Sean McDowell

The first large study on smartphone bans in schools is out. What do they reveal? What are teen takeovers and why are police struggling to contain them? Is Miceoprostal the next abortion pill to be banned? And if so, what would it mean for the practice of abortion and the debate of abortion in America? And scientists may finally have figured out how fast the universe is expanding. How does this relate to the growing debate about the origin of the universe? These are the stories we'll discuss, and we'll also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell. I'm your co-host, Scott Ray. This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Viola University. Scott, this first story, both of us tagged separately. So I think we both want to weigh in here. And I think it's really significant because over the past two or three years, we've seen a number of schools, state uh authority down, banning smartphones during school time. Well, according to the New York Times, U.S. News and World Report, there's a new large study out that is that let's just say has mixed results about how effective they are. So pulling from this New York Times piece, they say banning cell phones was supposed to improve many of the problems ailing American education: distraction, bullying, declining test scores, and absenteeism. The idea attracted rare bipartisan support over the past three years. Two-thirds of states passed laws restricting cell phones in public schools. But apparently, test scores have not increased in those places on average. And at first, banning phones led to higher suspension rates, which is interesting. Teachers have still expressed being thrilled with the change, reporting fewer distractions from personal cell phone use. And over time, students in schools with strict bans reported a greater sense of personal well-being. Now, the researchers did note that once cell phones had been banned, students might have been distracted by other forms of technology, such as laptops, which are ubiquitous in American classrooms. So maybe they shifted from staring at smartphones to staring at computers. That's one suggestion people have given here. And the paper points out they don't know exactly why suspensions went up after schools began using uh banning smartphones. And there's different theories on this. I don't think anybody really knows. But at the end of this article, they said, even more exciting, this is a deputy superintendent who's very much positive of this from Missouri. He said, was the change adults had observed in teens' social lives something that cannot be measured in test scores. Uh what's your takeaway of the study?

Scott Rae

Oh, this is, I think it's mixed, like you say, but I've got two big takeaways that I that I thought were very encouraging. Oh, good. One is that the the article points out the school ban provides a greater sense of well-being for students.

unknown

Yeah.

Scott Rae

Not not increased test scores like they were hoping for, but I think something a little more important than that is a sense of well-being for students. Now, how to account for that, I think is there could be lots of things to account for that. But the the uh the the quote you made at the end of the article, the principal goes on to say at lunch, the kids are talking to each other. And it gets pretty loud. Now, Sean, I think those two things, the sense increased well-being for students and students talking to each other, I think those two things just might be related. Exactly. Uh and there's something I think there's a connection between genuine community. And our well-being depends on that in part, because we were made for uh, you know, in-person community. What's what's what uh what uh is now being called IRL, in real life community. And this is this, Sean, this is really well documented. I'm a little sensitive to this because it's well documented in older folks who are my age that to maintain well-being as you get older, maintaining active friendships with regular interaction with friends is a really significant part of staying vibrant and vital. Uh now, I think maybe what we what we found, the article also points out that the devices are often used for what they call self-anesthetizing, which I think is a really important point. And I what they mean by that is they're used as a as a an inexpensive anesthetic to dull the pain of life struggles, you know, whatever they whatever they might be. And this a similar study that was reported in the Economist magazine earlier this spring said that just getting students off of social media for as as little a time as three weeks improved their sense of well-being. Now, the other thing that sort of stands out to me is you know, maybe maybe they were getting comfort from the real relationships as opposed to devices, and which in my view would be a very encouraging turn and a step in definitely the right direction. Now, my caveat on all this is I think you know what goes on at school is really important, but it's also very important what goes on at home, too. Because my wonder, do they get right back to the same sort of device dependency at home? And I don't I don't that there was no, you know, no data on that. Um and so they they may go back to just the same sort of habits that they would like to have during school. So anyway, I think it's just I found it for the most part those two things that it provides a greater sense of well-being, and at lunchtime, kids are actually talking to each other. Yeah. Those were very encouraging to me.

