Is the Bible for Real?

Creationism, Evolution, and Academic Freedom in Public Schools

Should creationism be taught in public schools? And first, I would like to introduce you to half of our informal debate panel, Dr. Robert Dietz, Professor Emeritus in Geology at Arizona State University, and he is in opposition to the idea that creationism should be taught as part of the curriculum in public schools.

In favor of that position is our other guest, and that is James White, Director of Ministries with Alpha Omega Ministries. And right now, at the beginning, I would like to ask if you will please state your position, and just do so briefly if you will, take a couple of minutes, and tell us why you are where you are.

Alphabetically, Dr. Dietz.

Yes, well, I'm opposed to teaching creationism in school. Sometimes it's called creationist science, but it's not science, it's pseudoscience. It is a religion, and it's not based on faith rather than factual evidence.

Now, the National Academy of Sciences opposes teaching creationism in schools. The 72 noble lawyers opposed it. The Supreme Court opposed it a year ago in June. And the district court in Arkansas opposed it.

Now, it's not only pseudoscience, it's pseudo-religion, because most of the mainstream Protestant churches, all of them I guess except evolution, and the Catholic Church as well, they find no conflict.

Now, evolution is not a religion. It's based on evidence, not on revealed truth or faith. There's no church, no creed, no dogma, no clergy, no authoritative and inerrant book, no paper pope, it has no radio or TV stations.

The creationists have some 1 ,400. It has no preachers, it is not infallible, and not revealed. It is a matter of scientific evidence. In summary, evolution is a science, but creationism, although they saw it called scientific creationism, it's not a science.

What it is, is biblical creationism. Now, in the LaRousse book of origins, there are some 2 ,000 different stories of origins, of which the Christian biblical one is just one. So, why do they call it scientific creationism?

They should be honest and call it biblical creationism.

All right, an appropriate amount of time from Dr. Robert Dietz, against the teaching of creationism in public schools. You are listed in my material as James White, and I want to know if we should refer to you, sir, as Reverend James White, as Director of Ministries with Alpha Omega Ministries.

Well, I am ordained, but I'm also a Baptist, and we Baptists don't like titles, so I'd prefer James, despite the ordination, and I'd feel a little more comfortable with that.

Well, fine, I'll feel comfortable with whatever it is that you would like to be referred to, and so, James White, if you will, please, why are you for the teaching of creationism in public schools?

Basically, we are faced with two models for the origin of the universe. We are faced with an origin theory that would say that all things arose out of natural materials, out of materialism, that the complexity of life arose out of random chance, the chance interaction of molecules in some ancient ocean, a prebiotic soup, some people would call it.

That is one perspective on the origin of life. The other perspective is that the complexity of life that we see around us could not have come into existence by random chance, or by any natural processes as we understand them, but that would require a creator to bring these things into existence.

We are talking simply about two models. Evolution is a theory, creation is a theory in the scientific sense of those words, and what I am here to present is that the people in the educational system in the United States of America need to have the freedom to fit the facts that we know them into an overarching theory that best correlates those facts.

I would submit that the evolutionary theory does not best correlate the facts of science as we know them, but that the creation theory does, and the main point is that since we can have intelligent dialogue about how to understand those facts, that in and of itself proves my thesis that we should have the freedom to discuss this not only on talk shows, but to discuss this within the educational system.

We are not talking about a situation where we are attempting to push some sort of a dogma or religion. We are talking here about academic freedom, the ability to look at facts and to fit it into a theoretical structure to understand those facts.

When we say evolution, if someone says evolution is a fact, that is a misstatement. Evolution is a theory. We look at facts and fit those facts into a particular understanding of those facts, and I feel that we should have the freedom and the intellectual integrity to allow those discussions to take place.

In just a moment, we are going to go to the phones, and everyone will have an opportunity to participate this hour in this debate. I would like to know from you, Dr. Dietz, before we talk to the audience about their positions on this subject, having looked at your cartoon book, I think that it's fair to say that this is a satirical look at a lot of things in and around this issue.

Yes, indeed.

The satiricon, Creationism Bashed, is the title of it. I wonder if it would be fair to characterize you as being anti-religion.

Well, a matter of definition, I'm not anti-religion. I'm anti-fundamentalist religion. But I'm basically a religious person. But if you ask me to, just where I stand, first define what you mean by God, for example, that's the most confusing thing you can say, is say you believe in God, because there are 2 ,000 different definitions.

