting may have a detrimental effect principle contracts to conduct strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation which have held an opening meeting may have a different mental effect. What the bargaining may also be conducted. So moved. Back again. Ms. Exton. Yes. Mr. Cardin. Yes. After Alison Ampe. Yes. And are we returning afterwards? We're not. We're not coming back. Thank you though. Mr. Thielman. Yes. Mr. Schliffman. Yes. Mr. Heiner. Yes. I'm also yes. All right.


Is it possible to believe that the Bible is true and evolution is real? Some Christians say yes and argue that God created the earth over billions of years and He used evolution to create the diversity of life that we see today. Others disagree and say evolution contradicts fundamental Christian tenets like a literal Adam and Eve in a historic fall. Today, we'll explore the issue with leaders on both sides. Welcome to Up For Debate. I'm Julie Royce. Joining me today is Deborah Harzma, president of Biologos, a group committed to promoting an evolutionary understanding of God's creation. Challenging her perspective is Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, a critic of evolution and a proponent of intelligent design. We'll hear from both guests in a moment, but first, here's what some of you think about whether or not Christians should embrace evolution. Well, I'm not so sure that it makes sense to say that man evolved from, you know, some other life form as if God created something prior to man and man came from that. My worry there is the thought that man is simply a more intelligent form of another created being. I mean, if he wanted to use theistic evolution, I'm sure he could have. He is God. I'm not. So at the heart of it, I believe God created the world. Well, coming from my worldview that is based on the Bible, God put man on the earth. He created them on the sixth day from the dust of the earth. I would say no. I don't believe there's evidence for it in the biblical record. I do believe in theistic evolution because I don't think the Genesis account was meant to be taken literally. So what do you think? Did God intend Genesis to be taken literally? Or did he intend it to be more of a metaphor? Do you think Christians need to embrace a literal Adam and Eve? Or is it okay to think of them symbolically? And what do you think of the evidence for evolution? Is it so overwhelming that refusing to embrace evolution is tantamount to believing that the earth is flat? Evolution is definitely one of those beliefs that the majority culture embraces. But evangelicals largely do not. According to a Pew Research Survey, only 27 percent of evangelicals agree that humans and other living things have evolved over time. However, among those unaffiliated with the religion, 78 percent agree with an evolutionary perspective. So is this one of those areas where Christians just need to kind of get with the times? Or is it an area where we need to stand firm and uphold a Christian worldview that may be counter to the culture's worldview? While helping us to sort that out today are two Christians with two very different views on evolution. Supporting theistic evolution is Deborah Harzma, president of Biologos and someone with a PhD in astronomy. Previously, Deborah served as professor and chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College. She's also authored several books on creation, evolution and intelligent design. So Deborah, welcome. It's a pleasure to have you join us. Thank you, Julie. Thanks for the opportunity to be here. Yeah. And also joining us today is Steven Meyer, director of Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture and also one of the world's leading proponents of intelligent design. Steven holds a PhD in the philosophy of science and is author of numerous books including Darwin's Doubt, Signature in the Cell and his most recent Theistic Evolution. So Steven, thanks so much for taking the time today and welcome to Up for Debate. Yeah. It's great to be here. Good morning from the West Coast. Good morning. And I know for some of you, it's afternoon if you're on the East Coast. So welcome all of you. And interestingly, both you, Steven and Deborah contributed to a book called Four Views on Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design. Let's begin our discussion today with some definition of our terms because I think that's really helpful before we debate them. Let's know exactly what we mean by them. So Deborah, let me start with you. Would you explain what Theistic Evolution is? All right. So Theistic Evolution is a broad term for a lot of views that accept some form of God and the evidence for evolution of the scientific process of evolution bringing about the diversity of life on earth. At Biologus, we take a narrow review of that that we call evolutionary creation. It's parallel to younger creation, older creation because we want to emphasize God as the creator. And Christians then can disagree about how God went about creating. And we believe that God did use this process that we described as evolution to bring about the species. And we, people who use the term evolutionary creation, hold to the truth of Scripture and the authority of God's word and believe that all of that can sit together with a robust understanding of the theology of creation. And let me just ask a question that Steven, you actually ask in your book, as far as clarification of your view, Deborah, do you affirm the view of mutation and natural selection as completely undirected kind of process, or do you believe that God actually guided the mechanism or process of evolution? Yeah, well, what I might mean by guided and what Steven means in his question are a little different. I'll say that God governed and controls the process of creation. He upholds the existence of these laws and that evolution is proceeding according to God's intention. The particular mechanisms of evolution that would include mutation and natural selection, but also other mechanisms from epigenetics and embryo development, there's a lot of different mechanisms going on.  