Cultural Update: Smartphone Ban Outcomes; The Rise of Teen Takeovers; Abortion Pills & Access; The Speed of the Expanding Universe

Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] 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 mifepristone 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.

Scott Rae: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.

Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, this first story, both of us tagged separately, so I think we both wanna weigh in here, and I think it's really significant 'cause over the past two or three years, we've seen a number of schools, state, authority down, banning smartphones during school time. Well, according to The New York Times, US News & 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, 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." 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-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... That I, that I thought were very encouraging.

Sean McDowell: Oh, good.

Scott Rae: One, one is that the article points out the school ban provides a greater sense of well-being for students.

Sean McDowell: 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 quote you made at the end, the end of the article, the s- the principal goes on to say, "At lunch, the kids are talking to each other."

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: "And it gets pretty loud." Now, Sean, I think those two things, the s- increased well-being for students and students talking to each other, I think those two things just might be related.

Sean McDowell: Exactly.

Scott Rae: 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, you know, in-person community, what's, what's, what, 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. Now, I, maybe what we, what we found, the article also points out that the devices are often used for what they call self-anesthetizing-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... 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.

Scott Rae: And the, a similar study that was reported in The Economist magazine earlier this spring said that s- getting, just getting students off of social media for as little a time as three weeks improved their sense of well-being.

Scott Rae: Now, the other thing that sort of stands out to me is, you know, 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, 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, 'cause my wonder, do they get right back to the same sort of device dependency at home? And I don't... There, there was no, you know, no data on that. And so 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 wellbeing, and at lunchtime kids are actually talking to each other.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: 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. 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 a reflection of teachers, and teachers are, good teachers are gonna find a way, whether there's smartphones in a 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 [chuckles]

Scott Rae: Hear, hear

Sean McDowell: ... Look at people face-to-face? That's gonna translate to personal wellbeing overall. That's just simply a positive. Now, I've been holding onto 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 [chuckles] of less words we speak, which I think is just a really interesting study.

Scott Rae: That's a lot of words.

Sean McDowell: That is a lot of words, right? But over a year, you break it 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. 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 whole, 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, 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, would be my guess over time. But we also have to take into consideration that these kids' test scores were profoundly affected by COVID.

Scott Rae: Exactly.

Sean McDowell: 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, 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.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: And that, and that's about it. And I think, I've realized a big source of the community I have is just, is walking down the hallway and-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... Talk, talking to my colleagues who, you know, who are s- you know, a lot of my colleagues are some of my closest friends. And so 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, on Zoom about every two or three weeks. 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, without those things because getting- ... You know, just getting to those places, you know, is in- is expensive and it's inconvenient and-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... There's just, there's no other way to do this. And I look at this for our students too. You know, it's a mixed bag 'cause 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. ButYou know, I, you know, I've had, I had stu- I had a couple students who were in Korea this semester. We got a stu- I got online students from all over the country who wouldn't have access to a Talbot education were it not for our digital communications.

Sean McDowell: That's good. 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 [laughs] interaction in your church, in your community, somewhere. We all need it. I think that's a good takeaway. Well, I saw this 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 [laughs] 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 the study, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, Washington, DC, 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 violent, 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 just gotten worse when it comes to the bad behavior. Kids just start the fights. They get increasingly more violent." Now, obviously, social anxiety over juvenile delinquency is not new. That's for sure. 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 US, we've talked about that. That's a positive trend. 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. 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, maybe one thing, but my, you know, my takeaway from this is more theological.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: Because this illustrates that we are created for community, but tarnished by sin.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: And I think it's good that they're seeking out community, social gathering places. Those, those are all good signs. I think it's problematic that things like groupthink and peer pressure can encourage sometimes destructive behaviors. Peop- it's not, it's not gonna take a lot of imagination to see that, you know, people can get swept up in sort of a groupthink mentality and do things in groups that they might not consider doing individually. And 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.

Sean McDowell: Right.

Scott Rae: But, but to socialize safely is on the participants to do so. That's, that's not the community's responsibility.

Sean McDowell: Agreed.

Scott Rae: So I... You know, the other thing 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 people tend to gather in lo- in large groups, and they tend to be more scrutinized than groups of white kids who have money and who live in the suburbs, where gathering is easy for the... Easier to go unnoticed.

Scott Rae: So I don't know what, quite what to make of that. That's the thing that strikes me that may be new in this, that there's maybe a little more skepticism about folks who gather in downtown or in these inner-city areas or in public parks than out in the suburbs.

Sean McDowell: That's interesting. I think what's new with this, to me, is there's always been teens who wanna gather, have parties. 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 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 kinda builds in this incentive to do something crazy, and I've gotta 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-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... You're about to chime in. [laughs]

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, getting... We are... Yeah, guess who else is gonna pay attention when those things go viral?

