Introduction: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Why do I say that? Well, I’m going to try to accomplish two things in this piece. First, I’ll show the main takeaway of what God says via the apostle Paul in Romans 1. Second, I’ll show how it is demonstrated live on camera. No, I’ll not be the one on camera. Rather, it is two men who are hugely successful in their respective fields. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist who denies the existence of God. The second man is media giant Tucker Carlson, who claims to be not only a theist but a Christian. Their worldviews are in conflict. Weinstein is a materialist; Carlson is a theist. Let me break it down visually:

Weinstein	vs.	Carlson:
No God	vs.	God exists
Reality is reducible to material substance	vs.	Reality is both material and immaterial; the supernatural is real, too (not simply imagined).
Darwinian evolution	vs.	Biblical creation
Values are ‘useful’ but ultimately ungrounded on anything but the desire for power and continued existence.	vs.	Values are unavoidable, and they are grounded in God and in our nature as beings created in God’s image and likeness.
Good & evil are ‘narratives’/stories we tell ourselves.	vs.	Good & evil are realities we all know intuitively, and their parameters are defined by God in Scripture.

Text of Scripture: Romans 1:18-23, ESV is the passage I promised in my opening. Here it is:

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ¹⁹ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹ For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

The link to Tucker’s video:

I was walking outside as part of PT when I listened to this recently. Let me say a heartfelt thank you to both men. Tucker was a gracious host, sometimes pithy and witty, and at other times a very sloppy theologian, but was kind throughout. Bret was likewise very kind, respectful, measured, but absolutely inconsistent in his worldview. Here is what I mean: How can a materialist ground words and concepts like ‘good’ and ‘evil’? How can he justify using the value-laden terms like “We should do this …” or “We shouldn’t do that”? What role does ‘should’ have in a universe where all is material? We are, in Weinstein’s worldview, sometimes (on the good days, you know) cooperating germs, grown-up cosmic dust, that for some reason wants to have an audience via podcasting and the writing of books and teaching in the academy.

As a Christian, I was embarrassed by some of the unfortunate things Tucker said about the Old Testament and New Testament contradicting one another; they do not contradict. They reveal a progressive story of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration, but they most certainly do not contradict one another. The Old Testament is the gospel concealed; the New Testament is the gospel revealed, as has been said countless times in church history.

Again, my heartfelt thanks to Tucker for broadcasting his debate with Bret. I’m grateful for the levels of respect demonstrated by both men. But what I took away from it all is that PhD. so often just means “Piled Higher and Deeper.” In other words, there was so much sloppy thinking, so much self-referential absurdity, so much contradiction by Weinstein that I had to laugh more than a few times.

I commend this episode of Tucker’s podcast to you, and welcome thoughtful feedback, as Romans 1 was on full display by the materialist interviewed by Tucker.