Sean McDowell

And my kids have told me the same thing about school over the past three years that anecdotally, kids are talking with each other. They're playing ping pong, they're relating face to face and in the classroom more. So, any stats aside, that's just a positive for sure. There's no question about that. I think part of the reason this is considered a mixed result is the expectations we would have from banning these smartphones. I, if you had asked me three years ago, would this result in, you know, less bullying, increased test scores, and less absenteeism? I'd say maybe a little bit. I think there's so many factors that are related to this going on, and this is one of them, that I wouldn't expect there to be radical change. I mean, there was bullying in the 80s and 90s, I remember, long before smartphones, when people were looking face to face. And there's still so much time before school, after school, at night to engage in that kind of bullying. So I just don't really think that would drop off. In some ways, grades are reflection of teachers, and teachers are good teachers, they're going to find a way, whether there's smartphones in the classroom or not, to be good teachers, it just makes it easier for them to not have to fight those battles when the smartphones are gone. So, my test to this is really what you said. Is there better community as a whole? Is there time for the brain to rest and look at people face to face? That's going to translate to personal well-being overall. That's just simply a positive. Now, I've been holding on to this study for two weeks, Scott, trying to find a way to weave it in, but we've had other stories more pressing. And it relates here because it was in the Wall Street Journal and it said, we're all talking to each other less than we did a decade ago. And they point out how digital interactions are replacing face-to-face interactions with loved ones. And AirPods mean we can like tune out our worlds, making it just life unapproachable for conversation. And they've actually done a careful study on this. They say in the course of a year, at least 120,000 words we might have once said now go unspoken. So they can like quantify the amount of less words we speak, which I think is just a really interesting study. That's a lot of words. That is a lot of words, right? But over a year, you break down by month. I mean, we could do the math. But they said as people retreat into online spaces, loneliness could become even greater, psychologists fear. And then, you know, what they write at the end, though, which I thought was fascinating, is they say this is this is a part of larger trends, like there's less multi-generational households, there's declining community and religious engagements, uh, even self-checkout lanes at the grocery store. It's like we're building a community for less and less face-to-face interaction. You can go to a restaurant and order without seeing people face to face. There's this collective hole. And these smart bands, smartphone bands, are kind of pushing back against this, I think, in a good way. And so, the very end, what I love is this expert who's cited in this Wall Street Journal article. She says there's reason to be hopeful, including movements among parents to delay kids' smartphone use and in some cases, uh go back to landlines and the push to restrict smartphone use in schools. That's exactly right. So I think all of us should celebrate. There's now more face-to-face interaction. Whether it results in increased test scores is somewhat secondary, but it's I suspect we will see that, uh, would be my guess over time. But we also have to take into consideration that these kids' test scores were profoundly affected by COVID. There's so many other factors at play here. So is there a one-to-one correlation? It's really hard to say. I think we still don't know some of the damage from the isolation in COVID and a whole generation raised on smartphones. I don't expect it to be fixed just by getting rid of smartphones in schools. I think that's a positive step forward.

Scott Rae

Yeah, I think there's a there's another factor I think that relates more to adults than teens. And that is, I think, Sean, I think the digital communication is a mixed bag because, you know, I'm I work from home, you know, two or three days a week. And the only person I'm interacting with when I work from home is my wife, who's also working from home and my and my dogs. And that and that's about it. And uh, I think I've realized a big source of the community I have is just is walking down the hallway and talking to my colleagues who I, you know, who are, you know, a lot of my colleagues are some of my closest friends. And so I I think that's that's a part that working from home has cut off. The upside is that, you know, my family, my extended family is all scattered throughout the country. And we get together, my brother and his wife and my sister and my wife and I all get together uh on Zoom about every two or three weeks. Uh and we communicate with each with each other as best we can. It's not face, it's not face-to-face, but we probably wouldn't be communicating much uh without those things because getting, you know, just getting to those places, you know, is and is expensive and it's inconvenient. And there's just there's no other way to do this. Uh and I look at this for our students, too. Uh, you know, it's a mixed bag because our students tell us, our online students tell us that they would like to have more face-to-face, live, in-person contact with our faculty. But, you know, I you know, I I've had I had a couple students who are in Korea this semester. Uh we got students, I got online students from all over the country who wouldn't have access to a tablet education were it not for our digital communications.

Sean McDowell

That's good. And and and the key is if you're not getting it in your education, there's value in that education. Get that face-to-face interaction in your church, in your community, somewhere we all need it. I think that's a good takeaway. Well, I saw the story Thursday morning and thought it related really closely to this one. And it's in the New York Times. It's called the title is What Are Teen Takeovers, in quotes, and why are police struggling to stop them? Well, apparently, across the country, police and city officials are trying to crack down on sometimes violent youth gatherings, but the teens themselves say they need some way to socialize and blow off steam. Well, the school year is drawing to a close. So there's the perennial worry about teenage misbehavior over the summer, and how to keep youth occupied in the summer has a new name with an ominous undertones, teen takeovers. So, according to study, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, uh, Washington, D.C., and other large cities, there's kind of these spontaneous large gatherings of youth in downtown parks, leafy neighborhoods. They're noisy, boisterous, at times violence, the impact often amplified on television, and city leaders are paying attention in a way they hadn't in the past. So Chicago Police Department said it's gotten worse when it comes to the bad behavior. Kids just start to fight, so they get increasingly more violent. Now, obviously, social anxiety over juvenile delinquency is not new. That's for sure. Uh, the article cites concerns about youth in the 1950s that they trace to like the Korean War. Okay. Now they say what's new apparently is social media and the long tail of COVID-19 with the resulting Zoom from home generation, they call it. What is undeniably new is the role that platforms like Instagram and TikTok play in the speed of organization and the scale of assembly. So, you know, these are happening at a time where homicides are down in some of the large cities around the world, and we've around the U.S., we've talked about that. That's a positive trend. Uh, and they really attribute in this article kind of the pandemic exacerbated a decline in the amount of time that teens were spending socializing and it may be working itself out now. Of course, some people in the article are like teens just want a place to be free, have fun, and hang out. That's a part of the discussion and kind of the debate going on here. Uh, so I'm curious, is there anything new here or fresh that we should pay attention to or the old concern about teenage misbehavior in the summer?

