Bret Weinstein

That that's a marvelous thing to have happened through this process. I could imagine that. It still doesn't strike me as the simplest way to explain the universe that I see. But if a creator wanted a universe in which biological marvels happened, then the universe might look like this.

And it doesn't change what I do at the point that I know that a Darwinian process is actually the tool that has shaped the creatures, then it it makes sense to study it in the way that I do. So again, I'm not against the idea that there's a creator. I don't see any evidence for it.

And it doesn't change what I do at the point that I know that a Darwinian process is actually the tool that has shaped the creatures, then it it makes sense to study it in the way that I do. So again, I'm not against the idea that there's a creator. I don't see any evidence for it.

And it doesn't change what I do at the point that I know that a Darwinian process is actually the tool that has shaped the creatures, then it it makes sense to study it in the way that I do. So again, I'm not against the idea that there's a creator. I don't see any evidence for it.

If there is a creator, I'm pretty sure he must want me to be skeptical for some reason, because he's given me that which would cause me to be skeptical.

If there is a creator, I'm pretty sure he must want me to be skeptical for some reason, because he's given me that which would cause me to be skeptical.

If there is a creator, I'm pretty sure he must want me to be skeptical for some reason, because he's given me that which would cause me to be skeptical.

And I guess the final piece of that argument is that I think that there is a more parsimonious way to understand our universe and the role of religious belief in it, which I know will be grating to many people, especially people who do have a profound relationship with a religious faith.

And I guess the final piece of that argument is that I think that there is a more parsimonious way to understand our universe and the role of religious belief in it, which I know will be grating to many people, especially people who do have a profound relationship with a religious faith.

And I guess the final piece of that argument is that I think that there is a more parsimonious way to understand our universe and the role of religious belief in it, which I know will be grating to many people, especially people who do have a profound relationship with a religious faith.

But I think the right way to understand all of the evidence is that religious belief systems are themselves profoundly important products of evolution. They are keys to the amazing capacity humans.

But I think the right way to understand all of the evidence is that religious belief systems are themselves profoundly important products of evolution. They are keys to the amazing capacity humans.

But I think the right way to understand all of the evidence is that religious belief systems are themselves profoundly important products of evolution. They are keys to the amazing capacity humans.

And so, I don't know how clear this is, but part of what I'm saying is that I think the facts tell us, or they strongly imply a story in which there is no literal creator, but they do not tell us that the creator is a fiction, right? Any more than a wing is a fiction. Our belief in

And so, I don't know how clear this is, but part of what I'm saying is that I think the facts tell us, or they strongly imply a story in which there is no literal creator, but they do not tell us that the creator is a fiction, right? Any more than a wing is a fiction. Our belief in

And so, I don't know how clear this is, but part of what I'm saying is that I think the facts tell us, or they strongly imply a story in which there is no literal creator, but they do not tell us that the creator is a fiction, right? Any more than a wing is a fiction. Our belief in

God or gods is a key to human functionality, and it is incumbent on evolutionary biologists to understand in what way that could possibly be true. And this is a responsibility. on which I think evolutionists have fallen down. They have treated religious devotion as, frankly, a pathology, and it couldn't possibly be one. It's obviously adaptive.

God or gods is a key to human functionality, and it is incumbent on evolutionary biologists to understand in what way that could possibly be true. And this is a responsibility. on which I think evolutionists have fallen down. They have treated religious devotion as, frankly, a pathology, and it couldn't possibly be one. It's obviously adaptive.

God or gods is a key to human functionality, and it is incumbent on evolutionary biologists to understand in what way that could possibly be true. And this is a responsibility. on which I think evolutionists have fallen down. They have treated religious devotion as, frankly, a pathology, and it couldn't possibly be one. It's obviously adaptive.

And because it's obviously adaptive, it requires the same seriousness that we point at other structures or processes. And so far, there's been very little of that in my field.