Down with the SPLC + The Greatness of Justice Alito
Charlie Kirk and guests Tyler O'Neill, Molly Hemingway, and James Comer dissect the SPLC's alleged wire fraud indictment involving $133M in revenue and informants, while promoting Justice Alito's originalist legacy and Dr. Stephen Meyer's "Return of the God Hypothesis." The episode critiques Virginia election losses due to poor ground games, investigates mysterious nuclear scientist disappearances potentially linked to foreign espionage, and condemns same-sex surrogacy before arguing that DNA's information complexity demands an intelligent designer in a new film releasing April 30th. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
The Hate Map Controversy00:14:51
My name is Charlie Kirk.
I run the largest pro American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic.
My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth.
If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable.
But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful.
College is a scam, everybody.
You got to stop sending your kids to college.
You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible.
Go start a turning point USA college chapter, go start a turning point USA high school chapter.
Go find out how your church can get involved.
Sign up and become an activist.
I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade.
Most important decision I ever made in my life.
And I encourage you to do the same.
Here I am.
Lord, use me.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.
Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at Noble Gold Investments.com.
That is Noble Gold Investments.com.
All right.
Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
It's Wednesday, April 22nd.
It's a good day.
Yes, it is.
It is a good day.
We had a little bit of a setback in Virginia, which we're going to get into in just a little bit.
But this SPLC news is phenomenal.
It's everything that we sort of wanted out of our Department of Justice.
So good for them.
Yes.
Good for them.
They deserve a massive hat tip.
I love seeing them playing offense.
For those who didn't hear this, bro.
Kind of in the evening yesterday.
Hold on.
Hold on.
We are about to get to it.
We will have a moment to give you everything about the SPLC.
But first, I just have to tell you and give a shout out to our teams.
We had two massive events on the turning point side last night packed crowds at both The Ohio State University.
I got lectured about The.
Danny is somewhere out there clapping that I said it right.
The Ohio State University.
And then we also had a pastor summit, our largest ever in Grapevine.
So let's give it SOT 2 here.
And plus, Turning Point USA drawn a packed crowd at Ohio State yesterday.
If we could get every young person when they turn 18 to be informed and engaged in our politics, whether or not you agree with me and showing up at the ballot box, that's a good thing, and we want to bring that to our country.
Yeah, massive, massive event.
That was the Ohio State with Vivek, who's obviously running for governor in Ohio.
And then again, that pastor summit down in Grapevine, Texas.
And Lawrence Jones, who was the commentator right there, actually was one of the gentlemen on stage.
So I wanted to give him a little shout there.
But without further ado, we are going to bring in Tyler O'Neill.
He's senior editor for the Daily Signal and he's also the author of a book about the SPLC called Making Hate Pay.
Tyler, welcome back to the show.
It's good to see you, my friend.
Hey, thanks again so much for having me.
All right.
So, Blake, prime the pump.
Give us the content.
Now, now I can get you to go.
For those who didn't hear about this, so the SPLC is the Southern Poverty Law Center.
They've been this kind of goblin on the left for a long time.
They were especially prominent in President Trump's first term.
They're Guys, that they adopt is, oh, they're policing hate in America.
They monitor hate groups across America.
They run this site called Hate Watch.
They've been doing it for decades.
And what people noticed a while ago when it became glaring in the first Trump administration is they are a far left group.
And what they exist to do is to label the right as extremist and to say that all the extremism in America is on the right and that hate groups are always on the rise.
They're always warning the Klan is coming back, Nazis are coming back.
Killer motorcycle gangs are coming back.
And so they exist to freak people out about that to get money.
And they exist to smear people like Charlie, as an example, as one of those hate figures.
I mean, let's be honest as well.
It is, I don't think, a stretch to say, and I'll let Tyler agree or disagree with me, it is not a stretch to say that they legitimately hate white people.
The SPLC is a very bad white.
They are America's top hate group, in my opinion.
But what we got last night that's incredible and is good news is the SPLC, according to the federal government, in an indictment.
They were during that period of the first Trump administration spending literally millions of dollars on informants within the far right groups that they claimed to be monitoring and policing against, including in some cases they were paying the leaders of these groups.
In one case, they were paying tens of thousands of dollars to somebody at the same time they had a page of him on their Hate Watch page saying, This is an extremist that we're fighting against.
Please give us money to fight against him when they were paying him.
And so now the federal government has brought wire fraud charges against the SPLC.
And I think whether these charges are successful or not, it's a great opportunity to expose how the organization really works.
And I think we're going to find a lot of dirty laundry.
As our guest Tyler is aware, there's a lot to find.
Tyler, the floor is yours.
You wrote the book Making Hate Pay, and now we know it's way more insidious and sinister than we knew before.
Yeah, well, we've long expected, we've long suspected that something like this was going on, but we didn't fully know the details of this informant network.
And you gotta love when the SPLC does damage control by coming out and making known this clandestine informant program.
That they've been hiding for decades.
But the SPLC, my book title says The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center, because what they do, their stock in trade, is to exaggerate hate.
They've cultivated this huge network of donors because the SPLC sued Ku Klux Klan groups into non existence, into bankruptcy in the 1980s.
And they've taken that platform and weaponized it to smear conservative.
And of course, you know, Charlie is exhibit A, really, after the horrible thing, you know, after the assassination attempt.
But he wasn't the first one to face violence after the SPLC added him to the hate map.
They also added the Family Research Council.
That led to a mass shooting in 2012.
And thankfully, that shooting was largely prevented.
But the guy who shot up the Family Research Council told the FBI he did so because of the SPLC map.
So, the SPLC has this system where they put out this hate map with Klan chapters and other white nationalist and evil groups that they say are, you know, they call this the infrastructure of white supremacy in America.
And this map has gotten ever more insane as I've been covering it.
So, they used to just have the Family Research Council, then they added Alliance Defending Freedom, they have immigration groups like the Federation on.
On American immigration reform, groups that warn against radical Islam, like the Center for Security Policy and the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
And then they started adding, so first they started with some of those groups.
Then in 2023, they added Moms for Liberty to the hate map.
And in 2025, they went, you know, that was when they went way off the deep end, putting Turning Point on there, putting Prager U on there.
I mean, this group creates YouTube videos to inform the public.
And now they're on a map with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan.
That's how insane this has gotten.
But the reason it's gotten so bad is partially because the SPLC has this extremely high demand for hate.
They have this big donor base that thinks the SPLC is the number one source for hate, and so we have to fund them because otherwise the hate is going to proliferate.
Well, the SPLC has long worked to increase the supply of hate to match that demand.
Tyler, now we know they've been funding it.
Yeah, exactly.
I want to underscore this point.
The SPLC, check this graphic out.
This is the hate grift in one image.
And we're taking this from our friends over at Fox.
But in October of 2016, pre Charlottesville, their revenue was $51,871,000.
$51,000.
After Charlottesville, $133,000.
An $81 million increase, almost $82 million increase from Charlottesville.
Which that now we find out that one of the leaders in the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally was paid $270,000 by the SPLC.
So just so you see that the ROI on that $270,000 is pretty extreme.