In science, you must have definitions, and you must have classification.

What do you believe in, personally?

I believe I'm a naturalistic materialist.

I'm not sure what that is. I know what a Baptist is. But I'm not sure what a naturalistic materialist is.

Well, I believe in the ultra-natural, but not the supernatural. And I believe you can explain things by natural laws, by the laws of physics and chemistry. And the earth universe is understandable in terms of these laws.

Is there some kind of, in your mind, a supreme force, an overseer, a guidance to the system?

Well, there may be an ultra-natural, not an ultra-supernatural, not a supernatural force. And this is beyond the realm of science, because science does not believe in miracles. It cannot apply miracles.

So I cannot really justify one view or the other on the basis of science. We can go back to the Big Bang and so forth, and we can develop what's happened, but I certainly don't believe in a God sitting on a throne, an old man in the sky who answers your prayers on a day-to-day basis.

No, I don't believe in that.

We should also be fair, by the way, and say that when you say that you are not in agreement with the fundamentalists, that would probably include elements of Catholicism, because the Catholic Church takes some bashing in your book, too.

Yes, but they generally believe in evolution, and they believe the earth is more than 6 ,000 years old. And they don't believe in the reality of the great flood, which flooded all the world to a depth of almost four miles.

In fairness, by the way, in fairness, I would like to ask Dr. White, excuse me, James White, we're not going to do titles with you, I know. I know what you're saying. Baptist, James White, are you anti-science?

No, not at all. In fact, I majored in Bible and biology in my college work.

That's two majors, or was that one major?

That was two separate majors, Bible and biology, Department of Cell and Anatomy and Physiology. I am not anti-science in any way. I believe that the facts of science will fit perfectly and harmoniously with the revelation of God, if God is indeed the creator.

But I think it's important that we point out that the two models that we are presented are based upon religious precepts. Naturalism or materialism is a religious precept. It makes the natural laws of the universe, they take the place of God in a supernatural system.

But they are both religious precepts. And what we're really debating here, Pat, is whether a particular religious philosophy, a particular worldview, that of naturalism or materialism, should be installed as the official perspective in our science classrooms.

And there are a number of votes, a number of voices on this issue, and we'll be hearing from them today. Tammy and Anton and Pete and Jason and Richard and all the rest of the folks who are calling in with their voices to be heard on KTAR 620 News Talk Radio next.

As a matter of fact, I read my Bible every day. And in the beginning, God created heaven and the earth. And God also formed man. We didn't come from monkeys, because God formed man. And he also formed the woman Eve.

It says here in Genesis 221. And when I was in the fifth grade, they drilled evolution into our heads. I took my Bible to school, and I showed my teacher exactly what the Bible says. And as a matter of fact, I think I got a bad mark for it.

But I stood for my right, because evolution is wrong. It's devilish.

All right, Professor Dietz. What about not only the word of Tammy, but the word of the Bible? Are you saying that it's just worthless?

The Bible is not worthless, but it's not a historical text. It's not a scientific text. And it's not written not by Moses, but by a mosaic of authors written by people between 400 B .C. and 200 A .D. And it's been translated from Amharic to Hebrew to Greek to Roman to Latin to English.

And there's a lot lost. It takes at least three disciplines to straighten it out, and they don't. One is apologetics, which Mr. White's throwing on. The other is exegesis. The other is hermeneutics. But none of these do this.

In fact, we are asked to accept half things without evidence, led by gurus who speak without knowledge about events without parallel. Now, I'd be inclined to believe the Bible, or at least part of it, if there was any mathematics in it.

It doesn't have a single formula. You can't define the natural world in terms of just qualitatively. You need quantitative information. You need formula.

James White, I would like to know why you believe, apparently, as Tammy believes, that the Bible is our standard.

Well, there are a number of reasons. First of all, primarily the authority of Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ referred to the creation events, referred to the Mosaic authorship of those writings, and in fact based his teaching upon those things.

I think that's very important. Secondly, in the scientific realm, what the Bible reveals concerning the nature of man and the nature of the universe is very consistent with the facts as we know them. I would point out that what Dr. Dietz just said about the nature of the Bible is utterly false and completely fallacious.

