Here’s the latest from the crossroads of faith, media & culture: 01/22/25

Dr. Michael GuillénMORE THAN MEETS THE IQ | Michael Guillén, PhD | Substack

Truth seeker. The search for truth has been a cornerstone of Dr. Michael  Guillén‘s life and career. The one-time atheist-turned-Christian earned degrees in physics, mathematics and astronomy from UCLA and Cornell before spending eight years as an award-winning physics instructor at Harvard University. Later, he became a household name at ABC News where he served 14 years as Science Editor providing memorable coverage of the US space program and other topics. A producer of the 2012 film Little Red Wagon, he recently took a big leap into the world of inspirational entertainment content creation as a co-founder of Exceleration Studio.  He has written several books, including Believing is Seeing: A Physicist Reveals How Science Shattered His Atheism and Revealed the Necessity of Faith. His just-launched podcast, More Than Meets the IQ, takes a 360 look at issues involving science, tech, journalism, religion, education and entertainment.

JWK:So, what are your goals with this podcast?

Dr. Michael Guillén: You know, I have spent most of my adult life communicating science to the public. First through magazine and newspaper articles and then local TV and network television. I realize that the landscape for communications is changing dramatically – obviously trending toward social media and communicating through the internet. So, just before the holiday I thought to myself “How can I leverage these new communication tools to enable me to communicate science to a large audience?” which is what I’ve been doing all my life.

You know, I have all the typical platforms. I’m on X, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc. etc. but I find those short-form social media platforms very unsatisfying because most of what I deal with in science is pretty meaty. I don’t want to be restricted to just a few characters. So, I made the decision just before the holidays to open a Substack account. When I did that I thought to myself “How do I want to identify it? What do I want to say? What’s the purpose of my doing this?” The decision I made, finally, harkens back to my book Believing is Seeing where I discuss the notion of multiple intelligences. I had already discussed that before it in a book I wrote many years ago called Can a Smart Person Believe in God?

In those discussions I explained that there is more to life than IQ. In modern western society we value IQ – and for very good reason – but we have to remind ourselves that IQ tests measure only a certain kind of pedagogical spacial intelligence. There’s far to life than can be reduced to logic and spacial relations. One of the concepts that I came up with many years ago in my book Can a Smart Person Believe in God?…was spiritual intelligence which I call SQ. I don’t want to get into it here. If people are interested they can read the book. The point is that there is far more to life, there is far more to reality, there is far more to the universe, there’s far to being a human being than mere IQ. In fact, as I discuss in these books, logic when you look at it very carefully, is actually a very weak way of reasoning. It’s actually a very childish way of reasoning. It has its pluses for sure and it got us a long way but it’s a very childish way of reasoning. There is a far more sophisticated way of reasoning. I call it translogical reasoning.

Getting back to the notion of spiritual intelligence and SQ, I thought to myself when I was contemplating creating this Substack platform that that’s what I want to get across in the title. So, I came up with More Than Meets the IQ. It’s a cute play on words, right?

JWK: It is.

MG: More than meets the “Eye-Q” (laughs) but there is a real seriousness behind that title. The point of everything I do on Substack – and I’ve only been at it for a couple of months – is to reveal to people that there is more to reality than mere logic, mere materialism, mere spacial relations. Most of the universe is invisible. We now know that with enormous confidence. The estimate is something like 95% of the observable universe is invisible to us. Think about what I just said. 95% of the “observable” universe is invisible! I didn’t say 95% of the universe! I said 95% of the “observable” universe is invisible. There’s a whole universe beyond the observable universe, beyond the cosmic horizon, that we 100% can’t see. The point is if you’re going to just rely on your eyes and your IQ, you’re going to miss out on most of what’s out there. You have to invoke higher forms of intelligence if you’re going to understand the universe…I’m helping people understand the universe in a very deep way, way beyond just logic and IQ.

JWK: Tell me about the format of the podcast. How does the podcast work?

MG: First of all, let me clarify something. I write two news reports a week for my Substack subscribers. I just debuted the podcast that is accompanying the news reports. So, the question you’re asking me is about the podcast…That involves three young scientists because for a very long time I’ve wanted to identify young scientists who are also Christian and help give them a platform. You know, I’ve been at this all my life, John. These young people are struggling to have their voices heard. So, when the time came for me to envision a podcast for my Substack platform, I reached out to three young people who I’ve known for at least ten years in every case.