I mean, if you were Nancy Pelosi, you would be impressed by those returns.
That's how this works.
That's the image right there.
They're literally putting high school chapters of ours on a hate group next to the KKK and next to neo Nazi groups.
And I mean, we can laugh this off.
There's an element to this.
Remember that there was a shooter that went to the Family Research Council years ago.
Inspired by the SPLC list, but they can't debate us on our ideas.
They cannot have dialogue.
They cannot actually go on to the merits of why they are right or why we might be wrong.
Instead, they must smear us with the age old one liner that you are a racist or that you are a hater.
And they're finally realizing the power of Turning Point USA, which is why they put us on the SPLC list.
I was Charlie on Laura Ingram's show right after Turning Point was put on the hate map, the so called hate map, which was just a giant grift.
We're here back at the Y Refi studio here in Phoenix, Arizona, with Tyler O'Neill, senior editor of the Daily Signal and the author of Making Hate Pay, which is, man, that aged like fine wine here, Tyler.
So, congratulations on that.
You might have to update the book and give a second edition or something here with these new revelations.
So, again, this is what's wild about it, though.
The SBLC after Charlottesville has this huge boon.
It's some of the main funders that are being mentioned were George and Amal Clooney.
Tim Cook, Tim Apple, MGM, Google.
I mean, this is as mainstream as it gets.
Your thoughts?
No, it was.
I mean, Charlottesville is exhibit A of the graft here because we often forget, you know, in the months leading up to Charlottesville, the SPLC had a different hate map.
They had a Confederate monument map that they put up on their website.
And they had on this map, I kid you not, they say these monuments are causing turmoil and bloodshed.
And on that map, they didn't just include, you know, statues of Robert E. Lee, which we can all debate about.
Like, I could understand people being frustrated a little bit.
And then there are some statues where they actually, the statue actually said white supremacy.
As far as I'm concerned, yeah, get rid of that statue.
Robert E. Lee represents a lot more than that.
And, you know, he was a noble.
Anyway, we don't need to get into, we don't need to relitigate that issue.
But the SPLC put on this Confederate hate map, they put middle schools, high schools, elementary schools, they put military bases.
And I get that you don't like these things being named after Confederates.
It's one thing to say that.
It's another thing to have a hate map that's scary, that says turmoil and bloodshed, and then is directing people.
And in the midst of this, you had a lot of people going to monuments and knocking them over.
So this is early days of stuff.
Yeah, Tyler, to the extent that this work product by the SPLC is influential, it's hard to overstate it, right?
Because look at, I'm going to show you a clip of Joe Biden talking about why he decided to run for president.
Sot 9.
When I spoke to the mom who lost her daughter, it's a consequence of those neo-Nazis and white supremacists come out on fields in America with torches, carrying Nazi banners, singing the same sick anti-Semitic bile that was sung in Germany in the 30s.
And when her daughter was killed, the press went to the then President Trump and said, what do you think?
He said, they're very fine people on both sides.
I knew then.
I knew I'd do something.
And that's when I decided to run.
Ah, okay.
So that's just one clip here.
So he says he decides to run because of Charlottesville.
You mentioned that they were tearing down all these statues, in part because of the SBLC's map.
So we're starting to see the work product here.
Remember this from the inaugural address, SOT 10.
The cry for survival comes from the planet itself, a cry that can't be any more desperate or any more clear.
And now.
A rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.
So you have to ask the question.
Obviously, this is coming after January 6th, right?
So, at white supremacy, this is the line, domestic extremism.
Now you have to ask the question when Chris Ray says there's no, you know, FBI informancy does this, he can sort of technically say that because, hey, guess what?
They might have outsourced the informants that were in the crowd that day.
Do we know anything about that, Tyler?
That has not yet been confirmed, but I highly suspect that there might be a connection there.
I think it is, we can't go enough on this issue because Biden repeated it over and over again.
The left used it.
And by the way, you know, right after Biden got inaugurated, according to the SPLC at least, and now we have documents backing this up, many different agencies in the Biden administration.
Went to the SPLC asking for advice on how to combat the domestic terrorism threat.
So the SPLC was funding and then directing the social media posts of and then helping this guy bring people to Charlottesville on one side.
Funding the Social Media Posts00:03:37
We talk about very fine people on both sides, which is twisting Trump's words out of context.
Yeah, it's a total hoax.
Only one of the sides there at Charlottesville was funded by the SPLC.
And that's not the one that they claim to be on the side of.
Well, and Tyler, I mentioned earlier that the SBLC is absolutely, brazenly, not even, this is not even a question.
They are anti white.
So when they talk about domestic violence, domestic violence, extremism, that is anti white.
That is their code for we don't like white people.
And I can prove it to you.
This is a flashback to Mark Potock, who had a, in an interview, had a handwritten sort of poster on his wall.
Just a note.
Just a post note.
Post note.
Documenting the decline, celebrating the decline of the white population in the United States.
Look at that thing.
That's a man who is celebrating, who is eager about the coming minority majority of white America.
Now, if you are, that is racism.
That is racism right there.
Okay, go ahead, Ty.
I don't mean to cut you off.
Yeah, well, they didn't hide.
Like the left has long said, remember that emerging, the new emerging majority, they called it, where they said that because of Obama's victory in 2008, suddenly there's going to be this coalition of the ascendant that's always going to keep America in the thrall of the Democratic Party.
And meanwhile, if you say that they're importing people from foreign countries, if you're having a lot of illegal aliens, if you say, you know, what Biden essentially admitted by opening the border.
In 2021.
If you say that they're trying to replace people, you're somehow branded a racist.
No, no, no.
I'm sorry.
No, no.
I'm concerned.
Yeah.
You're an anti Semitic conspiracy replacement theorist.
Theorist.
Right.
And they have to string all those things together to really smear you.
Yeah.
The SPLC has been leading that charge in condemning people for this for forever.
And it's like, no, I know a lot of people who want to enforce immigration law, who want to make sure that every person who comes here comes here legally.
For reasons that are honoring our country that have nothing to do with race, frankly.
But the way that the left has been pushing this constant, like, oh, minorities should take over, we'll have infinite power.
I think that has been exacerbating.
And part of what we saw with the SPLC is exacerbating racial divisions in the country.
It was always by design, Tyler O'Neill, senior editor of the Daily Signal and author of the book Making Hate Pay.
For a lot of Americans, the healthcare system is reactive.
You get sick first and then you wait for an appointment.
Then insurance decides what you're allowed to have, and suddenly the medication you need is delayed or it's not available.
That is where all family pharmacy is different.
This is not a typical pharmacy, it's family owned.
I know these guys, they're great guys.
Works with licensed doctors and is built around a simple idea that's the idea that you should have the freedom to make informed choices about your own health and the ability to prepare ahead of time.
So you're not reactive anymore, you're already prepared.
You do not need insurance.
You don't need to beg a doctor.
Just simple, fast, honest care.
This is what healthcare should look like in America with you in control.
With All Family Pharmacy, you can order prescription medications before you get sick.
Keep them at home and have them ready when you need them most.
The Dobbs Decision Debate00:15:11
Everything is done online.