Scott Rae

Well, may maybe one thing, but my you know, my takeaway from this is more theological. Okay. Because this illustrates that we are created for community, but tarnished by sin. Okay. And I think it's good that they're seeking out community, social gathering places. Those those are all good signs. Um I think it's problematic that things like groupthink and peer pressure can encourage sometimes destructive behaviors. Uh people it's not it's not take a lot of imagination to see that you know people can get swept up in sort of a groupthink mentality and do do things in groups that they might not consider doing individually. Um I think it's it's fair. I think you know the teenagers I think have a have a valid point. They do need places to socialize. I think that's on our communities to provide them. That's right. But but to socialize safely is on the participants to do so. That's that's not the community's responsibility. Agreed. Uh so I you know the other thing that um that that sort of came to me, I think this may be, Sean, the thing that's new. The article also suggests that there's a racial element to this. That it's black and Hispanic groups tend to be more scrutinized because they tend to gravitate toward more public spaces where, you know, where where people tend to gather in l in large groups, and they tend to be more scrutinized in groups of white kids who have money and who live in the suburbs, where gathering is easy for the easier to go unnoticed. Um I I I don't know what quite what to make of that. That's the thing that strikes me that may be new in this, uh, that there's maybe a little more skepticism about folks who gather in in downtown or any inner city areas or in public parks than out in the suburbs.

Sean McDowell

That's interesting. I uh I think what's new with this to me is there's always been teams who want to gather, have parties. There, there's a young desire to be a part of some drama and some experience and excitement. I mean, that's a part of being young. That is not new, but what social media does is it enables people to connect very quickly and make it bigger and quicker than in the past. And it also builds in this kind of sense of like, if I do something even more radical, I might get a viral moment. So if you're going downtown in the city and other people around, it kind of builds in this incentive to do something crazy. And I've got to do something crazier than my neighbor because if it's not, no one will pay attention to the clicks on social media. That's what I think is new here. So there's the positive side you said, but there's also the concerning side where social media just exacerbates issues that are already present. Now, I've got another point, but you look like you're about to show ahead.

Scott Rae

Yeah, guess who else is going to pay attention when those things go viral? Law enforcement is gonna is gonna also pay attention. So I'd say sort of you know be careful what you wish for when it when it comes to you know the publicity from that. You know, I don't know if your kids said the same thing, but what you know, we live we live in Irvine. This is a very suburban neighborhood in Southern California. And my kids and their friends used to always say, this is the most boring neighborhood I can imagine. And I and every time they would say that, I would say, mission accomplished. That's exactly what I was hoping for. And I think some of that is just because they, you know, they see that sort of the dailyness of life doesn't compare, sort of what you mentioned, doesn't compare to what they're seeing on social media from their friends and peers. And so to make life more eventful and more, I guess, a little more clickworthy, sometimes people push the envelope beyond what they might normally do.

Sean McDowell

Yeah, I think that's human nature and I think that's teen nature. You know, there's no data on this. I do wonder kind of the constituency of who makes this up. And I don't know anything about the racial mix mix-up of this component. I can't even speak to that. These are like anecdotal examples people give. But I do wonder if there'd be a high percentage of just fatherlessness and lack of involvement in these kids' lives that are out doing these kind of experiences. I would bet that if you find that, you're gonna find a link back there. Now, I can't, I can't prove that, but part of what we see, I was trying to think of a biblical connection here, and there's this story, interestingly enough, the Old Testament story of Absalom, you know, where he sets a fire to get attention of his father King David, who will not see him because he's murdered his half-brother Amnon for raping their sister Tamar two years earlier. This is in 2 Kings 14, 28 through 31. He sets a fire just so Joab, the king's commander, is kind of forced to mediate a meeting with the king. And I thought, here's somebody, sometimes bizarre antics and behavior, not always, and I don't have data on these specific teen takeovers they're talking about. But I just I've worked with students so long that I know a lot of bizarre behavior online is just crying out for somebody to say, I see you, I understand you, you're important, I recognize you. And I wonder how much of that is behind some of these teen takeovers. Because it seems to have the flair that it goes beyond just excitement and fun and teen drama to have a little bit of a destructive element, a deeper rebellious element to it. That's what it seems to be. So I just wonder if there's deeper brokenness that's back behind it and a desire just to be seen and be known. I can't prove that, but I think it's some combination of, like you said, kids want drama, they want fun, they want excitement, totally natural. But then when it borders into destructive and rebellious, sometimes there's more going on here. That's what I want to know when it comes to this story.

