tv Life Liberty Levin FOX News April 29, 2018 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT
10:00 pm
. mark: hello, america, i'm mark levin, and this is "life, liberty & levin," and it's an honor to have dr. david berlinski with us. how are you, sir? >> i'm just fine, thank you for having me. mark: thank you for coming all the way from paris to our little place. >> was endless. mark: okay, imagine 100 years ago. that was endless. >> it was worse. my trip was worse. mark: david berlinski. i want to talk today with you in your uniquely qualified to do this, about evolution,
10:01 pm
science and progressivism because there's a link. you've written about this and spoken about this many, many times. you received your ph.d. in philosophy from princeton university. later a post doctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at columbia university. glad i didn't take any of those courses. you taught philosophy, mathematics, english at stanford, rutgers, university of new york and in paris and the editor of inference international review of science. let's get started. you wrote a book about a decade ago they read about a decade ago. and in doing this program, i started to think about it, and i said, i think it's important that we have this discussion about science, evolution, progressivism, and i want to start where you started. let me read you one paragraph.
10:02 pm
"i'm a secular jew, you write. my religious education did not take. i can barely remember a word of hebrew, i cannot pray. i've spent more years than i care to remember in studying mathematics and writing about the sciences. yet, as you wrote in the preface of this book, the book that follows is in some sense a defense of religious thought and sentiment. biblical verses are the least of it, a defense is needed because none has been forthcoming. the discussion has been ceded to men who regard religious belief with frivolous contempt. the books have poured from every press and differing widely in style, they are identical in message because scientific theories are true religious beliefs, must be false. from your book "the devil's delusion," atheism and scientific pretensions. and that is the thesis, that is the foundational point of your
10:03 pm
book. you can expand on that? >> well, something, something particular and peculiar seems to have come over angloamerican intellectual life in. the 1950s and the 60s, the position that was academically tolerated was a cheerful agnostissism with respect to god's existence, maybe, maybe nod, but this isn't an issue that vexes us as profoundly as members of the scientific community at all changes. now very vociferous and dogmatic a dogmatic atheism is obligatory, established physicalists may be planning jihad, i have no idea. but by and large, atheism has
10:04 pm
replaced forebearing agonistissism in the anglo-american scientific life. and as a result, the religious tradition is a very, very long 5,000-year-old tradition has been made into an object of faint derision among sophisticated men and women much to the consternation of people who deeply, deeply admire that tradition, and that, i think, is a change in the diopacin of life that we need to pay attention to. it is relatively new, started around 1980, '85 but become an accelerating force in intleck wal life. if you are minded to be a serious christian or extremely devout and orthodox jew or even a serious muslim, better not go
10:05 pm
into the scientific community and tell your fraternity brothers that that is what you are. best to keep your mouth closed. th's generally true, it's among the various topics about which it is not a particularly good idea to make broadcast your views. mark: and then you add following up on your point -- and you say basically science is nothing to say about life and love and death and meaning.
10:06 pm
>> hardly a controversial point, is it? i mean, if i am asking certain kinds of questions. look, look around you. there's something there. open your eyes, you're struck by the existence of the universe. why is that there? look at the answers forthcoming from the physics community. they can be described in one of two ways. well, what do you expect? we're here. therefore there is something there. or it's kind of an accident. these are not the kind of answers intelligent men and women are searching for. they correspond to no deep intellectual need, they're frivolous. physics has nothing to tell us, for example, about the origins and appearance of the universe. it has a lot of interesting things to say about cosmology but not the same question. the most radical question you can ask is: why is there
10:07 pm
something, anything rather than what, nothing? why is that? it's perfectly possible to propose there could have been nothing whatsoever. i don't mean some preexisting stuff. i mean nothing. well, that's not the world we live in. how come? it's a good question. what's your answer? when you look at the physicists or the biologist or the chemist, their answer is, we know how it happened. we open our eyes, too. there's something. and we can explain the origin of all that by appealing to some preexisting something. are you satisfied with that? if not, well, you're not scientific literate. lawrence kraus makes that argument, the preexisting quantum field from which it arose. mark: they have no real solid idea do, they? >> none, whatsoever. mark: and yet, they continue to
10:08 pm
push their theories out as if it's science. >> well, let's be fair, wouldn't you do the same thing if you were a leading -- i sure would. if i had a theory that deep down i knew no good, but there are sorts of emoluments, richness, award, prestigious, i would push it, do i. mark: we get the arguments about climate change where the same scientists can't tell. >> you talking about the top physicists. climate change, you have to go down the ladder into the bottom. mark: for a lot of us, it's just a mush out there. in other words, you're saying the top physicists and what i'm saying is, when we take a look at climate change, we have a community that can't tell us the temperature in a week within 10 degrees, but they can tell us the temperature in 100 years within one degree. what i'm saying is you saying the top physicists.