A licensed doctor reviews your request and your medication ships straight to your door.
They offer antibiotics, antivirals, Tamiflu, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Mbenzodol, Methylene Blue, and even your daily maintenance medications.
This is about access.
Preparation and personal responsibility.
Choose freedom, choose the right pharmacy.
Go to allfamilypharmacy.comslash Kirk.
Use code Kirk10 to save 10% on your next order.
That's allfamilypharmacy.comslash Kirk.
All right, without further ado, I'm so excited to have Molly Hemingway back on the show.
She's one of my faves.
And she's got a new book out called Alito, and the subtitle's really good.
The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution.
So much to get into with Molly.
Welcome back to the show.
It is great to be here with you guys.
Well, congratulations on your book.
I want to get into what happened to Virginia in the second half of this interview, but tell us why this book, why Alito, and why now?
Co authored with Kerry Severino a book on Kavanaugh.
And when we wrote that, we interviewed a ton of high level people, and they were all saying, you know, there's this giant on the court, and nobody ever talks about him Alito.
And they don't talk about him because he just quietly gets his work done and returns to his suburban home.
He does not seek celebrity, he's not flashy, but he's been on the court now for 20 years.
And he's the one who has delivered some of these major landmark opinions, most notably the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
Which was an issue that the conservative legal movement had worked on for 50 years.
And he has this really interesting approach to originalism that is less theoretical or philosophical than some of his colleagues, like Scalia or Thomas, and very practical.
And when we're at a moment where people are either saying, you have to be super principled, and who cares about the effect of those principles, or we don't care about principles, we just want to win, Alito embodies this blend.
He's very principled and he thinks about how to strategize toward a win.
He's very prudential in how he approaches things.
And I think that's something that the entire country could learn from.
It's all very good and it is appreciated.
I think ever since Scalia died, there was a lot of attention on Thomas.
We have a Clarence Thomas photo behind you.
I think all of us like Thomas a lot.
He's definitely has that approach of he's often the only guy on the court who will say, We actually should throw out this thing that's 150 years old because it's not in the Constitution.
But as you say, Alito is the one who authored some of the decisions that we wanted most.
He's the one who actually, Dobbs, who delivered it.
I want to ask about something that really caught my attention.
You were talking about this with Mark Halpern on his show.
Just the other day, and it was specifically about the Dobbs case, which we've never fully resolved who leaked that decision, as you might remember, that it was leaked before it came out.
We're not sure who did it, what their motive was.
I know you have your own theories about it, but you also mentioned something that really caught my attention, which was, and Halpern was theorizing about this, that when it dropped, one of the possible motives was they were trying to, frankly, spark violence against justices, because if one of those justices. were killed or died, the ruling would be canceled.
You can't rule.
If it hadn't come out yet, they'd have to cancel the ruling basically because you wouldn't have the majority anymore.
And that there was this incident where they were, the justices on the conservative side were asking, can we get this ruling out so that this sort of Damocles isn't hanging us over anymore?
And you said one of the liberal justices was on board with it, but another justice was not.
And that seemed very interesting.
Could you relay that story for our audience?
Yes.
Well, to write Alito, I interviewed nearly 100 people, which means I have a lot of great stories from what was happening On the court or near the court.
And after the Dobbs decision was leaked, you remember this, people's lives were immediately threatened.
The justices had to wear bulletproof vests, they had to go to secure locations.
Left wing groups had published their home addresses where they lived, in some cases, with spouse and children, like young children.
And people were swarming these places, trying to commit violence or otherwise threaten the justices into changing their mind.
That is a violation of federal law, by the way.
And Merrick Garland wasn't doing anything.
The media were flat out celebrating.
But when the justices met in conference, they were shocked to learn that the liberal justices said they were nowhere near having their dissent done.
So, usually, to issue an opinion, you have the opinion, but you also have the dissent.
They said, Oh, we're not done.
So, some of the justices were like, Hey, we're out here dealing with.
Left wing violence and attacks, could you wrap it up?
And they said, oh, well, first off, as you alluded to, Justice Breyer, who's a solid liberal on the court, but was a solid liberal, he left.
He was a gentleman.
He was beloved by his colleagues.
He seemed the most amenable to trying to hurry things.
And then, according to my sources, Justice Elena Kagan went to his chambers and screamed at him not to accommodate the conservative justices.
And this is matched by what happened, which is, Even though they'd had many, many, many months to work on this, they said they couldn't possibly get their dissent done until June.
And then once the dissent was filed, they included in it a footnote to another case that was nowhere near being done yet, knowing that that would further delay the release.
So there's a pattern here of behavior among the left wing justices, including what we've seen this term, where they're slow walking a decision that they think will hurt the Democrat Party.
But I mean, I think this is like, Explosive stuff and being able to get in there and tell some of these behind the scenes stories, I think, is illuminating and very different from what left wing media would tell you about what's happening on the court.
Man, that is a really damning picture of Elena Kagan.
I mean, that is really.
So, who do you think leaked the Dobbs decision?
Do we, do you, your theory of it?
So, unlike Mark Halperin, I do not think it was one of the justices, and everyone I spoke with.
You know, they might have different theories.
Nobody thinks it's a justice.
They view that as too reckless.
And it was Halperin's theory that it was, in fact, Elena Kagan.
He said she's the most political.
She has the closest relationship with the reporter who wrote the piece, he was saying.
And so, but I think most people think it's a clerk.
It had to be someone who had access to the documents in question that year.
It's a fairly small universe of people.
There are some clerks who were, you know, highlighted in the press as having some.
Particularly strident viewpoints related to abortion and relationships with the reporter in question.
But I don't think we'll know until that person admits it.
We won't know for sure until that person admits it, or unless that person admits it, because the investigation that was done was kind of a joke.
Well, and I would, it sort of would follow maybe it was a clerk for Kagan.
I mean, you know, if there was already an existing relationship there with the reporter, it kind of makes a lot of sense to me.
I'd heard her name before.
Do you think it would be possible maybe?
She did not personally do anything, but she strongly signaled she wouldn't mind if it happened.
I guess I don't know what range of actions is possible here.
I just would first of all say, you know, there were three justices on the well, there were four justices who did not want to overturn.
And that would be Chief Justice Roberts, and then the three liberals, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer.
And so they all had hired clerks knowing that the big case of the term would be overturning Roe.
So they were hiring some of the most strident people.
And I would say, probably, you know, they were the ones who stood to benefit from the leak.
Those chambers did either.
I don't think they actually wished death upon their colleagues.
I think they were hoping that they could peel Kavanaugh or maybe one of the other justices.
Away from overturning Roe.
There were already reports about this in the New York Times that Breyer and Roberts were trying to do that.
So that seems the more likely scenario.
But I don't think it is hard to do a conspiracy with multiple people.
But certainly the climate of the left was do whatever it takes to preserve this so called right to end the lives of unborn children.
I tend to agree with you.
It was probably a delay tact to see if you could pull, impeal one of the conservative justices away.
But it's still a very interesting theory.
Molly.
Alito's name has been brought up a lot with Clarence Thomas about whether or not they're going to retire.
Right?