Scott Rae

Well, I think that's a good observation, Sean, because I think sometimes that that is true that uh, you know, adolescents. have they have very creative ways of trying to get their parents' attention. And in lots of cases, I think the the parental neglect is you know is a is a factor. But I think there's also some maybe something a little deeper than that. I I'm sympathetic to a lot of adolescents who are just trying to trying to figure out who they are and establish their own separate identity separate from their parents. And so and you know adolescents when they you know when they make that break from their parents, they've never done that before. And the parents oftentimes if it's a first child have never gone through that with a child before. And so the, you know, it can be kind of a bumpy road when adolescents are trying to establish their own separate identity different from their parents. And sometimes the way they do that is by pushing the envelope and pushing back on the things that that have identified them with their parents for all their growing up years. So I'm sympathetic to that. Of course it doesn't justify you know when it becomes destructive, but I'm I'm sympathetic to the, you know, how how challenging that can be, particularly in a social media environment today, to establish that own identity and sort of be become really comfortable in your own skin, which I think is it's a really important part of moving from adolescence into adulthood.

Sean McDowell

Which means the response should be multifaceted. It's not just one of law cracking down and disciplining as much as we need that. There's identity formation there's relationship involved. These are holistic human beings of course which is a very biblical idea we see in Jesus Luke 252 wisdom, stature, favor of God, favor with man. So fair. As always, very gracious way to see that Scott good stuff.

Scott Rae

Sounds like an opportunity for the church too.

Sean McDowell

I sure hope I sure hope so. I I agree with that. Well said all right so there's been a lot of conversation this week about the the banning of Miphopristone and then the Supreme Court allowing it to be delivered again through telemedicine. And then this article popped up in the Atlantic that I I sent to you talking about will mysoprostal now be the next what's called abortion pill to be banned and what would that mean for the abortion debate? So a few things about this article that's that's in the Atlantic they said over the weekend, this is last weekend, reproductive healthcare providers across the country confronted a puzzle they had never before needed to solve a scale how to offer medication abortion without miphopristome. The drug also known as the abortion pill is the first in a two-pill regimen that the FDA approved for pregnancy termination in 2000. So last Friday a week from the day this discussion we're having drops, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked providers nationwide from prescribing it online or mailing it to patients. Some abortion providers suspended telehealth services immediately obviously they didn't want to get into legal trouble. Others moved towards using miceoprostal the second pill in the usual protocol which can end a pregnancy on its own. Now a few things about this I think are interesting. So the Supreme Court issued a one-week stay on the Fifth Circuit's order allowing mifepristone to once again be administered via telehealth for now. So swash concerns about the potential for serious side effects such as heavy bleeding and abdominal pain. The FDA long required doctors to prescribe the drug in person and supervise patients taking it. But during the coronavirus after reviewing data showing that patients could safely take the pills and I put that in quotes without an in-person clinical visit the agency began allowing miphopristone to be prescribed via telehealth and delivered by mail. That's where some of this debate comes into play and of course the overturning of Roe. Now I guess what they say is medication abortion has been growing in use since the FDA approval and as of 2023 it accounts for two-thirds of pregnancy termination in the US so two-thirds of abortion they say is through medication abortion and a quarter are those are provided telehealth that somebody just receives in the mail. So misoprostal only abortion is common around the world I was not aware of that, especially in countries where abortion laws are restrictive and people can't get myfopristone the standard true two drug regimen mifopristone is taken first to block progesterone, the hormone that helps sustain a pregnancy then misoprostal follows 21 to two days later, causing the uterus to contract in a process that mimics miscarriage. But taken alone misoprostal functionally yields the same result. And they say the typical two drug regimen is roughly 95% effective compared with about 78 to maybe 82% of misoprostal alone. They argue that serious complications are rare through misoprostal alone. Like they say 0.2% of patients undergoing misoprostal only first trimester abortion require hospitalization or a blood transfusion now there's so much more in this article but we're kind of seeing play out in front of us this week debates about where abortion will go and this article expresses concern that if miphopristome is not allowed to be sent, will misoprostal be next? And will this upend kind of the industry of pro-choice make an abortion as easily accessible as possible for women in the US your thoughts?