10:09 pm
isn't it pervasive? isn't this a pervasive problem throughout science? >> to a certain extent. look, science is an enormous enterprise. how many guys, how many women, men and women affirm themselves as scientists worldwide today? do you happen to have the number? it's seven million. seven million people are engaged in the scientific enterprise. and, of course, you are going to find very repetitive sociological patterns when there is something as important as environment or climate, you're going to find groups forming factions splitting from the group, a tremendous amount of propaganda. elaborate number of resources, a lot of money to be had, not coming from the private sector, it's coming from the federal government. when i talk about fundamental questions about the origin of the universe, we're appealing to the very top of the intellectual ladder. when i talk about climate
10:10 pm
change, we're talking about some competent people, not many, some competent people with moderately conflicting views, both about the origins of climate change, yes, the world is getting warmer. the nature of climate change, the reliability of the climactic models, the theories that go into them and prognostications for the future. it's not entirely clear exactly which group has the most overwhelming and persuasive evidence. mark: well, let's talk about the top. if you think this fellow, at least arguably, darwin, a lot of theories, arguments, science, so to speak what is darwinism. what is that? >> darwin comes mid 19th century figure, 1859, he published what is arguably the masterpiece, the origin of species and the question that darwin asked himself is a question that all the 19th
10:11 pm
century biologists were asking, what is the nature of life? what is the origin of individual species? how did life emerge from inorganic matter? and what are the dynamic laws that change one species into another, if there is such a thing as a change of species. don't forget alchemy promoted a very similar thesis when it said base metals could be transmuted into gold. an argument for transmutation of elements. darwin provided an alchemical explanation for biology. species could be transformed into other species. how could this come about? we don't see it every day. it comes about because there are small variations within each species and these variations are seized upon by the mechanism of natural selection which simply means some survive, some don't survive. over vast periods of time, these small variations
10:12 pm
accumulate, they converge on a different structure and various different structures in turn converge on a new body, plant, o organism of species, that's darwinism and it's a position which is being increasingly held as a secular doctrine. comparable, comparable to the book of genesis. mark: is he right? >> i have a lot of doubts, i have a lot of doubts and so do other people. there are many, many places when one looks at darwinism, some says look, this isn't the scientific theory, it's a collection of anecdotes. why did the giraffe develop such a long neck? well, he wanted to reach the trees on the top. well how come other animals didn't develop the long neck? they didn't want to reach the trees on the top. how come certain type of european eels have to swim
10:13 pm
across the atlantic in order to mate? others are happy fornicating close to home. it worked for one seal, not the other. why aren't women born with tails like cats? well, women don't seem to need the tails, though it could make them more alluring than they are. why don't cats rule the world, considering they have every reason and every opportunity to do so? well, they're content being our domestic masters. the anecdotes pile on interminably and no fundamental leading principle. mark: do you find that most atheists, more prominent atheists embrace darwinism. >> every last one. mark: why do they do that? >> because it's a secular myth. even atheists need compelling myth how we got here, what we do here, what our purpose is. how we got here is an accident.