Sean McDowell: Uh-

Scott Rae: You know, it's law enforcement-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Is gonna, is gonna also pay attention. So I say sort of be, 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 say, said the same thing, but w- 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."

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: 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 dailiness 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 click-worthy, 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 mic- 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 14:28-31. 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, 'cause 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 wanna know when it comes to this story.

Scott Rae: Well, I think that's a good observation, Sean, because I think sometimes that is true, that, you know, adolescents have, they have very creative ways of trying to get their parents' attention. And you know, in lots of cases, I think the parental neglect is, you know, is a, is a factor. But I think there's also s- maybe something a little deeper than that. 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 the 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 have identified them with their parents for all their growing-up years. So I'm sympathetic to that. I, of course it doesn't justify-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... You know, when it becomes destructive. But I'm, I'm sympathetic to the, you know, how challenging that can be, particularly in a social media environment today, to establish that own identity and sort of 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 [laughs] and disciplining.

Scott Rae: Correct.

Sean McDowell: 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 2:52.

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell: Grew in wisdom, stature, favor with God, favor with man. So fair. As always, very gracious way-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... To see that, Scott. Good stuff.

Scott Rae: Well, sounds like an opportunity for the church, too.

Sean McDowell: I sure ho- I sure hope so. I agree with that. Well said. All right. So there's been a lot of conversation this week about the banning of mifepristone, and then the Supreme Court allowing it to be delivered again through telemedicine. And then this article popped up in The Atlantic that I sent to you talking about, well, misoprostol 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 mifepristone. 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 misoprostol, 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. To squash 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 mifepristone 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 of those are provided telehealth, that somebody just receives in the mail. So misoprostol-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 mifepristone. The standard true ju- two-drug regimen, mifepristone is taken first to block progesterone, the hormone that helps sustain a pregnancy. Then misoprostol follows 21 to two days later, causing the uterus to contract in a process that mimics miscarriage. But taken alone, misoprostol 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 misoprostol alone. They argue that serious complications are rare through misoprostol alone. Like they say, 0.2% of patients undergoing misoprostol-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 mise- mifepristone is not allowed to be sent, will misoprostol be next? And will this upend kind of the industry of pro-choice making 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, in my view, Sean, this is making the Dobbs decision irrelevant.

Sean McDowell: Oh, wow.

Scott Rae: And I think for-- This is, I think, profoundly discouraging for pro-life supporters. Now, I think, y- obviously, we wait and see. It looks like the Supreme Court will take this up. But they also took it up in 2024 and sided with the providers, and allowed the abortion pills to be delivered by mail. So I'm, I'm not optimistic that the Supreme Court is gonna weigh in any differently on this. And I think the statistics that you cited are 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 my view. Here's the tricky part of this, Sean, is that both of these drugs are-- 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, in women with normal pregnancies. So, you know, restricting these is a little bit trickier than what it looks like at fir- at first glance. Now, 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 hope that you have a person from conception forward, any abortion, regardless of the means, and whether it's, you know, whether it's done in the privacy of your, of your own home, is completely irrelevant to this.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: But any abortion except to save the mother's life, I would say, is morally hugely problematic.

Scott Rae: So whether, you know, whether the next, you know, whether both these drugs are gonna be targeted, mifepristone is the only one targeted at the moment, but I think the other one probably won't be far behind. So, you know, I think we'll just, we'll have to see where this goes, but in my view, 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 women in states where abortion is restricted to circumvent the law. And states where abortion is allowed are allowed by the law to mail the abortion pills to women in states where it's not allowed, and they, 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 in, 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 at the records of the insurance company who was paying for all of this, you know, then, you know, they came up with quite a bit different figures of much larger than that 0.2% of women who actually have complications. It was much more like, you know, 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. So, I, in my, in my view, I guess, Sean, the worst part of this, that cat's already out of the bag, and I don't, I don't, I think that, to mix in my metaphors, that's toothpaste that I don't think we're gonna squeeze back into the tube legally. But I d- 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 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, how much confidence do you have that the FDA and, 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 su- 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, not entirely. But I am encouraged that from 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 another look. So I'd say, I'd say maybe, you know, 50/50-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... 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 rep- the reproductive rights lobby is a strong one. And we'll, we'll s- 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: 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 states 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. Is that the connection point that you're making?

Scott Rae: Yes, it is. 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 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 also, you know, 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 re- that may affect clinics and surgical abortions, but it does not look like it have a, have a, 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 mifepristone or misoprostol 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.

Scott Rae: Sean, I think we need to ask our friend Donna Harrison-

Sean McDowell: That's fair

Scott Rae: ... About that, who's a, you know, a, an OBGYN. So I, yeah, I don't know the answer to that.