Scott Rae

Well there's quite a lot to say about this one. In my view Sean this is making the Dobbs decision irrelevant oh wow and I think for this is I think profoundly discouraging for pro-life supporters. Now I think obviously we wait and see it looks like the Supreme Court will will take this up but they also took it up in 2024 and sided with the uh the providers uh and and allowed the abortion pills to be delivered by mail. So I'm I'm not optimistic that the Supreme Court is going to weigh in any differently on this. And I think the statistics that you cited are the the part that is really arresting for me because you know with two-thirds of the abortions being done by you know non-surgical means and 25% of them being done without an in-person consult with a physician neither of those are encouraging in in my view. Here's the the tricky part of this Sean is that both of these drugs are have have other uses besides pregnancy termination. They are used you know for example they are used to manage miscarriages to control bleeding in C-sections. They're also used for inducing labor uh in women with normal pregnancies. So restricting these is is a little bit trickier than what it looks like at first at first glance. Now we we've said before and this I think this is the big I think the big takeaway here that at the least these should not be prescribed without a doctor's supervision in person and not by telehealth. And the reason for that is that the dosages have to be fairly exact. And the dosages of both these drugs are dependent upon the gestational age of the baby and getting the dosages wrong can cause significant problems. And the only way to really be sure about the gestational age of the baby is with an ultrasound. And that has to be done in person. Now of course since we hold that you have a person from conception forward any abortion regardless of the means and whether it's you know whether it's done the privacy of your own home is completely irrelevant to this. That's right. But any abortion except to save the mother's life I would say is morally hugely problematic. So whether you know whether the next you know whether both these drugs are going to be targeted, Mefibrostrone is the only one targeted at the at the moment but I think the other one probably won't be far behind. So I think we'll just we'll have to see where this goes but in in my view the the worst part of this is already out of the bag, Sean, and that is that they can be prescribed by telehealth and that at present they allow uh allow women in states where abortion is restricted to circumvent the law and states where where abortion is allowed are are allowed by the law to mail the the abortion pills to women in states where it's not allowed. And they have what are called shield laws that shield the provider from being identified with the prescription and with the mailing so that the provider in states where it abortion is allowed can't be prosecuted by states where abortion is more restricted. And so the idea that women are doing this by telehealth, I understand why that had to happen during COVID. I get that but it created a new normal that I don't think is good for women. And we've talked about before that the statistics on this are I think subject to debate. And that's why I think you were right to put you know can be done quote safely in quotes because the data we've uncovered from our friend Ryan Anderson who looked at thousands of patients through insurance company records, not the clinic's records, but if the record of the insurance company was paying for all of this different figures of much larger than that two percent of women who actually have complications. It was much more like 9 to 10% of women who have complications that require some sort of medical and even in some cases surgical follow-up to complete the abortion that the pill only partially initiates. In my view I guess Sean, the the worst part of this that cat's already out of the bag and I don't I don't I I think that the mix of my metaphors that's toothpaste that I don't think we're going to squeeze back into the tube legally. But I I don't think that's good for women to be prescribed these medications without an in-person visit from a physician.

Sean McDowell

Scott I have a question for you. I don't I I know you've done a lot of consulting for hospitals and done a lot of writing academic writing on ethics so if you can't weigh into this just say you're not sure but I I how much confidence do you have that the FDA and will will really look at the data here and it'll get a fair assessment will be done about the efficacy of the abortion you know pill that's being talked about now I realize the FDA has already approved this and it's going to the Supreme Court. So there's different issues here but how much confidence do you have that the data will really be on the table and an objective assessment will be made agenda and worldview aside?

Scott Rae

Not entirely but I am encouraged that that from the the FDA and the current administration that it looks like the data is you know assessment of the data is back on the table for for another look. So I'd say I'd say maybe you know 50-50 that the data would get an objective look without being tainted by ideology. You know at the end at the end of the day I think the re the reproductive rights lobby is is a strong one and we'll we'll we'll see if people have the political will to stand up to that lobby and get and get accurate data out there for public consumption.

Sean McDowell

Trevor Burrus Back to your original point I want to make sure we understand why you think this makes Roe versus Wade like irrelevant the overturning of Roe versus Wade because that put back to the state's responsibility to decide whether abortion is legal or illegal and when. So if this drug is legal and people can do it through telemedicine, then it presumably overturns a state's right to restrict abortion even within their boundaries.

Scott Rae

Is that the connection point that that you're making yes it is uh and in addition Sean it's that the instance of abortion hasn't gone down at all nationally since you know since Roe v. Wade was overturned. And so you know definitely the the Dobbs decision was not a not cause for dancing in the end zone for you know for pro-life supporters. But but I think it it also the way this is going with SHIELD laws is enabling women in states where access is restricted to skirt the law. And so the fact that there are more restrictive laws on the books, you know, yeah that may ref that may affect clinics and surgical abortions but it does not look like it is having much of an impact on chemical abortions.