Okay, now let me throw this to Steven Meyer, again, of Discovery Institute on Proponent of Intelligent Design. Steven, would you explain what intelligent design is and also why you prefer it over theistic evolution as an explanation of how God created the world? Yeah, absolutely. Intelligent design is the idea that there are certain features of life and of the universe that are best explained by the action of a designing intelligence rather than an undirected process such as natural selection and random mutation. And the kind of features we're talking about are in physics, for example, the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics and the initial conditions of mass and energy at the beginning of the universe, striking discovery of modern physics that the universe seems to be finely tuned to allow for the possibility of life. And in biology, we're finding extraordinary indicators of design. First of all, the miniature machines that you find in living cells, the rotary engines, the turbines, the sliding clamps, little tiny nano-machines that are being discovered within cells. And even more fundamental, the information that's stored in the DNA molecule that is necessary to building the proteins out of which those machines are made. So you have digital code, you have nano-machines, and then you have other fascinating things in the information processing system of the cell. You have automated error correction, what computer scientists call design patterns. You have control systems, integrated control systems. The integrated complexity of the cell screams design in the very specific sense that the key features that make life possible are features that we know from our experience to only arise from the activity of designing intelligences. So when we find a control system or a section of software, digital code, and any other realm of experience, and we trace it back to its source, we always come to a mind or not a material process. So we think we're seeing in living systems evidence of design. And we think that those of us who are, those design theorists among us who are Christians, I am one of those, see that this affirms versus in the Bible, such as Romans 1, which tells us that from the things that are made, the unseen qualities of the Creator are clearly manifest, His divine nature and power. And so we think that nature is bearing witness to the intelligence of the Creator and that you can tell by looking at these amazing systems both in biology and in physics. So it seems we have two sources of truth when we try to discern something like how God created or how everything came into being. One, which you're referencing is just the natural world, the general revelation that God gave us, that we can actually look at creation and make some inferences from looking at creation that's affirmed in Romans 1, for example, or the Psalms where it says that the heavens declare the glory of God. So I think it's okay to say, you know, as Christians, let's look at the science that is indicated here and see what the science says. Also, then look at the second source, which would be the Bible, specific revelation. And let's unpack that and see if it's consistent with our views. So let me start since you did. Yeah, that's exactly right. And it speaks to why I didn't answer the second part of your question about why I favor design over theistic evolution. We have these powerful evidences of design that are also, I should add, not being adequately explained by standard evolutionary mechanisms. There's a major book out with MIT Press, with two authors, Gerd Muller and Stuart Newman, and in their, called On the Origin of Organismal Form. And in the introduction to this book, they have a table of unsolved problems in evolutionary theory. And in their introduction, they say that the neo-Darwinism, with its reliance on the mechanism of mutation and natural selection, is still the textbook orthodoxy in evolutionary theory. But they say no theory of the generative. It's not a creative process. Many other evolutionary biologists are now saying that natural selection explains the survival, but not the arrival of the fittest. And so just the time when you have all this striking evidence of design and leading evolutionary biologists within the field saying the evolutionary mechanisms that we know of lack the creative power to generate that design, the integrated complexity, what Muller calls morphological novelty and phenotypic complexity, you have folks on the biologous side of the discussion, the evolutionary creationists and theistic evolutionists saying, well, we need to accept that natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms are God's way of creating. And I think it's just a mistake to equate mechanisms that, for scientific reasons, lack creativity with the creative power of God. Okay, let me throw this to Deborah. I want to give you a chance to respond to that. And let's just, let's start with the science. Since, Steven, that's what you brought up. Design, is it explained by evolution? How do you respond to some of the points that Steven just made? Yes, so there is a fascinating debate going on among evolutionary biologists about these mechanisms of creation. And you mentioned some of those. We, the consensus among biologists, 99% of biologists, affirm evolution as the process by which life came about. They affirm the common ancestry of all life. There is a debate about the details of how this works. And I think it's a lot, there's a lot of open questions there. When we consult the biologists in our network who are at many leading universities, they see this as a fruitful research area. And that, as we discover how these different mechanisms work together, that these explanations are able or will soon be able to explain the origin of life. I do want to say, to highlight one point Steven made of, he said, design in a limited sense. I do want to say that I believe God designed the world and God is intelligent and a creator. And that design, I fully affirm the fine tuning that Steven mentioned of the fundamental laws of physics from the beginning of the universe. We see that it was crafted in order to bring about complexity. That the laws and the particles are such that it could produce the complexities, galaxies that we see of this planet and of life. And we believe that biologists, that God intended and designed the universe to bring about this life. Okay, so what I'm hearing is, 99% of biologists affirm this view. And I hear that a lot, and that God created the laws that then maybe, are you saying those laws are what accounted for the apparent intelligence that we see in nature? Because that's what I'm looking for. What does evolution, how does it describe or how does it explain this incredible amount of apparent design? Oh, and it is designed. So what is amazing is how God created a process where the creatures could explore the possibility space in the biochemistry and in the body plants in order to create the whole host of amazing creatures that there are. And they truly display God's glory and power. So I affirm Romans 120, I believe that the universe just affirms in every way God's beauty and glory and power and design. And the very fact that there is DNA, that the letters of the DNA are so fundamental to life just resonates so beautifully with what we know of Christ as the logos, the word. But it doesn't evolution say it all happened by a random process, an undirected process. At least that's what I'm trying to get to. How do we get designed from an undirected random process? So I don't think that random means an absence of God. So humans use random processes with intention all of the time, like a coin flip before a game. You actually want it to be an undetermined outcome for fairness or in a video game. A designer will put in random elements in order to make the game more interesting. And so I think God has chosen to use random elements in creation in order to bring about the variety that he intended. Deborah, I'd like to just pose a question that somebody called in and asked, what is the evidence for evolution? What do you think it would be the strongest evidence for embracing evolution as the mechanism God used for creating the world? Sure. So there's multiple lines of evidence and some of these lines would be things I think Stephen might affirm in some ways. So one is the fossil evidence. For example, we see intermediary fossils in the development of whales. These are originally descended from land mammals and we see this gradual progression of the creatures becoming more adapted for ocean living. So the fossil record is incredibly rich and growing rich as we discover more and more of those intermediary fossils. In addition, there's the genetic evidence, which is just pouring in. You know, we know about the human genome project and now the genomes of many humans have been sequenced and many other species as well. And so you can actually track the family tree of all of the species through the DNA, and it is a wonderful confirmation of the view that we've built through the fossil evidence. So the fossil evidence first gives us a picture of the relationships between the species and makes predictions about how those are related. And then it's confirmed in the genetic information. OK, let me ask you a question right there. Just from a biblical standpoint, how do you reconcile that? And I'll let Stephen weigh in in just a second. But how do you reconcile that with just the scripture? It says that each reproduced according to its kind. Sure. And yes, do give Stephen a chance to respond as well. So each according to its kind, this is what we know in our all of our experience, cats give birth to kittens, dogs give birth to puppies. We know that that's how the creatures work, but God created them according to many different kinds. God also said, let the land bring forth life, which is has this interesting resonance with the evolutionary process of species arriving