Sean McDowell: That's totally fair. If anyone's listening and you're a medical doctor and you have an example-

Scott Rae: Please

Sean McDowell: ... 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's going on here versus just the science. Uh-

Scott Rae: I do-

Sean McDowell: 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 you back in. Okay, to radically shift gears-

Scott Rae: Yes [laughs]

Sean McDowell: ... Here, Scott, this article jumped out to me, and I'm gonna 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 the 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 'cause it can help tell us how old the universe is." Now, I'm not gonna go into the particular details here, but they basically walk through how they have a certain calculation called... A, 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 gonna 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 that argument basically suggests that the universe had a beginning, which is, I think, almost universally accepted among physicists and cosmologists. And the, and 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, if, in fact, if our listeners wanna read a little bit more about this, our friend William Lane Craig is one of the ones who f- you know, has basically spent 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. Now, the other thing that, you know, sort, that I just wonder about is that the rate of expansion is pretty small. They said to, you know, 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 it'll take a very long time. So I'm, I'm wondering sort of what makes it, 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 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.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: So I, you know, I'm not, you know, 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 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," "Cosmologists who study the universe know it began with the Big Bang and has been expanding from a single point ever since." Now, that know 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 Steven Meyer has an art- 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 imply 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 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 was some people who pushed back on the science. Of course, there was, there was the Hooker telescope they did look through and saw the universe actually expanding. And because of the redshift, the further you see out in the universe, the more redshifted 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 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 the beginning of the universe over the past century are three massive scientific discoveries that all point towards a mind that resist materialism and fit precisely with what a Judeo-Christian worldview would expect. And Scott, really interestingly, it's... I'm kind of nerding out on this, but one of the leading scientists over the past 50 years, Sir Roger Penrose, who was on Hawking's, 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. Stephen Meyer and myself, we're putting clips in, we're putting a PowerPoint in.

Scott Rae: Wonderful.

Sean McDowell: 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 wanna nerd out, I spent the last month on my YouTube channel interviewing our own Doug Axe about the origin of life, Jay Richards about fine-tuning, Stephen 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 wanna 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. [laughs] I get excited.

Scott Rae: You're getting kind of fired up here.

Sean McDowell: Well, it's... Yeah.

Scott Rae: That's good.

Sean McDowell: 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 wanna remind our viewers, we would love to have you in person, so like Scott said, we could see you face-to-face [laughs] 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, a couple questionsOne, 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 and engaged with LDS theology, but I'm confused about their understanding of the Godhead. My fiance was taught that Christ was created. Do you know... But other LDS members say Christ is eternal 'cause 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 wanna weigh in on this one at all?

Scott Rae: Sure. Uh-

Sean McDowell: Good

Scott Rae: ... Definitely Christ was not created. He was begotten, and those are two very different things. In the words of the Nicene Creed, "He is begotten, not made." and it's not just His intelligence that has always existed, but His entire person as second person of the Trinity has always existed. So the reason it's important is because if Christ is created, He can't be divine.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: 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's, 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'm gonna actually pull from a book I got recently by a BYU professor named Grant Underwood, and, 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. 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 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: Yeah, 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 preexistence. 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, it says, "My kids are teens. I found that while they aren't excited to have a long conversation [chuckles] with me about biblical, theological, spiritual matters, they'll 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.

Sean McDowell: Good.

Scott Rae: And there's... You know, and you did not pay me to say this. Uh-

Sean McDowell: Okay [chuckles]

Scott Rae: ... But, I think the first one I would suggest is the, is the one your dad did. It's called More Than a Carpenter.

Sean McDowell: Awesome.

Scott Rae: It's one of the best discussions of who Jesus is 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.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: Then The Purpose Driven Life, I'd say is for, more for, you know, beginners, sort of, you know, spiritual life 101. And then if... But if it's a little more advanced, I'd say maybe something like, some of the works of Dallas Willard. The Divine Conspiracy maybe would be, if you wanna stretch a bit, 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, no, 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, a reflection, it comes up. And so maybe the individual's not saying this, but I might reframe expectations and kinda take what you can get over the dinner table, driving in 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 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.

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell: So way to go. I wrote a blog, and it's called What Are The Best Apologetic Resources For Students? 2025 Update, and I realized 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 gotta 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?

Scott Rae: Nope. Good stuff today.

Sean McDowell: 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 of Theology, Biola University. We have master's programs, like I said earlier, in person and online in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation. We have a doctorate in ministry program and multiple, fully online and in person. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@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 Mudamalle about his book, The Unseen Spiritual Battle, rooted in the thinking of Michael Heiser. You're gonna love this one. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]