The writings of Moses were known well before 400 years before Christ. They were written in Hebrew. I can translate those from Hebrew into English today. Any person who would take the time to learn those languages has those texts available to them, so that is simply completely erroneous and off the point.

The main point I would make concerning the Bible is that what the Bible actually does teach about the nature of man and the nature of the universe is fully in harmony with the facts of research and science as we know them.

Anton, go ahead, please, on KTAR. Dr. Robert Dietz and James White are debating this, and so are you. Okay, I have a few points that I can make, and I hope you will let me present my whole case before I will be cut off.

Well, I'll tell you what, if you do it in a couple of minutes, all right? I'll have plenty of time. Okay, number one, before Pasteur, they taught the theory of spontaneous generation. Leave a piece of meat out, and maggots automatically crawl out.

All right? With Pasteur, with sterilization, he developed a new theory called the theory of biogenesis, that life begets life, and parents and offspring are of the same kind. That theory is still being taught today.

Now, they did experiments with drosophila and with corn, and in lab, the natural effects can be sped up quite a bit. Drosophila never has changed, and the corn has never turned to cabbage. Now, for evolution to take place, it must break every rules and laws of chemistry and physics.

Now, the speaker mentioned that the Catholics have no conflict. That is erroneous. Prior to Vatican II, the Catholic Bible stated, and all the others, that in Genesis 1, that God created all living things, plants and animals, according to their kind, which is what the theory of biogenesis says, one kind after another.

Now, the post-Vatican II Bibles say that God created all living things, he thought that it was good, and blessed them, leaving out after its kind. Of course the Catholics both have any contradiction at this point.

Thirty seconds, Anton. That's it. All right, thank you very much. If you will both comment, please.

Yes, let me say first of all that he's quite wrong, that, for example, corn is derived from a grass grown in Central America called teosinte, and now the modern corn is zeomite. It's an all-new genus.

This is macroevolution. And as far as Pasteur is concerned, of course he's talking about biopoiesis, the origin of life. Evolution does not involve that. Evolution, by the way, is both a fact and a theory.

The fact is that there has been descent with variation, and the theory is how it has happened. Now, the fact stays a fact, but the theories do change, modified with time. Now we believe what is called the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

Now, there have been enormous changes. Even all creationists believe in evolution. They prefer to call it macroevolution, which is a cop-out. Macroevolution is simply macroevolution going on for a longer period of time.

Now, we see, for example, all sorts of examples. It isn't quite clear, for example, that penguins and ostriches were birds that once flew. They call the bat the bat kind, but there are a thousand species of bats.

That's ridiculous.

And we have an opportunity.

Macroevolution.

Before the news break, we have to move in, because it's a very complex issue. We have to move into this part of the debate and your response, James White, to Anton.

Well, obviously I agree with much of what Anton said. I believe that there is, as he indicated, a great deal of evidence that fits perfectly with the creation model. Some of the things that Dr. Deist just mentioned, for example, natural selection.

That is predicted by the creation model. It is not predicted by the evolutionary model, but it is predicted by the creation model that if God is going to create something, he's going to place a mechanism in that organism to allow it to adapt to a changing environment.

And so, when an evolutionist, for example, says there's no evidence for creationism, I say, wait a minute. We're getting confused here. We're talking about two models. Let's look at the facts as we know them.

Let's look at the structure of DNA. Let's look at the function of genetics. Let's look at these things and ask ourselves the question, which of these two does it fit better in? And the main point being, we need to have the freedom to allow our children to ask the same questions.

This hour has evolved into this. Meanwhile, Jason, you're standing by, and it's your turn. Go right ahead, please, on KTAR.

Well, I'm only 13, but...

You're welcome here.

What?

You're welcome here. I'm glad to hear you.

Yeah, all right. I have a theory on evolution, and I believe that who says one of God's days is equal to one of ours? You know?

Uh-huh, so the seven days business may not be seven days of 24 hours, huh?

Yeah, it could be like, say, one day could equal the stage of evolution.

Mm-hmm.

I mean, I believe in God and all, but I also believe in evolution. So I'm kind of stuck in the middle, but my friend and I have kind of worked out a theory about evolution, and we believe that God did create the Earth and started going, and he created man and bacteria, but what I do not believe is that we evolved from a little amoeba cell.

Uh-huh. What's your friend's name?

Scott. He's not here right now.