arising out of the fertile earth. So the Genesis was written in an ancient context, something like 3,000 years ago in a very different culture that was pre-scientific. And since they did not have a conception of these scientific terms, that God was teaching them something else in those passages. And so we did teaching them important theological truths rather than modern scientific concepts. OK, let me throw that to Stephen. How do you, one, account for the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence, but also what does the Bible mean when it says reproduced according to its kind, do you accept Deborah's explanation there? Let me go back to something she said before the break, because I think it's really the key issue. There's a bit of equivocation around definitions with the term evolution. I just mean generally, Deborah's done a good job to distinguish between the mechanism of evolution and the pattern or alleged pattern of common ancestry, which is a theory about the history of life and the crucial question in evolutionary biology today is what actually caused the new forms of life to arise in the book, the Four Views book in which Deborah and I interacted in print. And it's fun to do it over the over the phone as well in Viva Voce as a word. She affirmed that the gradual process of evolution was was crafted by God to create the diversity of all life. And then she she equates that gradual process with the process of natural selection and random mutation. And that's precisely what leading evolutionary biologists are disputing. I was at the Royal Society meeting. I was at the Royal Society meeting in the November of 2016. And the leading the meeting was called because leading evolutionary biologists are concerned about the absence of a mechanism that has the creative power to account for what they called morphological innovation, the origin of new form. And the first talk at that conference by Gerhard Muller laid out what he called the explanatory deficits of the standard neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism. And the rest of the conference was looking for for new mechanisms that could fill in that gap. Now, whenever we challenge the biologous people on that and their their willingness to equate the creative power of God with a failing evolutionary mechanism, they come back and assert that there is a ninety nine percent consensus around common ancestry. Well, first of all, that's that's a separate question. What is the pattern of life, not the process or the mechanism by which it was created? That's a different definition of evolution. And secondly, I don't accept that there was a ninety nine percent consensus in our book Theistic Evolution. We have some very prominent biologists from both sides of the the ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, who are also challenging universal common descent. And one is the German paleontologist, Gunter Beckley, who has spent for a long time a lead curator at the Stuttgart Museum of Natural History. It's multiple dozens of publications in paleontology. And in an article that he and I jointly wrote together, we go through the fossil record and show that there were I wrote a whole book about something called the Cambrian explosion, the abrupt appearance of animal forms and so record. But we show that there are actually 17 or 18 major what are called radiations in the history of life where that that show that the the dominant pattern in the fossil record is that of abrupt appearance without discernible and connections to ancestors in earlier lower strata. So the the idea that the fossil record supports even universal common ancestry, let alone the creative process of mutation and selection is simply contradicted by the evidence. And I think just simply appealing to a consensus and throwing out a number like 99 percent really doesn't engage the scientific argument or the scientific problems associated with with the evidence that I think that's mounting against the standard theories of macro evolution. Deborah, you probably want to respond to that. I do. So, Steven, you say that I equate the process by which God used to create with mutation and natural selection. And I was pretty careful not to do that. Mutation and natural selection is one important mechanism of evolution. But I also said there's many other mechanisms of evolution. And with all of those at work, it's the whole larger picture of common ancestry plus a set of several likely mechanisms that working together could do this. You also so I I feel like you are mischaracterizing the state of the science by calling it, you know, that there is this incredible lack of consensus or debate over these things. We use the 99 percent number because we know that there's a misconception among a lot of evangelicals that scientists are deeply, deeply divided about evolution and common ancestry entirely. And you, I think, agree that there is a broad consensus on common ancestry, even if not universal. And that's what we want to convey to our audience, that there's something here and that consensus is based on the strength of the scientific evidence. And I said that I would give Deborah a chance to respond a little bit more. But I do want to just quickly go to a phone call and let some of our listeners weigh in, because so many of them are eager to do so. Let me go to Robert calling