10:14 pm
what we got here? we have no idea. what is the purpose, fornication and replication, that's about it, it's a very, very viable myth. people act according to it. mark: and it also doesn't tolerate much, as you are right, and people experience doesn't tolerate much religion of people of faith. i want to continue with this in just a moment with you. don't forget every week night you can watch levin-tv by joining conservative review tv, join our community there, give us a call at
10:15 pm
10:16 pm
vojimmy (shouting): james!as been jimmy's longest. he's survived record rain and a supplier that went belly up. so while he's proud to have helped put a roof over the heads of hundreds of families, he's most proud of the one he's kept over his own. brand vo: get the most out of your money, whether you're using quickbooks smart invoicing to get paid
10:17 pm
10:18 pm
[ phone rings ] look at you. this tech stuff is easy. [ whirring sound ] you want a cookie? it's a drone! i know. find your phone easily with the xfinity voice remote. one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around. . mark: dr. berlinski. so atheism, darwinism, they can't really tolerate religion, can they? >> not with any degree of enthusiasm. i mean, everyone will say religion is a matter of what you do in the privacy and therefore, the confines of your own home. as long as it doesn't come into the academic world and pollute the stream of vigorous science. you can do whatever you want. that is a way of maintaining
10:19 pm
the fiction of certain kinds of constitutional protections and at the same time upholding the values of the academy. which are frankly anti-religious. there's no question about that. what's the title of christopher hitchen's book? "religion poisons everything." >> and i look at this and look at the declaration of independence, natural rights, god given, unalienable rights. how can the notion of darwinism, atheism, really progressivism, which i want to get into with you in a moment, they really don't work with constitutionalism, do they? >> we told these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their creator. oh, wait a second. that has nothing to do it, is
10:20 pm
flatly inconsistent darwinian hypothesis. all men are not created equal. quite a difference in the biological world, if you want a comparison, look to our nearest neighbors, you would never say all chimpanzees are brothers endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. why should we say that? but we do? we tolerate the inconsistency because we're forced to. mark: we tolerate the inconsistency, but when it comes to actual governance, the inconsistency in many ways isn't even tolerated. what i mean by that is it's a point of propaganda. it's a point of emotion, but there are parties, there are efforts, right, that adopt this
10:21 pm
notion of progressivism and the old progressives who take a lot of the arguments from hagel and marx and woodrow wilson and dewey, they would attack the declaration, attack the constitution, this is old stuff. it's time to move along. >> all this is holy is profane, marx said. mark: do you think this darwinism, the push towards religion out of the public square, we got to clean it off out of the parks and schools. >> get rid of it. mark: wherever it is? >> yeah. mark: doesn't this undermine the foundational principles of the united states? >> probably. probably. but, look, let me put the point
10:22 pm
to you in a slightly different way. suppose you were coming from out of space, you're a biologist, you come to the earth. and you listen to a long lecture about darwin and immense importance of darwinian biology and you open your own eyes, you're from mars. what are the two things that would strike but the living systems on the face of the earth? not the darwinian rhetoric but the evidence of your own eyes. one is that all life is related. there's no question about that. biochemistry is the same throughout life. all life has very, very many of its properties in common. there's one living system on the face of the planet. not a multitude of species, one living system. that's the first thing you'd notice. second thing you notice if you are honest is that there's a vast inseparable distinction between two kinds of living
10:23 pm
systems. human beings and all the rest. that is something that's rarely noticed. rarely emphasized. the distance between a human being and our nearest chimpanzee-like ancestors, common ancestors is much, much, much greater than the difference between a chimpanzee and a flower. we're talking about a bifurcation of the manifold of biology. human beings on one side, the rest of the animal or plant kingdom on the other. these are facts that any untroubled observer. by untroubled, i mean someone not previously adhered to ideology such as darwinism. would it once recognize life is connected? it's in some sense one living system, but profoundly divided between human beings and all
10:24 pm
the rest. that's the first step toward some sort of system of reconciliation because it prompts the inevitable question. hey, how come, why are human beings so different? why do they organize themselves differently? why do they have mathematics, literature. why do they speak to one another? have creative thoughts? a chimpanzee is probably a lovable animal but nobody ever asked the chimpanzee a question that was impossible for the chimpanzee to answer. this is arthoginial to the questions asked today. mark: the question is broad stroked, even engaged in that discussion. and so what we're really talking about is we're supposed to accept hagel called it the
10:25 pm
final end, supposed to accept the absolute. the only quibbling is how we get there, and so when we have people teaching like that, people pressing that kind of dogmatism, it become more difficult than now? >> that is part of the problem that any secular society faces. minute that the society becomes secular, it needs to embrace a certain ideological system which largely replaces religious thought and tradition, once the ideological system is in place, of course the self-protective mechanism clicks into place and an effort is made to eradicate any form of dissent. did you expect anything else? mark: well, i hope so. but when this country was founded, they did something very unique in the declaration
10:26 pm
of independence. they wrote this down where few other countries ever -- >> what's the date? mark: i agree, 1776. but they set up the constitutional construct. 1781 and thereafter. 1787. why did they do that? to preserve the articles in the declaration of independence. which raises an interesting point in response to your question. >> ask me. mark: can there ever be a lasting society that embraces anything other than this notion of darwinism which might lead to progressivism, forms of marxism or whatever the answers are. i want your answer right after the break.
10:27 pm
♪ oh you're simply the best ♪ better than all the rest ♪ better than anyone ♪ anyone i' er met ♪ ick o'm stuyour heart, the best just got bigger. ♪ i hang on every word you say applebee's new bigger bolder grill combos. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. and it's time to get outside. pack in even more adventure with audible. with the largest selection of audiobooks. audible lets you follow plot twists off the beaten track.