No, but it's the Jason and Scott Theory of Evolution, and listen, it probably has as much merit as many of the things that we hear from the authorities on high. Jason, I appreciate your calling, I appreciate your listening, and I hope that you'll be a regular visitor here.

Meanwhile, John is on from Fountain Hills? Yes. Yes, go ahead. And I appreciate the opportunity, an excellent show.

Sure.

I would, having been brought up through high school, I had my, you know, that kind of teaching, and at this point, I would say I don't understand why the Bible and, you know, much more respect than anything other than maybe, may not at this point have all the answers, but appear to me to be on a closer track to the truth.

All right, I'll tell you what, I'm going to turn this over right now to our Baptist friend James White, who's Director of Ministries with Alpha Omega Ministries, and I'd like you to respond, if you will, to the fundamental question that he raises, and that is, why is it that the Bible is the guiding force for every element of your life?

Well, there are actually two issues that need to be, I think, addressed there. Before I answer the question, why is the Bible the direct force for my entire life, it's interesting that I wasn't the one who brought the Bible up.

I have been dealing with the broader issue of creationism, and not specifically Christian creationism,.

At first.

I just wanted to lay a basis first. We can get into that as time permits. Why is the Bible the directing force for my life and my belief? Because of the fact of my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ honored the Scriptures. He taught that the Scriptures were the very words of God, and a person has a choice to make if they are going to call Jesus Christ their Lord. Why do they think that they are smarter than Jesus Christ in regards to their view of Scripture?

That kind of leaves out my friend Rabbi Plotkin, though, doesn't it?

As far as what?

Well, you keep talking about...

As far as the Old Testament and New Testament distinction?

You keep talking about the fact that the reason why we should accept your theory of not only science, but also all of the many things that are associated with it, is because Biblical testimony says, and Jesus Christ has said, and the reason why the Bible is a standard is because Jesus Christ said so, but Jesus is a different person to different people, including my Jewish friend.

Well, obviously the Jewish individual is not going to have the perspective of Christ that the Christian does, but I can only speak as a Christian. For the Christian, the authority of Jesus Christ is final, but I want to correct something you just said.

You just said that the reason I believe X, Y, and Z is because Christ said it. Yes, His authority is the final determination for me, but that does not mean that His teaching, for example, on this subject, will be contradictory to, or in variance with, fact as we find it.

Now, the reason people believe the Bible is because they have been imbued with it at a very early age. They've been indoctrinated.

That's untrue.

And they have no choice. I mean, if my friend here was born in Iran, he would be a Muslim.

That's untrue.

If he was born in Israel, he would be a Jew, and he would not believe in Jesus. That's how it goes. It's where you're born. You are twisted at a very early age.

That's obviously untrue.

As the Jesuits say, let me have a child till he's seven, and we'll have him for life. This is very true. We've been all indoctrinated.

What's wrong with that?

That's obviously untrue. There are many people who have come to accept Christ who came from a completely atheistic background. That is not the fact whatsoever. Dr. Dietz is telling us...

There are also atheists who used to be baptized.

I'm well aware of that, but the point being, Dr. Dietz is telling us that what you were when you were six years old is going to determine that, and that means what he's saying.

Is that I don't have the ability... The Bible has no validity...

Don't...

The one rule here is that wherever you came from, you got here, and this is my turf, and you don't get to talk while the other guy is talking.

Go ahead.

Let me finish my point. The point I'm making is that I would assert that Dr. Dietz's commitment to a religion of naturalism and materialism is blinding him far more than my commitment to supernaturalism is blinding me.

Now, Dr. Dietz.

Yes, well... As I said, the people believe in the Bible because they've been indoctrinated at a very early age. Now, let me explain what Darwinism means. It means that man is a super ape, not a fallen angel.

It means that the earth does not belong to man, but man belongs to the earth. It explains why we have two sexes. It explains... We understand evolution exactly how it works, and people don't like it. Well, Darwinism may have warts, but it is reality.

It's the way the earth is.

Dr. Dietz, I have to ask you, with all of your credentials as a professor emeritus in geology, a respected member of the faculty at Arizona State University, aren't you a little humbled by the fact that so many other great intellects and major minds throughout the centuries have believed in elements of what your opponent believes, have believed in organized religion, have been members of organized churches, and believe in Jesus or Moses.

Or the Bible?