Sean McDowell

So here was a question I had earlier for you and I just thought of it. And you might not know the answer to this but are we aware of other drugs comparable to miphopristone or mysoprostal that at least apparently have the concerning effects hospitalization bleeding et cetera that they have that are allowed apart from a doctor's visit? And if not, it would sure seem to me that what's driving this is the ideology not the science itself I think we need to ask our friend Donna Harrison about that who's a you know an OBGYN uh so I I yeah I don't know the answer to that. That's totally fair. If anyone's listening and you're a medical doctor and you have an example of that, send it to us. I would be really curious to know. I think that's one way to decipher how much worldview agenda is going on here versus just the science. But that's fair.

Scott Rae

Yeah I do recall Donna saying that if some of the same standards were applied for other aspects of obstetric care, it would be considered malpractice.

Sean McDowell

Wow very interesting well I'd love it if some people could weigh in with some articles and documents on that and we'll bring it back in. Okay. To radically shift gears here, Scott, this article jumped out to me and I'm going to circle back why in a minute but this is in the Wall Street Journal and it says scientists have finally figured out how fast the universe is expanding. The first line scientists know our universe is expanding. Now they have a better idea how fast cosmologists who study the universe know and this is strong language it began with a big bang and has been expanding from a single point ever since. Even about 14 billion years later this expansion moves objects like galaxies in it farther away from us scientists try to determine the rate of expansion because it can help tell us how old the universe is now I'm not going to go into the particular details here but they basically walk through how they have a certain calculation called a certain calculation has called into question a major scientific theory and it's about 10% faster than what the standard model of cosmology essentially our theory of how everything works in the universe says the rate should be and this is tied to dark matter and other factors. Now I'm not going to get into the science some of the details here are above my pay grade but did anything jump out about this finding to you that's significant?

Scott Rae

Well it did, Sean, and I think this is a good opportunity I think maybe to expose our listeners to the cosmological argument for God because the that argument basically suggests that that the universe had a beginning which is I think almost universally accepted among physicists and cosmologists. And that then the fact that it's expanding reinforces the idea that the universe actually had a beginning. And a beginning strongly implies a beginner which is essentially now that's a very drastically simplified version of the cosmological argument for God. Now in fact if our listeners want to read a little bit more about this our friend William Lane Craig is one of the ones who has basically spent his his academic career make making sure that things like the cosmological argument for God become accessible to people who are not philosophically or scientifically trained. They said to you to take to move one centimeter on the length of a football field would take what a you know a billion years something like that or take a very long time. So I'm I'm wondering sort of what makes what makes this a story and at the least I think it's the admission the admission that the model that cosmologists have used for predicting the end of the universe has some holes in it. Or it's just sort of speculates some quote force that we don't know about is at work and what that force could be is anybody's guess. So you know this is this is a little bit outside my field uh so I you know I'm not you know I I would not don't don't come to me for my expertise on the cosmological argument. I'll I'll defer to you on that or or to Bill Craig.