from Tampa, Florida, listening on WKES. Hey, Robert, welcome to up for debate. Hello, thank you. Yeah, what's your comment? Comment on something that Deborah said, where she was offering the support for evolution by by saying the example of the game designer that introduces a random element, well, a very fact that the game designer made a conscious decision in the focus thought to introduce some element. That's not random at all. And she also was speaking about fossil evidence, supposedly supporting the evolutionistic position, but we know from archaeology, a number of examples where they have found fossil records of fossil items, be they animal or plant that come from mixed periods that evolutionists talk about and the very fact that they're in the same fossil record disproves the concept of evolution. So those are just two examples. All right. Let me throw that to Deborah. Can you respond to that? So on the first one about the video game designing in that in that analogy, which isn't perfect, God would be analogous to the video game designer in choosing to create a system that includes those random elements. So I definitely believe there is intelligent design in God making that decision to include randomness. And that was his conscious choice. And then watching how that plays out, it plays out according to his intention. Interesting leads that you see randomness and positive waves in many areas of nature, like the formation of snowflakes. They are bounced around through the atmosphere. And the thing we love about snowflakes is that each one is unique. And that's because it's a random process. And so in there, we see both the beauty and order of the six-sided symmetry and the randomness leading to incredible variety and beauty in that structure. He also mentioned the fossil evidence. And I'm not sure exactly what he's referring to there. I'm not familiar with that. But I know that overwhelmingly throughout the earth that in the different layers of rock, you do see creatures all from one epoch and that they are not mixed together. One of the things though that you said is that we see transitional forms. And I thought that was one of the things that was lacking in the fossil record was trans transitional forms. And we do see, I think, Steven referred back to the Cambrian Explosion where we see this sudden introduction of different life forms, so suddenly that it doesn't seem to match the evolutionary explanation. And how do you count for that? Let's see, the Cambrian answer is a bit different. So in the Cambrian Explosion, those fossils there are related to a certain epoch. But there is actually evidence of epochs before and after that, and especially before preceding it, that do show a more gradual transition leading up to that. Fossil evidence is tricky because most creatures die and do not have their fossils are not fossilized at all. So we have this very little sprinkling of the few creatures that are preserved in the fossil record for us. And what has happened over the last few decades is the discovery of many of the intermediary fossils that were previously unknown. And we fully expect as more paleontology work is done that more of those intermediaries will be discovered. So and you mentioned is one of the you mentioned is one of the intermediary, some of these predecessors of the modern whale. Is that right? Yes. Yeah, that's been exciting. OK, so Steven, what do you say about these supposed predecessors of the whale? I mean, do you see those as intermediary? The more logical characters that distinguish whales from the preceding land mammals appear abruptly in a very narrow window of geologic time about one to three million years now is the recent date. The whale sequences, perhaps the best argument that can be offered for gradualism in the fossil record. And even it shows abrupt changes of the of the distinguishing morphological characters. In the case of the Cambrian explosion to refer to the earlier strategy is referring to would be the strata that preserve what are called the Ediacaran fauna. And no serious Cambrian paleontologists thinks that there's a morphological connection between them anymore and also the idea that the missing ancestors are not being preserved is what's called the artifact hypothesis. And the leading paleontologists of the Cambrian period are also rejecting that as well. We've been searching for ancestral forms for a very long time and the depositional environments in the Cambrian locales such as Southern China are preserving small microscopic organisms in the lower strata probably microscopic sponge embryos. But they're not preserving the ancestors to the much larger and more complex animals that come later. So it's really hard to argue that the ancestral forms simply weren't being preserved or were preserving microscopic soft tissue organisms but not the ancestors for say trilobites. So but I really want to get back to the more important point about the process or the mechanism of evolution because fundamentally evolution is a theory of creation. That's why our friends are calling it evolutionary creationism. And Deborah said that that she carefully noted that natural selection wasn't the only such evolutionary mechanism. And she does say that natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for macro evolution. In my book Darwin's Doubt and also in our new