We have 53 senators.
This would be probably an ideal time given that the midterms are uncertain at best.
What do you make of that?
Do you think there's any chance that either of those justices would step down?
Well, I've long been saying I don't think Alito is going to step down at the end of this term.
Technically, I don't know, but there was reporting last week that said his chambers or his world is kind of getting the word out that he does not intend to retire.
Thomas has openly and long said, I'm going out feet first.
So if you believe that, then it's not either of them.
I do think, though, that people spend way too much time focusing on these two, and they should not wish either of them to leave the court because they are.
Far and away, the most solid, consistent originalists on the court, you know, constitutionalists on the court.
But there is a third justice who is also in his 70s who has served even longer than Justice Alito, and that's Chief Justice John Roberts.
So I would say if you're trying to pressure, why not go for him?
And also, I wouldn't be shocked if he stepped down.
Molly, I think that's a really fascinating.
I mean, I think we'd all be totally okay if John Roberts stepped down, if he did us a solid and did it.
Sooner than later, I'd be okay with that as well.
I'd be curious two names that you would like to see replace any of the justices should they step down.
Oh, that's one thing that people have a lot that is going for good justices.
I think Judge Katsis on the DC Circuit is incredible.
I think Amultha Parr, Andy Oldham, Naomi Rao.
I mean, there are a lot of really good judges who would be great for this slot.
I'm going to investigate all of those names you just mentioned.
Virginia, what is the explanation that you're hearing around the Beltway for why we spend $100 million and it's probably going to be like $150 million on the Cornyn race to beat a conservative Republican in a primary when we can't get investments in a Virginia election that determines four House seats?
What are you hearing people say?
I have no explanation.
It's long been known that the Virginia Republican Party could use a lot of assistance, but this was a national issue.
Who controls the House of Representatives?
And still, you didn't see much national interest.
There was almost no money going into this.
There wasn't the type of ballot chase operation that you need to have in order to actually get the ballots in the box that are going to matter.
And this was truly a winnable situation.
We were, I live in Virginia, deluged with ads and money from the left to try to pass this.
And it only passed with like 1%.
It was nearly 90,000 votes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, it could have been winnable.
And I honestly, it's so frustrating.
I don't even know what to say about it.
Yeah.
Well, and I have stories about this too, Molly.
I mean, there was a whole plan that we put together for groups that you would know the names of, and nobody wanted to fund it.
Yeah.
And people think that we're like made of money or something, like on the turning points.
No.
Turning point action C4, it's way harder to raise money there.
And we already have like huge commitments to that.
We have TLC, who we just profiled, one of a million groups, and they have 10 times as much money as we've ever had.
It's really depressing.
Molly, congratulations on the new book, though.
Alito, check it out today, everybody.
Get yourself a copy.
Molly Hemingway, she's great.
Thanks, y'all.
All right, Blake.
We lose a very winnable race in Virginia.
We got outspent, but we only lost by 80,000 to 90,000.
To put it in perspective, the no, which is what we were in favor of, we wanted no to keep the old maps, which is a 6'5 map.
It got more votes than Winsome Sears for governor last cycle.
So that shows kind of that Winsome Sears was a weak candidate, but it also shows that people are not winnable.
This was a winnable race.
Yeah, it was so winnable.
Every single county except for like.
Fairfax in the north, and maybe one other.
I forget.
There were a few.
I mean, it went more right.
If you look at the map, I think we have the image here.
You can visually see that the entire state of Virginia voted more to the right on this, except for very small little sections of Northern Virginia.
And then there was one other county there.
But, Blake, what do you make of this, and what are the takeaways?
I mean, the big takeaways, first of all, I feel like I've lived through this four or five times now where Virginia has been written off.
And then we end up losing a pretty important race very narrowly.
So it happened, I think, I remember, I think it was Ken Cuccinelli.
That was over a decade ago.
Written off, underfunded, loses by a tiny margin.
And it's happened repeatedly.
This is a state we have been competitive in when we have decided to be competitive in it.
And then other times they just totally write it off.
And it's very upsetting.
It's very upsetting that this race wasn't taken super seriously.
This was five house races.
That were effectively up for grabs in a close race.
And I can't help but wonder if Republicans in DC liked the idea of not contesting this.
I think, remember, the whole push to redraw some of the House seats in other states, in Texas, in Florida, I think it was pushed along.
It was pushed along by President Trump.
I think maybe some of them in DC liked the idea of him getting egg on his face by losing this one and saying, see, we told you so, when this is a lot more extreme than anything they did in Texas or Florida.
It's a much more radical mutation of the map.
It's a much more aggressive grab in terms of what share of seats they're giving themselves.
We've seen them do this before.
They kind of like the idea of leaving the party hanging in the wind.
And as you said, we had a plan.
People weren't ready to fight it.
And we lost this close race.
Yeah.
It's really frustrating as well when you consider that $100 million was spent to defeat Ken Paxton unsuccessfully.
Okay.
Maybe Cornyn got a few more votes than Ken Paxton.
Nuclear Program Oversight00:14:24
But now Ken Paxton's surging in the polls.
It's probably going to win that primary race for Senate in Texas.
And that's R on R crime.
That's R on R violence.
You're spending $100 million in a Texas.
Senate primary in a deep red state that's still a deep red state, where Ken has, by the way, been a supporter of the president, is totally on board with MAGA, and has proven that he can win statewide races.
But no, $100 million gets dumped into Texas.
And by the way, here's the dirty little secret.
When you pour money into these big ad buys in a state like Texas, guess who's getting paid?
The media consultants, the media buyers, they're taking a big chunk right off the top.
So they love ad buys.
They love ad buys.
Meanwhile, Virginia gets $20 million.
$20 million.
And I think the Democrats, what, spent like $60, $70 million on this campaign?
And they love ad buys, which you can look at the numbers, and a lot of ads don't have a big impact.
You can spend a ton of money to move things, not a lot.
And yeah, as you say, they don't like nearly as much the distributed idea, like what Turning Point Action does, of getting lots of get out the vote people on the ground, have people who know their neighbors are interacting with them.
That doesn't go through the same consultant apparatus as everything else.
It's a different model of politics.
And I will tell you that we, you know, Tyler would tell the story.
I'll let him tell it because he was more directly involved.
He put together a whole group of people that are based in Virginia, that are based in D.C., conservative groups, and put a proposal together to train those groups to deploy our ballot chase efforts the way we do it and the timeframe it would take.
And there was a big proposal put forward, and it was turned down, and people didn't want to fund it.
So it is what it is.
You know, it's.
You know, until our side invests the same amount of money and enthusiasm in GOTV, in canvassing, in voter relationships, voter reg, as it does with consultants and media buyers, we're going to continue to come up just short.
And the country's going to really be damaged as a result.
That's just the bottom line.
We have to be demanding more ballot chase, more canvassing.
Because, yeah, you got to have the media spend.
You got to have the air war and the ground war.
They have to come together in the medium, in the middle.
Because, listen, you can't do one or the other.
And by the way, if you're going to continually.
Get outspent when you're sitting on mountains of cash, which, if you kind of tally it together, all these packs and all these groups on the right, we have a lot of cash right now.