So, there’s Breanna Jones who’s going to be our life sciences specialist, there’s Kirby Runyon who actually has a PhD (and) is going to be our Earth and space specialist and then Maxfield Thompson who is going to be our data, AI (and) math expert. It was an experiment when we recorded the podcast but it was just a grand slam in my opinion. The reaction pouring in is very, very positive. So, I’m really excited. I think that I will include these three young people in every podcast. There was great rapport. There was a lot of good give and take (and) a lot of humor. I believe in humor, John – because I’m dealing with a deadly serious subject.

JWK: I watched the podcast and really enjoyed it. I’m showing my age but it strikes me almost like a more youthful McLaughlin Group that, instead of politics, focuses on science, faith and cultural issues.

MG: It’s interesting that you mention John McLaughlin. I actually got to know him many, many years ago when he was doing The McLaughlin Group. It was on PBS, as I recall. At the time he was doing that in his heyday, I was actually interning at Science News Magazine in Washington, DC. I can’t even remember how we met but, through the most unlikely set of circumstances, we met and we became very, very good friends. He had a very lively group of people and my group’s pretty lively too. You don’t necessarily assume that’s gonna happen because we’re all kinda science geeks. We’re all kinda nerdy, geeky people. It’s not like politics where everybody’s very rowdy, very outspoken and very opinionated. We’re pretty serious people who take our various specialties very seriously.

We’re gonna deal with six subjects: science, technology, journalism, religion, education and entertainment. I deal with these topics from decades of experience and expertise in them – and from a Christian perspective. We are, in fact, going to try to avoid politics wherever possible but, as I said on the podcast, where politics intersects any one of those six areas, we’re gonna call it out. I don’t care if it’s Republican, Democrat, Independent, whatever. The saddest thing that I have witnessed in recent years is the politicization of science, technology, even education (and) entertainment. Journalism! My God! Talk about being politicized! There is virtually no area today that hasn’t been politicized – and we’re gonna call it out. Ultimately, my mantra and motto in everything I do – in particular with my Substack platform and this podcast – is we want to speak truth with love. That’s a very biblical concept, right?

JWK: Yes.

MG: Jesus calls us to speak truth uncompromisingly but also to do it with love. There’s just a lot of people out there who are speaking truth but they’re so harsh and hateful. I don’t think it’s very effective when you speak truth hatefully. It’s not doing anybody any good. You’re just filling the world with more hate. Do we really need that?  No.

JWK: Right.

MG: Then, on the reverse side, there are a lot of people out there who are very loving, very sentimental, very emotional. There’s a lot of emotionalism today in society, a lot of “feelings.” It’s all about “feelings.” There’s a loving feeling but there’s no truth. That’s just as damaging. We don’t go for that. We’re gonna speak truth with love – because there’s not enough of both in this world. We’re off to the races. (The podcast’s) debut was fantastic. It exceeded my expectations. So, I really have high hopes for it.

JWK: You spoke on the debut about what you all believe were the big stories of last year and are the big issues going forward this year. You particularly mentioned the end of traditional media and trust in its content. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

MG: Yeah. My assignment to the three young scientists – and I call them Team Awesome because they really are awesome – in getting ready for the podcast (was) “Look, I want you to look back at 2024 and tell me what story in your field of expertise do you think was most significant and why? Then look forward to 2025 and tell us what’s the one story we should be keeping our eye on and why?”

So, Breanna had her thing, Kirby had his thing, Maxfield had his and then it came my turn. I said “Well, I’m picking journalism.” I’ve been a journalist all my life. I started way back when I was a teenager with a newspaper column called Science Nonfiction because I’ve always believed that real science is more interesting than science fiction. Not everybody might agree with me but it’s certainly true in my opinion.

So, I said “In the area of journalism, what was the most significant story of last year?” That’s a no-brainer. Clearly, it is the effective demise of the influence of legacy media, traditional media, corporate media or whatever you want to call it – but we know who we’re talking about. We’re talking about all the the major newspapers – the LA Times, New York Times (and) the Washington Post. We’re talking about ABC, NBC, CBS. You know, I’ve worked at ABC and I’ve worked at CBS. I got my start at CBS News. I was a science and technology contributor for the CBS Morning News. I worked with Diane Sawyer and Bill Kurtis. So, I know what I’m talking about. I’ve seen how the sausage is made from the inside.