book critiquing theistic evolution we very carefully critique these other evolutionary mechanisms and show them to be inadequate as well. And in the review of my book that was published on the Biologos website by one of their leading biologist Darrell Falk who was Deborah's predecessor as president of Biologos. He says very explicitly that Steven is right that none of the other evolutionary models fit the bill in a fully satisfactory manner either. So it's fine to invoke these other unspecified or yet vaguely formulated evolutionary mechanisms but none of them nor natural selection and random mutation account for the origin of new biological form the abrupt appearance of the new form that we see in the history of life. And none account for the origin of the information the digital code that's necessary to build that form. And it's true that there are random processes in nature but random processes don't generate information. If you want to generate a section of digital code you don't rely on a random number generator. That requires intelligence that requires a programmer. And so the crucial things that need to be explained in the history of life are the origin of form and the origin of information that's necessary to build that form. And those things we know from experience always require intelligent design not undirected processes whether they rely on on chance or randomness on the one hand or or natural laws on the other natural laws just for just repeating patterns of order like the six sided symmetry of a snowflake or a crystal of salt. They don't generate informational sequences. They generate mantras but not messages. I know we could discuss the science this entire time I feel like and I know that you guys love it because you're both scientific minded and I appreciate that and this has been fascinating. But I do want to get to the biblical issues that are at hand here too because I know that's what a lot of us are wrestling with that maybe aren't scientists and again this fascinating discussion. But I want to go to some of the biblical things and Deborah let me just throw this to you first. The idea of common descent that all organisms are related by descent you know with some common ancestor. How do you reconcile that with the idea that humans you know are made in God's image. You know at what point did man you know I mean I'm assuming you believe we descended from primates. At what point did man become man and do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve and do you believe in a literal fall and how do you reconcile that. Yes thanks because this is such an important question I'm glad you raised it. So at Biologos we believe that God created humans in his image and all Christians believe that. So what you're asking them is well how exactly and when exactly. And what we have the evidence in God's creation is that humans first arose about 200,000 years ago or so and that we arose as a population and that we have a population rather than just two individuals. And you know when I first learned that that there was more than two individuals at the headwaters of humanity I asked the Christian biologist really are you sure because I'm an astronomer I wasn't familiar with that genetics research at that time and they said yes and the evidence for that in the genetics is very strong that we do share common ancestry with chimpanzees and and other apes living today and that there was a large population at the beginning but that does not mean that there was no Adam and Eve there still could have been a historical pair living in a real place at a real time at the headwaters of humanity who are perhaps leaders of a group of people Adam and Eve could have been two individuals in the group that God called out and that represented humanity in that situation. Do you think there was a literal fall then too I mean that there was that there was Adam and Eve were the ones that introduced that actually sinned and violated God's law and then did suffering I mean did suffering come through sin or it seems like there must have been suffering before sin? Yes so in that scenario I spun there and there are other scenarios too but in that one yes Adam and Eve could have been the ones who first disobeyed God's command now the Bible teaches that death comes through sin and that is in most places it's referring to spiritual death the sting of death is sin and so that arose that break in our relationship with God arose through Adam and Eve's rebellion but nowhere does it say that animal death comes through human sin and so animal death is a separate issue and what we see in the evidence in God's creation is that many animals lived and died long before humans ever arose. AC is on the line calling from Cleveland Ohio listening on WCRF so hey AC welcome to up for debate. Hello I'd like to bring up something real quick earlier in the program Deborah said that the whales had evolved from land creatures and then they became whales okay and that's in direct opposition to what the scripture says because it tells us in Genesis chapter 1 verse 21 it says and God created great whales and every living creature that moved it. Yeah the land animals and the sea animals are created on different days so that does create a problem let me throw this to Stephen Meyer what do you think about about that and the explanations how evolutionists