The Bible... A scientist who understands the universe is very complex, of course, I mean, and we stand in awe of nature. No question about that. But we don't believe in simplistic things. Now, I believe in the God of Einstein.

Einstein, in turn, believed in the God of Spinoza. Spinoza believed that God was nature. I accept that. I accept naturalism. I don't accept supernaturalism. No evidence for it.

Do you wonder why some scientists do?

Yes. Many of them do, to be sure. Not too many. By and large, they are agnostic people, and they believe in evidence, and they all believe in evolution. I mean, there are 400 ,000 biologists in this country, and only 700 believe in creationism.

I mean, it's an absolute fact. Why not face it?

In your book, what do you call an agnostic? What's your definition?

A godless atheist.

This is Pat McMahon,.

On KTA,.

Dr. Dietz of Arizona State University, and the Director of Ministries with Alpha Omega Ministries, James White, who has this response, and then we'll go to Cole.

Yes. Dr. Dietz, in his closing comments, said a couple things that have to be responded to. He said, first of all, we understand exactly how it works, referring to the theory of evolution. That is simply, totally untrue.

There are as many theories of evolution.

As there are evolutionists.

Anyone who's gone to one of their conventions knows that everybody's got their pet theory that differs from everybody else's pet theory, and that's just simply a fact. He said it's an absolute fact, a person committed to the precepts of unbiased investigation in science would never make that statement.

And finally, he said there is no evidence for the supernatural. I would submit that that is due to the presuppositions of naturalism that are Dr. Dietz's, that he is obviously very strongly committed to.

And the imperfection of our debate forum is that you don't always get a chance to answer back, because I'm interested in what Pete has to say.

Go ahead. Pete? Hi.

Boy, what a phenomenal discussion, Pat. This is probably one of the most interesting shows you've ever had. Thank you. And I thank you for the opportunity. I'd like to address Dr. Dietz on one issue. And by the way, I don't think we should get away from the fact that the whole discussion is on whether we should teach this in the schools or not.

It appears that we've gotten away from that. I think that if we are going to teach evolution in the schools, which we are, we should also be allowed to teach creationism and give the student the ability.

That's what school's all about, is to be able to show both sides of the coin. I might add that in the theory of evolution, I'd like to give you the definition from Webster's Dictionary. It's an abstract thought, an unproved assumption, a plausible or scientific, acceptable general principle.

When you look at the theory of evolution, it is very much based on faith, just like a Christian's belief is based on the Bible. And I think that what we need to keep in light, as Mr. White just said, is that there are no proven facts that evolution is correct.

There are no... It's all based on assumption, and we talk about the scientific thing. You can go into the Bible and look at the theory of the speed of light. The Lord said, a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day, and that can be proven against the theory of the speed of light.

I think what needs to be kept in mind in this whole discussion is that you cannot prove either one. You have to base it all on the theory of faith. And Darwin himself actually avoided the discussion of the sociological aspects of his work.

However, there's many people, such as Dr. Dietz, that has made a conclusion and followed that through. Let's pass it on to Dr. Dietz, Pete. I thank you very much for some very, very interesting food for thought.

And I would like to know if you will respond initially to his request that you leave it up to the kids themselves and the teachers in public school.

Nonsense. You should teach the state-of-the-art in school. The state-of-the-art is known to the experts in the field, which are the biologists concerning evolution. Now, you can teach about creationism.

By the way, he's speaking, of course, not of... He's speaking of biblical creationism, not of the 2 ,000 other varieties of creationism, according to the Babylonians, the Hittites, and so forth. He's speaking of a particular type, biblical creationism.

Now, this is religion. This violates the First Amendment. Now, if you want to teach, you can't teach astrology in an astronomy course. You can't teach in astronomy that the world is the center of the solar system.

You can't teach the Earth is flat. You have to teach what we believe to be true. There are no absolute facts, but there are hard facts. And the fact of evolution is as firm as any fact we have in science.

It's as firm as the Earth being round, not flat. And people who object to evolution are indulging in an anguished protest against the whole of science and modernity as anti-science.

We have to move on to Richard, who is standing by. And before he gets older and evolves into another species, please go ahead on KTAR.

Yeah, Pat. I just had three quick things that I wanted to say. First of all, I'm born again Christian, but I have read a number of things and I agreed with a previous caller. You can't ever prove either one scientifically.