10:28 pm
or discover magic when you hit the open road. with the free audible app, your stories go wherever you do. and for just $14.95 a month you get a credit, good for any audiobook. if you don't like it exchange it any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. so take audible with you this summer... on the road... on the trail... or to the beach. start a 30-day trial and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime, and your books are yours to keep forever. no matter where you go this summer make it better with audible. text summer10 to 500500 to start listening today.
10:30 pm
[♪] kelly: live from "america's news headquarters." a group of central american asylum seekers are stuck in mexico as u.s. officials say the border crossing is full. they made it to the san ysidro border crossing in san diego, but they will have to wait for space to open up. mike pompeo is in saudi arabia where he met with the king. he then traveled to israel for a
10:31 pm
brief visit before moving on to jordan. dr. ronny jackson will not be returning to the white house has trump's personal doctor. i'm kelly wright. . mark: welcome back. so is darwinism and the various political tributaries really in many respects that lead to forms of tyranny in my view, in my opinion, because government replaces essentially faith, replaces all of these other traditions and customs, or lords of them. is that inevitable? >> yes. mark: it's inevitable. >> inevitable. what i think you're looking at the wrong focal length. mark: right. >> darwinism is a particular
10:32 pm
kind of scientific doctrine, it's largely anecdotal, very far removed from physics or mathematics and plays a certain role the ceremonies of democratic life and has played that role for half a century or so. but, of course, it's like everything else, it's changing. it's undergoing change because of the intense intellectual pressure brought on any scientific theory by the profound questions. for example, we know perfectly well that questions about the origins of life from the standpoint of 2018 are hopeless. we do not understand how life emerged from what under a rock it did emerge. we are simply making a coherent chemical account. a chemist at rice university has written about this, for inference. journal i'm editing. he said it's time to -- and as
10:33 pm
it inevitably happens, darwinian biologists by calling attention to themselves so very flamboyantly have called into question the very structure of the theories they're defending, because the physicists have said, hey, you know, that's interesting, the claims you are making, it's all nonsense but we physicists can handle it a lot better. you get somebody, for example, i think it is donny fisher at stanford. a very, very interesting theory but has no quantitative properties, it's not like a theory in physics, and this collective heart attack among the darwinian biologists, not like physics, not like gravity, say it isn't so, but it isn't so. so the physicists are suddenly changing the profile.
10:34 pm
mark: what i'm trying to get it. >> was it inevitable? mark: is that science, which is applied by the progressives, by the communists, political science, behavioral science, social science and so forth, ahead of their birth among others darwinism. are they amenable to rethinking these scientific theories from which they borrow in order to organize man? i don't think so. >> science progresses one funeral at a time. it's true. certain generation is going to die out. the next generation is going to be very careful about the kinds of claims they are make. darwinism is a movement, is an ideology, is a position and thought, and a triumphant creation is like any other movement or thought.
10:35 pm
it has its ups and downs and it's clearly on the point of radical dissolution, right now. what's going to replace it? whether it will evoke the same clamorous contingent of supporters that darwinism has evoked? i don't know. we'll see. a lot of sinister developments happening. big data is itself a response of a kind to the absence of theory and biology and psychology. mark: big data, the collection of health records, social -- >> tons and tons of data, together with artificial intelligence protect the data. if you don't understand what's going on, psychology, and if you don't understand what's going on in biology, heap together a ton of data and start looking at it. that's a response. that's something different. that was not expected. mark: uh-huh. i think a lot of our viewers hearing what you've talked about in atheism, darwinism and
10:36 pm
so forth, and i read you're a secular jew, do you reject the idea that there is a supernatural? that there is a god? how do you deal with that? >> do i reject it personally. mark: yeah. >> and how do you deal with it? >> god forbid i should reject such a thing. there's a vast difference being a believer, obeying a certain set of religious prescriptions. vast difference between that and fundamental rejection. no, i don't reject it. i can't live with it. i admit that. mark: what does that mean? >> it means i'm like everyone else. i'm a secular individual. i'd like to think that i'm better than i am. i'd like to think that there is certain forms of consciousness,
10:37 pm
certain imperatives that i respect which are religious in nature, but i know i'm kidding myself, i'm a secular human being who tries to do for the most part pretty much what he feels like doing. have a good time all the time is a secular motto. right? mark: you have a good time all the time? >> it's hard. any form of faith is difficult. mark: now, when we return, i want to get back to this idea of progressivism and its relationship to these sciences, or what i guess you would call pseudosciences. >> they're all the same. mark: they're all the same. you can catch me every week night on levin-tv on crtv. i hope you will join us. live us a call on our toll-free number, 844-levin-tv. 844-levin-tv. these birds once affected by oil
10:39 pm
are heading back home. thanks to dawn, rescue workers only trust dawn, because it's tough on grease yet gentle. i am home, i am home, i am home even when nothing else is. keep her receipts tidy, brand vo: snap and sort your expenses with quickbooks and find, on average, $4,340 in tax savings. quickbooks. backing you.