how they synthesize those things. Yeah in both the books that you've kindly touted on air and thank you for doing that I just I discussed the whale sequence so I may leave that to the readers of the books but I have a broader concern and it's the reason we wrote the book about theistic evolution than providing a scientific philosophical and theological critique and that is that our our friends at Biologos and it is a it is a great pleasure to interact with Deborah and and thank you for having us both on in case we don't get to say so at the end of the hour but our my concern is a Christian layperson who is immersed in the science of these issues is that that the our friends at Biologos are telling the the Christian world that they have to adopt essentially an evolutionary hermeneutic and reading scripture that is they have to assume the truth of evolutionary theory and then read scripture through that lens and that causes them to have to reinterpret a lot of of standard standard theological doctrines and theological understandings and so in Deborah's response to your question before the break she was talking about different possible scenarios and it could have happened this way and that way and and what that reflects is this need to reinterpret the the scriptural texts and one of the reasons we wrote the book is to to show to Christian laypeople and and to theologians and to pastors and seminary professors you don't need to adopt this evolutionary hermeneutic you're not under an intellectual obligation to accept it we think that the the folks at Biologos rely too much on their assessment of consensus in science and not enough on critical scientific evaluation of the actual evidence they claim that on the basis of a population genetics model that was put forward by Francisco Ayala that that the original human beings were not there wasn't an original breeding pair there wasn't a original male and female but there was a group of 10 000 or a population out of which human beings came that's one population genetics model in our book Theistic Evolution a very we have a very distinguished team including a population geneticist at the University of Stockholm named Ola Hussra and Anne Gager who has a PhD in molecular biology from the University of Washington and did a postdoc at Harvard and in embryology and molecular biology they have developed a population genetics model that shows that the diversity of genetic traits in the human population is perfectly consistent with an original two parent origin for our anatomically modern human beings so the idea that evolutionary current evolutionary doctrine is dictating a particular reading of scripture that's contrary to the readings that that are most natural on on the face of the text itself I think is what we're concerned about in the book I and I think we in a way want to liberate theologians and pastors and seminary professors from the sense of intellectual obligation or the the sense that they have to yield to this alleged consensus there's a lot of good reasons to doubt the consensus and therefore a lot of reasons to be skeptical about this evolutionary hermeneutic as a way of reading scripture just a minute if you have some last thoughts yes so it's good Stephen you raised what's the larger things at stake here and what we are doing at Biologus is presenting evolutionary creation as a faithful option we want faith leaders like you mentioned pastors theologian seminary professors to be aware of the scientific evidence that's out there and not just the consensus but the strength of the evidence itself and to be aware that there are ways of working with this with scripture we hold firmly to the truth of scripture we're not just willy nilly about it but we do talk about we do oftentimes talk about different options because we think the church needs to be debating these questions and what we feel is at stake is the the next generation of young people we hear all the time from Christian young people who are concerned about this issue and and older adults as well the next generation is confused about this issue although i would ask you know how many of them have really studied it i think they have this idea of consensus as well and haven't really delved into the issue but here's what i think you know when i read about god in the scriptures i find a creator who is intimately involved in his creation in Psalm 95 it says the sea is his for he made it and his hands formed the dry land similarly god formed man from the dust actually breathed into his nostrils the breath of life evolution presents a vision of god that to me as i read it is deistic a god who starts creation and then essentially abandons it in truth it seems to me it's more deistic evolution than theistic evolution i also find extremely problematic the notion that god intended genesis to be taken figuratively i can't accept that adam and eve and even the fall of mankind is symbolic and in that case you know when did man sin and what is sinning from the minute he evolved into a sufficient man-like person i you know and problematic to me too is the idea that there is suffering before the fall all these things make me feel like christians certainly are evolutionists but i do think it's incompatible with a christian world view that's my view thanks so much for joining me i hope you have a great weekend and god bless