I’ve been a journalist all my life. I’ve always aspired to be as impartial as I can. I have my opinions like everybody else but I’m not entitled to use my platform as a journalist (in the role of a news reporter) to air what I believe or don’t believe in . That’s baloney. I’m old school.

So, on this podcast, I said “I think the most significant story is the loss of influence by the legacy media.” We knew this was coming. This is no surprise. If you look at last year’s Gallup Poll. It asked people “How much trust do you have in the media?” It’s pathetic. It’s like 31%. 31% said they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the media.That’s a third of the population.The other two-thirds say they have “not very much” or “no” faith or trust in the media.

So, we knew this was coming.The Grim Reaper was coming for the media but the real dagger or stake in the heart of legacy media came with November’s election. Again, I’m not political. I hate politics but when you look at study, after study, after study of how the media covered the two candidates – Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – every study, including one for the Shorenstein Center which is at the JFK School of Government at Harvard, showed that like 80% of news coverage of Donald Trump was negative. 80%! That’s not even close to being to being 50/50! Other studies have shown as much as 95% negative coverage for Donald Trump.

Now, I’m not sitting here advocating for Donald Trump. Again, I’m not trying to be political. I’m just dealing with facts. These are facts. The legacy media presented Donald Trump in a huge negative light. Guess what? He won with a landslide. What does that tell you? You don’t need me to tell you what the conclusion is.The conclusion is the legacy media has lost not only people’s trust but they’ve lost their influence.

JWK: Why do you think that is?

MG: Social media has replaced it. The story of last year is amateur journalists or citizen journalists. I don’t even know what we’re gonna call them now. These are just people who are online and broadcasting live from the fires in LA or from some political event somewhere. There’s no filter. There’s no middleman. If you think of the news people – the so-called anchors at the news stations – they’re middlemen.

The wholesale news is out there. When I was at ABC News it was called a live feed. The network would pay money to get a live feed from some event and then they would decide out of two, three or four hours of live feed what one minute do you want to put on the air? Well, who makes that choice? It’s just rife with bias.

So, now what people are saying is “We’re done with that. We don’t want the middlemen. We don’t need to see the C student newscaster” because, frankly, most of them are not particularly intelligent. I know most of them.They are delivering the news to you and you’re gonna sit still for that? No! I want to see what’s happening with my own eyes.

JWK: It seems to me that with the internet the solution for the legacy media is kind of simple. Take the recent controversy over how the interview with Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes was edited. You could still have the edited version on television but put the whole interview online – but they refused to do it.

MG: Bingo! In fact, I’ve worked at the National Academy of Sciences. I chaired a committee. You know, that is like the Vatican of science. I was very young when I did that. I was like in my twenties. It was quite unheard of for (someone that young) to chair a committee for the National Academy of Sciences. I’m not tooting my own horn but, after doing our research, we came out with – I don’t know – a 100 or 150 page report. Well, nobody’s gonna read the 150 report, John. What you do is you do you do an executive summary. That’s what you’re talking about.

If you’re gonna do an interview with a presidential candidate – I mean that’s a big deal! – and let’s say your interview goes a half-hour, an hour or more and then you air, in the case of 60 Minutes, what was it? Ten minutes of it? Well, I want to know what you left in the editing room and why. I want to know how it was edited. Did you take an answer from another question and transpose it? I mean these were the issues that arose with 60 Minutes. It was absolutely unconscionable. That was the legacy media at its worst. That’s when people started thinking to themselves “I’m not gonna put up with this anymore!” Your solution is perfect…Why didn’t they do that with Kamala?

Again, I’m not being political. I’m just reporting the facts here. It used to be that C-Span was the one place that you could go to to just see a live event. If there was a hearing on Capitol Hill you could sit there and watch it – or if there was a parade going on, or a protest going on, and there was a live feed, fantastic! If there was a candidate for some office somewhere giving a speech, you could watch it. I don’t need a middleman to say “Today…” and then give me their one-minute take on it. I’m not gonna trust them. They’ve proven that they cannot be trusted. So, in my opinion, this was the big story of 2024. Again, it’s a no-brainer. It’s the end of the end of the end of legacy media. They will never ever, ever, ever recover from it. It’s all about social media.

John W. Kennedy is a writer, producer and media development consultant specializing in television and movie projects that uphold positive timeless values, including trust in God.

Encourage one another and build each other up – 1 Thessalonians 5:11

More from Beliefnet and our partners