10:40 pm
i'm the one clocking in... when you're clocking out. sensing your every move and automatically adjusting to help you stay effortlessly comfortable. i can also help with this. does your bed do that? oh... i don't actually talk. though i'm smart enough to. i'm the new sleep number 360 smart bed. let's meet at a sleep number store.
10:41 pm
have discovered something strong...e dependable... long lasting. they've found themselves in a chevy truck. and now, you can too. see for yourself why chevrolet is the most awarded and fastest growing brand the last four years overall. switch into a new chevy now. current competitive owners can gethree thousand dollars total cash allowance on most colorado pickups. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.
10:42 pm
. mark: dr. berlinski. i want to pick up where we left off. you get into these debates with atheists. you defend not in your view, the necessarily is a god or right religion and so forth, but that you don't know. and what you seem to be saying is the scientists don't know what they don't know, and yet they insist, not all, i'm talking about certain specific ones, the atheists, and yet they insist there is no god and religion is bad and so forth and so on. how do you struggle with this? or do you struggle with this? >> look, the struggle begins by making a born distinction. can i say i believe there is no god. it's one kind of commitment.
10:43 pm
and that's essentially an atheist position. i believe for whatever reasons that god does not exist, but i can say in a much more ameliorative sense i don't believe that god exists. quite different. i withdraw some form of assent. i believe god does not exist, it's not the case that god exists. i believe the proposition god exists, i can defend that. that's the atheist speaking. i would say i don't have an intense belief with respect to god's existence. it hasn't been vouched to me. it's not the case. it's not the case they believe that god exists, but i'm not tempted to say i do not believe that he does not exist. i'm tempted to only temperize, and i think that is
10:44 pm
fundamentally the way most people in a secular society think. mark: and yet, you aggressively from an intellectual point of view, battle the atheists, which is your point, who insist that god does not exist, and what you seem to be saying is look, i don't know, but i can't reject it out of hand, and i can't embrace what you're selling as a replacement. is that about right? >> that's absolutely the way i feel. i do battle with the atheists, that's a wonderfully vivid image, chiefly because i think there are wind bags, and if they were arguing another position, do i battle with it. mark: harris? >> the whole crew, jerry coin, dawkins, shellings, harris, christophe hitchins was a sophisticated guy and knew what he was saying was absurd.
10:45 pm
he would get up and say never believe anything without evidence. i would say what about what you just said? what's your evidence for never believing anything without evidence. he said it's just a sentence. something i say. but yeah, i think dogmatic atheism, the movement of atheism is an embarrassment in contemporary thought and i think i'm pretty much alone in thinking that. it is a very popular or very effervescent movement, their whole societies consecrated to upholding atheism, and the first thing they do when they gather together at ecumenical devotion is form factions and start hurling anathemas, atheism, atheism plus, and when they finish hurling anathemas, women have been oppressed by men, and spend amounts of time
10:46 pm
defending sexual harassment in the atheist movement. it's a joy to watch. mark: the atheist movement is a movement on the left. >> yeah. mark: i don't know conservatives, some are, but most aren't, atheists, why is that? >> to the fact that marx offers a substitute for religion, you would not expect the dogmatic or orthodox communist to say the scientific system society is what marx has given us as a tool of analysis, but it all is contingent upon the whims of the deity. it seems irrelevant postullate, there are plenty of rotten guys on the conservative side.
10:47 pm
nazis. mark: and atheists as conservatives? >> they were lousy, pretty lousy. even if the ss executioners took communion after execution, who cares? mark: what i'm trying to expos i think, and you may disagree is that hagel, marx, russo, this collective philosophy with differences and so forth, they have to reject religion. they have to reject traditions, they have to reject customs. or their philosophies don't make any sense. we'll discuss that more broadly we'll discuss that more broadly my healthy routine helps me feel my best. so i add activia yogurt to my day. with its billions of live and active probiotics, activia may help support my digestive health, so i can take on my day. activia. now in probiotic dailies.