Sean McDowell

Totally fair. I wouldn't expect you to weigh in out of your lane but I think you're exactly right to bring back towards what's called the cosmological argument. What jumped out to me is a couple things is the first line of this article says scientists know our universe is expanding. They know this it says we know the universe uh cosmologists who study the universe know it began with the Big Bang and has been expanding from a single point ever since. Now that no is a strong word and it seems to capture the majority view within cosmology and physics that the universe had a beginning. Now you just go back a century and I've been reading a book by the two leading defenders of this are William Lane Craig and our friend Steven Meyer from the Discovery Institute. And Stephen Meyer has an article has a book called Return of the God Hypothesis and it's a chapter on the Big Bang theory. And he starts off by pointing out how Einstein when he formulated some of his initial theories rejected the proposal of an expanding universe. Now why? Here's what he writes it's so interesting. He says in his famous 1917 paper Cosmological Considerations in the general theory of relativity Einstein posited what he called the cosmological constant to describe a constantly active repulsive force to counter the effects of gravitational contraction. Now Einstein's choice of the value for this cosmological constant which counterbalanced the apparent expansion of the universe had no physical justification. Instead it followed from his assumption of an eternal steady state universe an assumption he favored for explicitly philosophical reasons. So Einstein did not want there to be an expanding universe for philosophical reasons that seemed to imply a beginning and a beginning seemed to apply a cause outside of the universe itself. So he added in what's called a cosmological constant where the number he gave was the exact force that he believed would resist the seeming number that that described the expansion Of the universe, so he could maintain a steady universe, hence no beginning, and no need for a beginner. Now, there's a whole story to this. There were some people who push back on science. Of course, there was there was the Hooker telescope that you looked through and saw the universe actually expanding. And because of the red shift, the further you see out in the universe, the more red shifted galaxies are because they're actually speeding up the further out in the in the universe we can peer into. And so to read an article that says we know that the universe is expanding and we know that it began in the past in the history of the world is pretty recent and matches on exactly what we would expect if we had the books of Genesis and the Old Testament alone to go on. Now, I I hesitate to do this too much here, but we haven't posted it on this channel. There's a new movie that's out by Discovery Institute. It's called The Story of Everything. And I have been using every means I can to promote this. And Discovery is not giving me anything personally for this, just for the record. They're not giving Biola anything personally. We had a premiere on Biola's campus about two weeks ago, showing it to the public. But this, it's actually been extended for a few more days in theaters. And it talks about how the fine-tuning of the universe, which was discovered by an agnostic, the origin of information in the cell, and they began with the universe. Over the past century are three massive scientific discoveries that all point towards a mind that resists materialism and fit precisely with what a Judeo-Christian worldview would expect. And Scott, really interestingly, it's I I'm kind of nerding out on this, but one of the leading scientists over the past 50 years, Sir Roger Penrose, who is on Hawking's uh, let's just say he was on Hawking's doctoral committee. Brilliant. He responded to an interview that I did with Steve Meyer a few months ago, criticizing Meyer's response. And so this week coming up, we are doing a deep dive response. Steven Meyer and myself, we're putting clips in, we're putting a PowerPoint in. Wonderful. Responding to this idea, there's a whole bunch of models that are out there trying to maintain an eternal universe. And Meyer's critique is either they're built on assumptions that don't translate to an actual physical universe, or they sneak in some intelligence or fine-tuning, like Einstein did, to resist the expansion of the universe, which requires a mind to do so, which is also an argument for intelligence. So I had to grab this article because I feel like this massive debate taking place about the origin of the universe is taking place in front of us. And you and I, and kind of Biola gets to be a little bit in the middle of this. And so if anybody's interested, number one, go see that film, Story of Everything, support our friends at Discovery. It's really a good show. And if you want to nerd out, I've spent the last month on my YouTube channel interviewing our own Doug Axe about the origin of life, Jay Richards about fine-tuning, Steven Meyer three times. I get excited thinking about this because I think we're at a moment in history where the science really backs what Christians have believed for, you know, 2,000 years plus. And so we don't want to miss this. And the fact that this article popped up this week and says literally, we know our universe is expanding and it began with a finite time in the past. I think that's a powerful piece of evidence that there's something outside of the universe that brought it into existence, exactly what we should expect from Genesis 1.1 in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. So I'll let it go. I could talk about this stuff forever. I get excited. You're getting kind of fired up here. Well, it's yeah. That's good. I'll let it go from there, but it's just, it's in light of history, it's amazing where we're at and we're living through this. And I think we're seeing the case for design stronger than it's ever been. That's my sense. Now, with that said, we got some great questions here, Scott. And before we jump to questions, I just want to remind our viewers, we would love to have you in person. So, like Scott said, we could see you face to face on campus. We also have online programs in theology, Old Testament, marriage and family, spiritual formation, philosophy, apologetics, New Testament. And Talbot is growing. It's an exciting moment to be here. Okay, here's some uh a couple questions. One, this individual says, My fiance is a member of the LDS Church. I'm Protestant and have no desire to become LDS. This is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormons. I know you guys have studied engaged with LDS theology, but I'm confused about their understanding of the Godhead. My fiance was taught that Christ was created. Uh, do you know, uh, but other LDS members say Christ is eternal because his intelligence has always existed. Do you know about this LDS idea that Christ was created? Do you have an opinion on it? Now I have some thoughts about this, Scott, but do you want to weigh in on this one at all?

Scott Rae

Sure. Uh definitely Christ was not created, uh, he was begotten. And those are two very different things. Uh in the words of the Nicene Creed, he is begotten, not made. Uh, and it's not just his intelligence that has always existed, but his entire person as second person of the Trinity has always existed. Uh so the the reason it's important is because if Christ is created, he can't be divine. That's right. And if he's not divine, then we are in a load of trouble because of the weight of our sin not being forgiven at the cross. So that that's why it matters. And that's why the you know the early church fathers spent so much time getting this right when they wrestled theologically with the notion of the Trinity.

Sean McDowell

Good stuff. I I'm gonna actually pull from a book I got recently by a BYU professor named Grant Underwood, and uh he's kind enough to come on soon and have a conversation with me about this kind of professor to professor. It's called Latter-day Saint Theology Among Christian Theologies. So it's an academic book, but he's really trying to place Latter-day Saint theology within the broader scope of historic Christian theology. I'm just gonna read what he writes on page 103. He says, Latter-day saints embrace of Christ's preexistent divinity differs from standard views in several important ways. Uh, first, Mormons do not see the Son as sharing the Father's substance. He's very clear that what you might consider a classical view of the Trinity, at least formulated more explicitly at, you know, at Nicaea, though it started earlier, is there's one God in substance and three persons who share that divine substance. There's one being, three persons. The way he describes it is the father and son do not share substance. They are one in purpose, but three distinct beings. That is a very, very different understanding of the Trinity. Second, Latter-day Saints, this is quoting him, do not believe the Son was created divine. Rather, they believe he was procreated with the potential to become divine, a potential they believe he cultivated to the fullest. Now, that's very different. I would argue, like Hebrews says, Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is one with God in purpose and in being, John 1-1. In fact, Joseph Smith had to reinterpret John 1 1 to kind of fit his theology into this.