And you could say, Oh, we're keeping our powder dry for the midterms.
You just lost four house seats.
You lost five house seats.
Five seats.
Lost five house seats.
And also, if they're not spending it on other things and we don't see that being spent, now is the time you do it.
Every race that goes badly, you have the people who realize something's wrong two weeks out and they come in and say, Where can we spend the money?
And as Charlie could tell you, You spend it now.
You spend it early.
You can't deploy new ballot chasers in the second half of October.
You have them out there meeting people, laying the groundwork now.
In fact, we've been doing it for months for the races that we're involved in.
Yeah.
That's how you win these things.
There's an estimated, just so people are aware.
Now, ballot chasing is not a silver bullet.
You can bring the dog food and the dog won't eat the food.
Kamala Harris' canvassing organizations ran into that because nobody wanted to vote for it.
So it is a both and.
But in this instance, there was a really viable, worthwhile cause to get behind, and people would have.
And there were 500,000 low propensity.
Republicans across the state of Virginia that we could have chased.
500,000.
We just would have needed about 80, 90,000 of them.
I want to talk to you about an issue so many Americans face, and that's health insurance.
There's an organization I really, really appreciate called Christian Healthcare Ministries.
CHM is a faith based alternative to health insurance.
And this is real stuff, folks.
Like, you got to listen in.
With CHM, you're not paying into a company's profit margin, you're investing in a community with less overhead than the competition.
You get reliable support through the giving and prayer of fellow members.
Members contribute every month to help pay for each other's medical bills, allowing believers.
To afford the care they need because they're not insurance, you get access to your preferred doctor or hospital without network restrictions.
You heard that right.
If you want to see massive savings in your healthcare budget, CHM has four low cost programs for every stage of life, starting at just $115 a month.
Plus, you can enroll or switch your program at any time.
See why so many believers are taking a leap of faith?
Start today by visiting chministries.orgslash Charlie and use promo code Charlie.
For a 50% credit towards your first month.
That's chministries.org/slash Charlie and use promo code Charlie.
Ten missing scientists with access to classified stuff, nuclear material, aerospace.
They've all gone missing or turned up dead in the last couple months.
Well, I hope it's random, but we're going to know in the next week and a half.
I just left a meeting on that subject.
So, pretty serious stuff, but we're going to be not.
Hopefully, I don't know, coincidence, whatever you want to call it.
Some of them were very important people, and we're going to look at it over the next.
All right, so this story has been really getting people's attention because it is seemingly very concerning.
Here to help us unpack that is House Oversight Chairman Representative James Comer from the great state of Kentucky.
He and Eric Burleson, Representative Burleson, are leading the charge to get answers here.
Welcome back to the show, sir.
Thanks for having me on.
So, of course, it's great to have you back on.
It's been too long.
I will say, Congressman, you were originally skeptical about this.
You thought it was kind of a crazed conspiracy online thing, and then you looked into it.
And then now you're sending letters to a lot of agencies at the federal government looking for more details.
What can you tell us about this?
Well, when it's first described to you, if you haven't studied it, you think, oh, that's not possible.
If that had been happening, we would have learned about it by now.
But what happened is there was such a space of nearly three years.
You know, something happened about every three months or whatever, and you're up to 10 either missing or deceased, all connected with our nuclear program, all very important scientists and people that contribute to the intellectual property of our superior nuclear program, which is the envy of the world.
And then you think, well, I wonder what the government's been doing about it.
And I could tell you just in the week since we started requesting information and announcing our investigation, I'm pretty confident that the government.
Really wasn't even aware that this was happening.
I'm almost positive the FBI wasn't aware.
Now, some of the agencies, NASA and Department of Energy, will say they've been looking into it.
Well, they don't even have a formal team of investigators to look into something like this.
So, we're concerned that this has just now become realized by our investigative authorities, specifically the FBI.
We feel that we can play a role in this investigation because what I found as chairman of the Oversight Committee over the last three years.
spanning two administrations is a lot of these government agencies never share information with each other.
So we're trying to get all that information in from NASA, from the Department of Energy, from the FBI, from the Department of War to see if there are some obvious missing links that we can piece this together and try to find a solution.
So, Congressman, do you want to lay out what you think is the most alarming or the most interesting connection?
Because I'm a little more skeptical compared to a lot of people.
I've been looking at the specific cases, and I guess I'm not quite sold yet.
I know, as you said, there's the line they're all connected to the nuclear program, but I feel like that's, if it's true, it's only true in the most broad based way.
Like, I know one of these 11, he worked at Novartis, a pharmacy company.
That's not super nuclear related.
Another, Is not a scientist.
She's missing.
It's an interesting case, but she was an administrative assistant at Los Alamos.
And her family says she didn't have access to classified information.
So give us the strong case for there being something here and it's not people sort of finding patterns where they don't necessarily exist.
Well, I hope there's nothing sinister here.
I just don't believe the odds are good enough to have the level of confidence that this is unrelated.
And if you look at the way that our adversaries operate, let's say this is one of the usual suspects.
You always have to suspect China, Russia, Iran, North Korea of any type of missions.
But anytime there's a major cyber breach, it's always some small country.
That most people would have a hard time identifying on the map.
So, you know, there are lots of countries that would love to have our intellectual property.
There are lots of countries that would love to do things to lead us to think that there's something sinister there and people are trying to get our nuclear capabilities and create uncertainty and unrest within the government of the United States.
So, what I've been concerned about is that no one's really looked into this.
Just in the last few days, has this reached the radar of the FBI?
Uh, we want to look at all the pieces to see.
I'm not.
You know there's some members are going on tv saying oh, this is sinister.
I, I think a member or two said this could be aliens or something like that.
I mean that I did a TMZ interview.
I'm like, i'm confident it's not aliens.
But at the end of the day uh, there are countries that have a history of trying to do things like this and maybe, if for no other reason than to spook people into working in the nuclear program, I don't know there are lots of reasons why someone could be doing this or a country could be behind this, that that wasn't just to steal the intellectual property of the nuclear program.
I, I agree that administrative assistant shouldn't have had any classified information or shouldn't have had any type of intellectual property that uh, that would be unknown to a foreign country.
However if, if that person was an easy target, if your goal is to scare or spook anyone from participating in the nuclear program, then maybe your goal was achieved.
So we just want to look at this.
A lot of times when the government says they investigate something, I've learned that they don't.
And I could give you a lot of examples that are in the news now of former cases that I don't think thoroughly got vetted.
And the one at the top of the list would be the Epstein investigation was never thoroughly investigated by the U.S. government.
So we've got this situation.
We're taking it very seriously.
America has reached out to a majority of members of Congress in the last few days in both parties, just with lots of questions.
So we're going to do everything we can to get answers.
And hopefully this is unrelated like President Trump.
Said he hoped it would be unrelated.
But if it's not, then we need to put options in place.
We need to protect those workers and we need to protect our intellectual property for our nuclear program.
Yeah, I mean, to Blake's point, though, there are specific ones.
Whether they're not all connected, maybe six of them are connected.
Maybe four of them are connected.