10:48 pm
sometimes you need an expert. i got it. and sometimes those experts need experts. on it. [ crash ] and sometimes the expert the expert needed needs insurance expertise. it's all good. steve, you're covered for general liability. and, paul, we got your back with workers' comp. wow, it's like a party in here. where are the hors d'oeuvres, right? [ clanking ] tartlets? we cover commercial vehicles, too. i think there's something wrong with your sink.
10:51 pm
10:52 pm
they also embrace, saying, we saw hagel, marx, this sort of thing, who really do insist that basically have to destroy the existing society in order to get to the promise land for a variety of reasons, materialism or whatever it is. >> we've heard that before. mark: we've heard that before. modern incarnation of this, of this attitude of this belief system, the progressives, the so-called democratic socialists, isn't this where they're dragging countries or maybe not dragging them where, people want to go in the various countries in europe and the united states? >> sure, everybody wants to go there, provided they can go there without any personal inconvenience. me, too. i'm not objecting to universal health care. mark: it doesn't work. >> it worked for me. that's all i care about. mark: exactly right. >> if you have 40 million other people who say exactly the same thing, you will have a system exactly like the socialized system in france.
10:53 pm
which i must say did a great job on me. gave me a new aortic valve. and there you've touched on a crucial point. these usufruks destroy the bond of social solidarity, you cannot endlessly profit from a subsidized system and spend the time worrying about obligations to people in the same situation. you can spend a lot of time talking about obligations but worrying about them, quite different. mark: you said i'm doing well, this guy may not be. >> i have no complaints. >> isn't that the point, when you are unmoored from these principles, unmoored from values, belief systems or faith, where everyone believes they come from. that's what it comes down to. i got what i want. he didn't get it, that's his problem. aren't societies developing more and more in that
10:54 pm
direction, unfortunately? >> well, secular societies tend to atomize very frequently, they dissolve into individual constituents and the social sciences that used to be called methodological individualism. the unit of analysis is the individual, but the unit of agency is also the individual. and i think that is a feature of a secular society and seems to be a feature of secular society as is deeply desired by the inhabitants of the secular society. one thing we have to understand and accept reluctantly is like the second law of thermodynamics -- mark: can we get to that in a minute? >> sure. mark: that's a mouthful and i mark: that's a mouthful and i don't want
10:55 pm
10:57 pm
and it's time to get outside. pack in even more adventure with audible. with the largest selection of audiobooks. audible lets you follow plot twists off the beaten track. or discover magic when you hit the open road. with the free audible app, your stories go wherever you do. and for just $14.95 a month you get a credit, good for any audiobook. if you don't like it exchange it any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. so take audible with you this summer... on the road... on the trail... or to the beach.
10:58 pm
start a 30-day trial and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime, and your books are yours to keep forever. no matter where you go this summer make it better with audible. text summer10 to 500500 to start listening today. you can switch and save time. it pays to switch things up. [cars honking] [car accelerating] you can switch and save worry. ♪ you can switch and save hassle. [vacuuming sound] and when you switch to esurance, you can save time, worry, hassle and yup, money. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. so you might want to think about pulling the ol' switcheroo. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.
10:59 pm
mark: second law of thermodynamics. >> you got it. mark: what is it? >> things go from bad to worse in one direction. mark: is that where we are headed? >> i'm telling you as far they know that is it. things go bad to worse. look at us. it goes in one direction and we are young ones and getting old now, right? i only speak truth to power. the second law of thermodynamics embodies the most ancient part of human wisdom. things go from bad to worse. mark: what about societies? >> them to. mark: do you doubt it? >> every human birth is an achievement in violating the second law of thermodynamics but every time of our buds we have a violation. it's not all bad. societies do change very
11:00 pm
radically and they change in one way. mark: the only problem is what takes place when they change -- is a violent change then we have a problem. i want to thank you. i could've done this for five chris: i'm chris wallace, the leader of north and south pledge to clear the peninsula of nuclear weapons. now can president trump seal the deal? >> it's going to be a very important meeting, the denuclearization of the korean peninsula of north korea, denuke, denuke. chris: we will discuss what comes next for kim jong un and president trump. >> i look forward to the meeting, should be quite something. chris: with john bolton first appearance at white house security adviser and then the president's new lawyer meets with robert mueller, as the senate panels moves to protect
122 Views
Uploaded by TV Archive on