Scott Rae

Quite dramatically.

Sean McDowell

Significantly, he did. And so Christ did not become divine. He was not made with the potential to become divine. He always has been. Now, I'm not establishing that here. I'm just saying this is a distinct difference between classical, what I would consider orthodox theology and Mormon theology. Now, if our guest wants a good book, there's a book called Mormonism 101. Mormonism 101, I endorsed it by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson. And they say, I'll just read one more quick thing. They say, according to Mormonism, Jesus was the firstborn son of God the Father in the first estate called the pre-existence. Lucifer was another son who wanted to become the savior of the world. One of the more offensive attributes designated to the Jesus of Mormonism is the claim that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. So one of the LDS 70, Milton Hunter, wrote, The appointment of Jesus to be the savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning, haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory. This spirit brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the savior of mankind. There are significant differences in the preexistence, the character, the nature, and person of Jesus in LDS theology and the historic Christian faith. Check out Mormonism 101 for my top suggestion on that. All right, let's skip to this last question. It's a real practical one, Scott. And uh it says, My kids are teens. I found that while they aren't excited to have a long conversation with me about biblical, theological, spiritual matters, they will read books and talk about the author's books with me. What do you think are two or three of the most important books, besides the Bible, to read with teens, young adults in order to help guide them in their biblical, theological, and spiritual development? Do you have any suggestions?

Scott Rae

I do. Uh and there's, you know, and you did not pay me to say this. Uh but I think the first one I would suggest is the is the one your dad did called More Than a Carpenter. Awesome. Uh it's one of the best discussions of who Jesus is and and why his claims are true. That's a great book. The other one I would suggest is Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life.

Sean McDowell

Okay.

Scott Rae

Which is, I think, a great book. Now, I don't I don't know where these I don't know where these teenagers are along the spiritual spectrum. Yeah. Uh now purpose-driven life I'd say is is for more for uh uh you know be beginner sort of, you know, uh spiritual life 101. And then if but if it's a little more advanced, I'd say maybe something like uh some of the works of Dallas Willard. Um The Divine Conspiracy, maybe, would be if if you want to stretch a bit, uh that one that's one I would suggest.

Sean McDowell

That's a pretty thick book for a teenager, not gonna lie. That's gonna have to be a motivated teenager that wants to get into that one.

Scott Rae

Well, those are chapters, not the whole book.

Sean McDowell

Oh, fair enough. Okay. So I actually would say a couple things. First off, I don't expect my teens to have long conversations with me about biblical, theological, or spiritual matters. Occasionally that happens. More often than not, it's kind of a quick conversation here, there, reflection. It comes up. And so maybe the individual's not saying this, but I might reframe expectations and kind of take what you can get over the dinner table, drive into the car, similar to Deuteronomy 6. Just try to talk about spiritual things as you can in good ways. And if it's not long, long drawn out, that's okay. Second, it's amazing they'll read books. Like that's a huge win today. I did not expect that. So way to go. I wrote a blog and it's called What Are the Best Apologetic Resources for Students? 2025 update. And I realize I just need to update it for this year. I'm not sure if it would change or not. But if the person just searches what are the best apologetic resources for students, search my name. We'll link to it below. They'll find that I have conferences I suggest for students, study Bibles for students, curriculum for students, and my top eight books. One of them is More Than a Carpenter. And my father and I actually updated that in 2024 about a year and a half ago together. But there's some other really good books that I recommend on there. There's one called 10 Questions Every Teen Should Ask and Answer About Christianity by Rebecca McLaughlin. And so you can look at all eight and kind of decide because the book, you know, theology, Bible, and apologetics are very different lanes. And so, in part, you've just got to decide which one. But I think that blog will give you eight of my top suggestions, and then you can go from there. All right, my man. Anything I missed, Scott? Nope. Good stuff today. All right. As always, enjoyed it. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School Theology, Biola University. We have master's programs, like I said earlier, in person and online in theology, Bible, apologetic, spiritual formation. We have a doctorate ministry program and wealth, uh, multiple, fully online and in person. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically at biola.edu. If you enjoy or benefit from this podcast, please consider giving us a rating on your podcast app and consider sharing this episode with a friend. We appreciate you listening, and you're going to really enjoy our Tuesday episode when I have an in-depth conversation with Joel Mutamale about his book, The Unseen Spiritual Battle, rooted in the thinking of Michael Heiser. You're going to love this one. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.