I mean, because some of them are uniquely weird circumstances.
I mean, there's no, even you admitted, these are really fascinating cases.
They're fascinating cases, one by one.
I want to highlight one of them.
This was Monica Reza, a metallurgist in the Los Angeles area.
She was hiking in Angeles National Forest with two friends who said they were maybe 40, 60 feet in front of her.
And they turn around and she's gone.
Never been seen again.
And there was a thorough search for this woman.
They've looked around the area, have not found her.
That is a fascinating whole case.
The Nuno Loreiro, she was 47, MIT physicist.
This was covered when it happened.
This was covered when it happened.
Shot to death at the Brown University shooting, which was like a very mysterious shooting as well.
Details about the motive.
Well, we believe we have the perpetrator of that.
He's believed to have also conducted another shooting that took place at Brown.
It's very darkly fascinating.
He seems to have been, he was a classmate of this man 20 years ago.
In fact, got better grades than him.
And he might have had this motive that his life hadn't panned out the way he wanted.
And this guy who was in his classes, they were both from Portugal, he maybe thought this guy had the life I should have had snapped, committed a heinous murder.
Very fascinating.
I mean, at the bottom line, I think it's really important that you're leading the charge here.
The oversight has a powerful role to play here and to get answers.
Because one way or the other, we want to know what this is.
And there's no doubt, Congressman, that this has completely captured the imagination of people.
I mean, we're getting emails from our audience through left and right.
Final word to you, sir.
Well, when NASA says they're investigating this, there's no agency or department or division within NASA equipped to investigate something like this.
Same with the Department of Energy.
So we believe that sometimes you can figure things out by getting all the information in one place.
And the government has a terrible history of doing that, dating all the way back to September 11th.
Different agencies knew different things about those terrorists.
If they had shared the information, then we might have prevented September 11th.
So we don't know for sure if something sinister happened here, but we're sure going to do everything in our ability to try to figure it out.
Well, again, thank you for leading the charge here, Congressman.
It's great to see you again.
Come back soon.
The House Oversight, powerful role.
You guys got all kinds of stuff going on this week, by the way.
You're voting to kick out Congressman left and right, and I'm kind of here for it.
If you have an update on Ilhan Omar, let me know, sir.
Well, she's in a lot of trouble, and we're doing everything we can to drain the swap.
It's just a Getting rid of three in a week, that's a good week, but we got a long way to go.
Yes, sir.
All right, God bless you, sir.
Keep up the great work, and we look forward to updates on that one.
All right, so we want to get into this story.
We call it the Creepy Gay Dad story, and it's just worth highlighting.
Surrogacy and Family Values00:05:33
Shane McAnally is a four time Grammy Award winning country music songwriter.
He's written hit songs like Seven Summers, Body Like a Back Road, Mama's Broken Heart, and more.
He seems to write kind of whatever, wherever the wind's blowing, he writes it.
He's written songs like John Cougar, John Deere, and John 316, kind of evoking this Southern Christian tradition.
That's one title.
Oh, wow.
One song with three sort of parts to it traditional biblical values and all that stuff.
But he's also written songs for LGBTQ shows like Queer Eye.
He co wrote a song entitled Y'all Means Y'all with lyrics like If you're torn between the X's and the Y's, you ain't got to play the hand you're dealt.
Play SOT 18, please.
Y'all means all.
Okay.
Well, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I apologize for playing that.
I didn't realize it was.
I'm sorry.
Country music has got to be the type of music that can most easily be generated with an AI.
It's probably.
All right.
So Shane McAnally legally married his gay lover, Michael Baum, in January of 2017, but they apparently had a commitment ceremony in 2012.
So they've been together for like 14 years.
But they weren't able to have biological children.
But they're two dudes, so they can't have biological children.
So they got their first two children, the twins, boy Dash and daughter Dylan.
Via surrogacy in 2012 before procuring another newborn via surrogacy in October of 2025.
The new baby is a little boy named Texan.
And it seems to be a name Texan?
Yeah, T E X S O N.
And now they're going viral because they posted a video laughing at this baby after the baby cried out for mama.
And there is no mama.
There's no mom around because there's.
There's only two dudes.
There's just two dudes around.
And I actually find this to be excruciating to watch.
So my apologies again.
Sot16.
Hey.
Hey.
Who do you want?
Dada or Pop?
No mama.
No mama.
There is no mama.
I'm so sorry.
You have Dada and Pop.
You have Pop.
Two choices.
No mama.
No mama.
So they thought this was funny.
It ended up exploding online.
Many of you have probably seen this clip, and I find it horrifying to watch.
But since then, another video has resurfaced when McAnally and his lover, Bom, have played a game with their kids.
Their kids to, you know, find out.
I guess they would point to each one of them, and the kids had to say who was more like whatever they were pointing out.
And I'll play the clip, you'll get the idea.
And this one's pretty disgusting because.
They say, which one of your dads is hornier?
Sounds great.
Sop 17.
Who's hornier?
Who's richest?
Okay.
They have since set their accounts to private, but Shane McAnally has talked to Daily Mail defending his post saying people have been saying some awful things.
He's the happiest baby in the world.
They thought this clip was going to be self deprecating, quote unquote, because most babies say dada before mama.
We found it hilarious.
He's five months old.
He obviously doesn't understand English.
All right.
Blake, do you want to go first?
Uh,.
This is gross and unsettling, and children should have a mom and a dad, and policy should incentivize that.
And also, country music is bad.
All right.
So, the main no, it's not.
I like country.
I grew up with country, and it's great.
All right.
So, here's what I will say I totally agree.
Our policies should enable a mom and a dad.
Kids need a mom and a dad, they need the feminine and the masculine.
That is the way God intended.
God intended for the building blocks of society to be male and female.
We learn important lessons from our mothers.
We learn important lessons from our fathers.
Now, the argument is that these children need love.
That is a fairly compelling argument for a lot of people in a lot of places when it comes to adoption, when somebody's already been born.
It's a whole other can of worms when you're talking about surrogacy.
Surrogacy is essentially renting the womb of a woman to then implant a baby and.
You know, manufacture one that you want.
Okay.
So I have a much, much bigger problem with gay couples getting babies, procuring them via surrogacy than I do with adoption.
Adoption, I'm still very uncomfortable with, but at least you could make the argument that these people need love.
Okay.
These babies need a family, they need somewhere to go.
And if not, they're going to be in a foster care system.
But surrogacy to me is completely an abomination.
I'll just be honest.
I find it disgusting, especially for gay couples.
Three Scientific Discoveries00:10:39
Okay.
Now, if you are a couple that is struggling with, and you're a male and a female, and you're struggling, With fertility issues, okay, you have my grace.
I don't love it, but I'm going to extend a lot more grace to that situation than I am a gay couple.
And the reason I think that this has sparked such a backlash, Blake, is because it's the same thing for me as seeing a gay couple kiss on like a movie or a TV show.
Instantly gives, I have a visceral reaction to it.
I don't want to see it.
I think people saw this.
They felt their hearts were broken for this baby that wants its mom.
And it's just something so viscerally reactive when you see.
See a gay couple behaving.