There's a good book out by Josh McDowell that historically proves or historically sets down a foundation for the Bible. That's the first thing I'd like to say. And then I'd like to say that so having studied the Bible, I had some understanding of it.

I was going through Harvard Classics one day and I came across a writing by Thomas Huxley, who I guess was an agnostic. And he began to talk about how early schools were all taught in a religious setting of that type.

And then they began to get away from that as they began to find things that went before the time of Christ. And they basically skipped over that and they began to get into science. And that's kind of what Paul in the Book of Romans was talking about when he talked about people that had different theories and what have you.

Your conclusion, sir.

Okay, one final thing. There's a book out called The Mainstream of Human Progress. And what this book goes on to say is that until people believed in a single deity, they could never have science because everything was haphazard or random.

It wasn't until they believed in a single God that had things in control that men could actually begin to engage in science and humans could begin to develop into the society we have now.

I thank you very much once again for your participation and so that Glenn gets on, I'm going to ask you to be brief so we can have some closing comments from our guests. Glenn? Yes, I have a question for Dr. Deet.

If we defined altruism as Webster's Dictionary does as unselfish concern for the welfare of others, first, do you believe that altruism really exists in humans or that such actions can always be accounted for in terms of genetic selfishness?

And if you do believe in altruism, how do you account for its having arisen by evolution through natural selection? Dr. Deet, if you will.

Well, I can answer that. It would take about two days. You're speaking of the idea of E .O. Wilson, of the selfish gene. There's some merit to it, but this is sort of the edge of evolution science. Now, evolution is factual based on evidence.

Creation has not been revised, altered since the book of Genesis. It was written about 2 ,000 years ago. Creationists defend inflexible suppositions. Science is based on skepticism and irreverence for authority, tradition, and rejects all revolution of creation as uncertain.

Because we're nearly out of time, I want to ask you both to wrap things up, summarize with this thought in mind. Dr. Deet, what would convince you that the rest of these folks over here on the other side of this issue are right?

What would do it?

It would convince me if I saw an actual miracle. Now, people speak about miracles, but no, there's no proof, no scientific proof that any miracle has ever happened. I believe it if a pair is answered.

I've never known if a pair could be answered in my life or anyone else's life whose data I accept. The things are not double-blind. There are many anecdotal stories, but no reality. Now, the world is natural based on natural laws and it obeys natural laws.

And what would convince you, James White, that in fact the theory of evolution is exactly the fact that we should follow?

Well, if the theory of evolution were to explain humankind as we see it existing, the world as we see it existing, if it fit the facts as we know it, that would be a big point in its favor. But again, I point out that the evolutionist attempts to make this a battle between religion and science.

It is not. I understand science. The facts of science are perfectly in line with what I am saying. It is a smokescreen to say that this is an anti-science thing. It is not. The facts of science are there.

Natural selection takes place that is perfectly in harmony with the creationist viewpoint. And the people in our schools need to have the freedom to choose between those two perspectives.

The Jesus Seminar and the Question of What Jesus Said

Yesterday there was a very small paragraph in USA Today and some other newspapers picked it up across the country also. Let me read it to you and then I'm going to introduce four guests who are joining us this morning and no matter what your religious beliefs are, this should catch your ear.

Even if you're an atheist or an agnostic or a deist or a pantheist or whatever you are. Even if you don't know what you are, listen to this. Twenty-six Bible scholars participating in the Jesus Seminar, an attempt to determine exactly what Jesus said, have announced that they, and I quote, have strongly disagree that he expected to return to earth and usher in a new age.

Such beliefs should be ascribed to latter followers or later followers of the gospel writers according to these biblical scholars. And the report, as I said, is very short. It winds up by saying an 1983 Gallup poll found that 62 -63 of the American people believe that Jesus will return.

The Jesus Seminar is a project of the Westar Institute in Sonoma, California. Dr. Robert Funk is with that organization and is a spokesman for these group of people and he is joining us on the phone lines from California and along with us in the studios.

And I'll introduce our other three guests a little bit more in detail in a moment. Our three ministers, Hyland Schlabotkin, Shelley Volk, and James White. And as I said, we'll introduce them in a moment.

But Dr. Funk,.

I want to thank you.

For joining us today. When was this seminar held?

When was it held?

When did this thing actually take place, this group of 26 scholars meeting?