It's just, it's unsettling to see that.
And then to be reminded of the bigger picture thing, which is kind of without a thought.
I don't think anyone ever really did much to vote for this.
It just sort of was a legal void that stuff flowed into.
We've made it so you can basically purchase children for order in the United States.
It's popular to do it here from around the world.
That's how all those Chinese billionaires get their 100 kids.
They'll buy 100 different surrogates.
We've entered a brave new world, as it were.
Dark, brave new world.
There's a lot of dark things that people can do with that.
Charlie had an absolutely relentless passion for learning.
I saw it up close and personal.
And every waking moment, every spare moment that he could, he had a book open, he had a podcast open, he had a Hillsdale online course open.
He was always diving into new ideas, absorbing information, studying up and sharpening his skills.
That's why I love Dr. Arne at Hillsdale College.
They shared a deep understanding that learning is the key to shaping your character, creating courage.
And changing lives.
Charlie never stopped learning, and neither should you.
Through Hillsdale's online courses, he spent time studying the classics, the American founding, and the enduring truths of the Bible.
Now it is your turn.
With Hillsdale's free online courses, you can follow in his footsteps, learning from real professors and challenging yourself with rigorous coursework that's free and accessible to anybody who's willing to learn.
A great place to start is their brand new course on logic and rhetoric.
Learn from Hillsdale professors how to speak masterfully.
Make a powerful point and see how clear thinking leads to better decision making and more effective speech.
Don't wait.
Go to charlieforhillsdale.com to enroll today.
It's completely free.
This is a real good one, by the way Logic and Rhetoric.
Pick up the mic, carry it forward, learn like Charlie.
Start right now at charlieforhillsdale.com.
Very excited about our next guest.
We needed a pick me up here.
We have Dr. Stephen Meyer.
He's a PhD in philosophy of science.
He's a former geophysicist.
He's the author of Return of the God Hypothesis, which we have right here because we literally keep his books in our office because they're that important.
And the book has been the inspiration of a new film that we want to talk about.
So without further ado, Dr. Meyer, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Well, thank you guys for having me.
I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about all this with your audience.
Yeah, I mean, listen, so The Story of Everything is a feature documentary adaptation of Return of the God Hypothesis, the book that I have right here.
I remember when this came out and everybody was talking about it because it's kind of like a science first look at creation, right?
A lot of times people will argue for the, you know, I guess intelligent design through a theological lens, but you are doing it with a science first perspective.
Why don't you tell us about that in this film and then we'll play the trailer so people, it's really well done.
Yeah, thank you.
Well, yeah, the book and the film describe and tell the story of the discovery of three major discoveries that reveal the reality of a transcendent and active mind behind the universe.
In other words, an intelligent agent with the attributes that traditional theists, Jews, and Christians have long ascribed to God.
So I call this the return of the God hypothesis, and that's what the film is about.
Well, I mean, I want to get into what those three.
Discoveries are, but let's play the trailer because I will tell you a bunch of people sent me this and we got to get you on to do this.
And I was like, Yeah, yeah, okay, okay, okay.
And then I looked at the trailer and I was like, Wow, this is like somebody has done a phenomenal job executing on this vision.
SOT 20.
Today, I'm going to tell you a story which may seem very strange.
Galileo, Kepler, Newton, each tried to explain.
Events in the history of the universe.
Has the universe always been here?
Or is it finite?
Is there something else that would lay these questions to rest?
It reopens that question of ultimate meaning.
How in the world did this start?
The simulation theory?
The multiverse?
You can't trust what's in front of your eyes.
Without guidance, we would get a life unfriendly universe.
Many organisms have beauty beyond anything that's relevant for their survival value.
The concept of life as a cosmic phenomenon should have many consequences.
The question then was, what does one do about it?
Really beautiful stuff, honestly.
I mean, I'm so used to people pitching projects, Doctor, and they don't look great, if I'm being honest, but this looks beautiful.
Tell us about how long you guys have been working on this.
And then I want to hear some of the three discoveries.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, the embarrassing thing about the film project is that with some delays that we encountered during the final phases of COVID, it actually took Five years to produce the film.
Wow.
It took me three and a half years to write the book.
So the film was an even more extensive project.
But we have 22 different scientists and scholars who are in it.
The filmmakers are fantastic storytellers.
So this is not a sermon on tape.
This is a genuine story.
And it's the story of two stories, the story of two competing views of reality and how modern science has revealed that one of those stories clearly provides a better explanation for what we see.
The two stories are the Thing that we've all heard that life arose and the universe arose from undirected material processes, or as Richard Dawkins put it, from blind, pitiless indifference.
And the other story is that instead there's a mind, a creator, a creative intelligence behind the universe, and we can tell by looking at, as St. Paul put it, the things that are made.
So it's, but it is, as you say, a science first approach, and it involved the producers did a fantastic job.
There are 400 visual effects.
The cinematography is gorgeous.
They take you deep out into space, deep into the interior workings of the cell.
You can see the digital information in the DNA, what it does.
You can see the nanotechnology, the little miniature machines inside the cell.
So it's a very powerful visual representation of the evidence.
There's a very strong argument that runs through it, but it's also just some very compelling storytelling, not only about the story of the scientists making the discoveries that are pointing to God.
But how those discoveries have affected their own thinking and their own lives, and in many cases have affected a kind of intellectual first and sometimes even religious conversion among the scientists who have encountered these really powerful evidences for a mind behind the universe.
Yeah, I remember actually the, I forget his name, you probably know it, doctor, but the guy who was sort of first behind the mapping of the human genome.
And he became a strong Christian.
Francis Collins, Francis Collins.
Yeah, yeah.
And he became, yeah, exactly.
So a theist.
And there is something really profound.
Like creation is so intricate and beautiful and complex that the people that study it most deeply tend to be persuaded that there is a creator.
There is something behind creation.
I'm thinking of the Artemis II launch, right?
Where there was the gentleman that was on board and he was looking at the majesty of Earth.
And he said, I'm not really a theist at all, but like I started praying and crying and weeping.
And apparently, this is a very common experience for astronauts when they come back.
Go ahead.
I can see this is.
I had a piece about that when the Artemis guys were still in space at foxnews.com at their website.
This has been a very common thing.
We send people up into space.
They look back at that beautiful blue jewel through the window in their space capsule.
And if they were religious before, they become even more religious.
And if they weren't, they become open to it.
Kind of experience of a space flight epiphany, if you will.
It goes back to the astronauts in the Apollo mission in Apollo 8.
They read the Bible, they read the biblical account of creation from Genesis on Christmas Day, 1968.
The current head of NASA, the administrator of NASA, Jared Isaacsman, has said that his time in space convinced him that, quote, the heavens declare the glory of God.
And this is one of the passages that the current astronauts emphasized as a result of their experience.
So, yeah, it's kind of a cool thing, really.
And we've seen that.
And in addition to the kind of intuitive sense that there must be something behind what they see, because you look at that beautiful blue jewel from space, and then there's the darkness behind it.
And as far as we look, we know no planets that are anywhere near as friendly to life.
As our planet is.
And then when you analyze it from the standpoint of physics, as far as all the what are called fine tuning parameters, all the parameters that have to be exactly right in our local solar system and in the universe itself to make life possible, the most obvious implication of all that fine tuning is that there must have been a fine tuner.
And this is one of the things we cover in the film.
Let's elaborate on one of the points you mentioned in passing.
So you mentioned the big picture stuff about our planet and what's exceptional about it.
Information in Living Cells00:02:25
Also, you said, as you put it, the nanotechnology in cells, at the smallest level that we can look at, that seems to defy comprehension as something that could arise naturally.
Could you elaborate on that point?
Well, absolutely.
I've been elaborating on that for about 30 years now.
So you better be careful what you ask for.
But yeah, the big discoveries of modern molecular biology have shown that once you open up the inside of the cell, it's not at all what people thought in Darwin's time.
Darwin's so called bulldog, his Great proponent Thomas Henry Huxley in the 1860s said that the cell is a simple homogeneous globule of undifferentiated protoplasm.
It's just a blob of jelly.
And if you think that's what the cell, the simplest unit of life, the smallest unit of life is, it's pretty easy to imagine how a few simple chemical reactions might produce something like that.
But it hasn't turned out to be so.
Instead, starting in the 1950s and 60s, in a period of rapid exploration and discovery in the field of molecular biology, scientists began to discover that inside the cell, there are first of all large information bearing molecules, the most famous of which is the DNA molecule.
Watson and Crick elucidated its structure in 1953.
In 1958, Crick had a kind of epiphany and realized.
That along the spine of the DNA molecule, there are subunits, chemical subunits that are functioning just like alphabetic characters in a written text or zeros and ones in a section of machine code.
This is a stop press moment in the history of science and the history of biology, because prior to that, people were trying to explain the origin of life from simple chemistry.
They were trying to get from chemistry to chemistry.
Now, after Crick, we realize you've got to get from chemistry to code.
How does the chemistry, how do undirected chemical processes?
Produce an elaborate information storage, transmission, and processing system, which is what's been discovered.
And instead, we know chemistry doesn't do this, but we do know something that does make code, and that is intelligence.
Bill Gates says that the DNA is like a software program, but much more complex than any we've ever created.
The Fine Tuning Argument00:04:21
Richard Dawkins has said the same thing.
Doctor, when does the film come out, and how do people watch it?
Yeah, fantastic.
The film opens April 30th in theaters.
That's next Thursday.
And people can get tickets by going to the story of everything.film.
And yeah, that we appreciate the interest.
Yeah, absolutely.
So check it out, get your tickets.
You guys are doing like an event, right?
It's like a Fathom event.
Like, so on Thursday, there's going to be theaters all over the country that people can watch this at.
Well, this is a week long opening.
So it's not just a typical Fathom event.
This is a Fathom functioning as a full on distributor.
So we get a week guaranteed.
We're in over 500 theaters already, and we're adding them daily as more and more interest is coming in.
Our pre sales are very strong.
We're hoping to kick over into a second week, and then there'll be a digital release beyond that.
So, great.
So, please.
I do encourage people to see it in theaters, though, because it was really the producers made this with a big screen in mind.
It is, it's just, I didn't see it on a big screen until a recent screening, and it's just gorgeous.
There's 400 visual effects, great cinematography.
You go deep, way out into space, and then deep into the interior of the cell, and there's a fantastic story that goes with all the beautiful imagery.
Yeah, and I encourage everybody take your friends, buy a bunch of tickets, take your friends, churches, do this with, you know, it doesn't have to be a church.
It could just be you've got that friend that you've been working on for a while and they're open.
And they just need a little intellectual equipping to get over the hump.
So we talked about this Artemis 2 clip, and I just really want to play it for people because I just thought it was so beautiful the way he described it.
SOT 21.
On the ship, I'm not a, I'm not really religious person, but there was just no other avenue for me to, to explain anything or to experience anything.
So I asked for the chaplain on the Navy ship to just come visit us for a minute.
And when that man walked in, I'd never met him before in my life, but I saw the cross on his, on his collar and I just, I broke down in tears.
Like the, it's very hard to fully grasp what we just went through.
And in these short, you just said it's been a week since we've been back, but it's been a week of medical testing, physical testing, doctors.
Science objectives.
We have not had that decompression.
We have not had that reflection time.
So I'm basing this on what we saw.
And when the sun eclipsed behind the moon, I think all four of us turned to Victor and I said, I don't think humanity has evolved to the point of being able to comprehend what we're looking at right now because it was otherworldly.
It was amazing.
Wow.
Just incredible.
All right.
So I have a question for you.
If you want to react to that, Sir.
Well, I was just going to say that connects with a very strong theme in the film, which is the The fine tuning of the universe that allows for life and the fine tuning of our planetary system that makes life on planet Earth possible.
We have a section in the film precisely on what they have been seeing and describing, which is all the intricate parameters that were set up just right to make life on planet Earth possible and some beautiful, beautiful photography.
One of those parameters is actually the possibility of an eclipse.
The distance between the Earth and the sun.
Exactly matches geometrically what you need given the size of the moon in relation to the earth to make eclipses possible, and that we can have eclipses is one of the things that makes it possible for us to make basic discoveries about the universe and the cosmos.
So, there's a book called The Privileged Planet that's co authored by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards.
Jay Richards is featured in the film describing this, and that book makes the argument that not only is our planetary system fine tuned or designed for life.
It's fine tuned and designed for us to be able to make scientific discoveries, that is, to know something about the cosmos and its creator.
So, the intuitive response of the astronauts is well supported by scientific evidence about just how incredibly designed our planetary system is.
I have so many questions for you, Dr. Meyer, and we've got two minutes left in this segment, but it's.
Design Behind Life00:02:07
It's like one question I would have for you is if somebody who's not a believer came to you and said, I don't believe because we're all just primordial goo, the product of, and we've evolved and all this stuff.
I mean, what do you do?
What's your first reaction, your first answer?
Well, I go right back to where we were talking, to the subject we were talking about before the break, which is that in the interior of the cell, you have these information bearing molecules where the information is.
Being used by the cell to direct the construction of the proteins and the protein nanomachines that make it possible for living organisms to stay alive.
And we know from our experience that information, computer code, always comes from a programmer.
And in fact, whenever we see information, we trace it back to its source, whether we're talking about the information in a computer program or in a section in a book or a hieroglyphic inscription or the information that we're transmitting back and forth between ourselves right now.
Information always issues or comes ultimately from a mind.
So, the discovery of information at the foundation of life in every living cell is a powerful indicator of the activity of a designing mind in the origin and history of life itself.
We wouldn't attempt to explain the origin of the iPhone apart from the mind of Steve Jobs, right?
So, the fact that we can't see the creator doesn't mean that we might not be in possession of an artifact or of a system that is bearing witness to.
The existence of a prior cause.
It's completely legitimate scientifically to reason from effect back to cause.
And in the case of information, the cause of information is always a mind.
Creation declares his glory.
The story of everything in theaters nationwide beginning April 30th, 2026.
Dr. Meyer, thank you for your time today.
Wonderful experience.
Thanks very much.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.