* From Real Science Radio -- The Richard Dawkins 3-to-1 Evolution Challenge: Research in preparation for an upcoming debate led Bob Enyart and his associate Will Duffy to Oxford University in the United Kingdom. With the success of RSR's PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge (see the popular evolutionist's reply here), the guys decided to hand deliver a copy of this Dawkins 3-to-1 Challenge to the office of professor emeritus Richard Dawkins, who lectures there for a course titled, Science Literacy: Evolution for Non-Scientists.
* Text of Dawkins 3-to-1 Evolution Challenge:
Let's ignore all the wild complexity of the genetic code and try to give a Darwinian explanation for one of the simplest aspects of our DNA. Richard Dawkins, drawing on your lifetime of studying evolution, can you describe, in as vague terms as you'd like, how the 3-to-1 pattern could arise by a non-directed material process, such that three genetic letters code for one amino acid?
Because we are creationist here in Denver at Real Science Radio, we can readily acknowledge that the laws of physics have no symbolic logic functions. Thus, a half century of trying by naturalists was doomed to fail, because just as you will have no answer to this challenge, there is no conceivable answer, because it cannot ever happen, even given infinite time.
* Dawkins Defining "Nothing": Pretending that atheists have made progress in explaining how the universe could arise from "nothing", in this 2-minute clip, Dawkins tries to explain what "nothing" must be...
* Dawkins Answers Ben Stein About God: Dawkins (regarding biology) and Stephen Hawking (regarding physics) both admit that their own areas of study exhibit what appears to be design. Yet when Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins what, after death, he would say to God if he met him, Dawkins quoted another atheist, "Sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?" Huh? Dawkins accuses God of hiding Himself. Yet he and virtually the entire atheistic world admits that to maintain their own disbelief that they have to explain away a world full of evidence:
- Dawkins: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed..."
- Hawking: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
- Paul: "Since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made..."
Dawkins wrote his acknowedgment in his signature book, The Blind Watchmaker (page 1), and Hawking in his A Brief History of Time (page 125). Anticipating their admissions, 2,000 years earlier the Apostle Paul wrote that God is "clearly seen" as the Creator, "being understood by the things that are made" so that unbelievers "are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20). Consider two lesbians who "marry" while dressed in a tuxedo and a gown, affirming even in the midst of their rebellion what Jesus taught, that God "made them male and female" (Mat. 19:4; Mark 10:6). So while atheists will claim that evidence for God's existence is lacking, they spend their careers trying to explain away the overwhleming evidence that they openly admit appears everywhere they look.
* A While Back, RSR Interviewed Jonathan Sarfati on Dawkin's Greatest Show: The world's number one creation author Dr. Jonathan Sarfati takes on the world's number one evolution author Richard Dawkins in the battle of the books. See for yourself that Dawkin's latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth is soundly refuted by Sarfati's The Greatest Hoax on Earth! In Don-air discussion with Dr. Sarfati, Bob Enyart re-airs a caller from 1997 who asked about Dawkins and Bob pointed out then that in all Dawkins' books:
...this famous atheist doesn't give evidence for evolution: he only assumes it is true. Dr. Sarfati agrees and quotes from Dawkins own book in which he admits that he had never given the evidence for evolution. Huh! [Update: When BEL obtained audio of Richard Dawkins admitting this very thing, we produced the brief YouTube video embedded below: Dawkins Proves Creationist Right.)
* Dawkins' Thoughts About Aliens Are Revealing: This is hardly novel, because forensic scientists routinely distinguish between intent and natural causes. But in the excerpt transcribed just below it's fun to see Richard Dawkins, who eschews Intelligent Design, admit that molecular biology may very well be able to identify intentional design in living organisms. Dawkins claims about aliens implies much about alien physiology which seems to undermine the claim that Darwinism is theoretically falsifiable. Consider these two points. First, on Intelligent Design, in Ben Stein's movie Expelled, Dawkins admits that molecular biology could provide the evidence that life on earth was intelligently designed. And if so...
(1) Richard Dawkins' Aliens Validate the Intelligent Design Effort when he was asked about the origin of life on earth and said:
"It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved, by probably some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose that it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology. You might find a signature of some sort of designer… And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -Dawkins
So Dawkins actually says about life on earth that it could be that it may have originated from a higher intelligence, from somewhere in outer space, with aliens who seeded life on earth. Yet that is what ruins scientists careers and even gets them fired: for saying that genetic evidence might indicate that life did not merely arise on earth but was put here by some intelligent agent. And Dawkins is the world's leading evolutionist, and we have him on film admitting the reasonableness of Intelligent Design. Huh! Dawkins' own complaint about his alien segment is stretched to the absurd by his fellow spin-control atheists who have taken his paraphrase of Stein's question to mean that Stein's actual question was edited out of the film. Oh brother. In reality, Dawkins was engaged in his discussion with Ben Stein. Attending a movie marathon, Bob Enyart watched that scene 15 times, and it is obvious that Richard Dawkins was not manipulated or misquoted. Rather, he showed surprising candor when he admitted that the complexity observed by molecular biologists could be evidence that life on earth originated from a higher intelligence. And like Francis Crick, when Dawkins says that life on earth might be too complex to arise here by chance, then he is just punting when he guesses that it could have originated somewhere else.
(2) Richard Dawkins' Alien Evolution Disproves Darwinist Falsifiability: Ostensibly, an alien life form anywhere in the universe (or in the fantasized multiverse) might have no similarity with terrestrial biology, perhaps not even being based on amino acids, sugars, nor even carbon atoms. Thus predictions (which are the stuff of hard science) as used by evolution scientists have no actual real-world specificity, so they cannot even theoretically falsify Darwin's central claim. For in practice, evolution "theory" is pliable enough to account for any observations even if imaginary, like alien physiology. Thus it is treated like a philosophy and not an actual, falsifiable scientific theory.
For example, Darwinist Barry D. Davis in Molecular genetics and the foundations of evolution fabricated a "prediction" of evolution after the fact, a "prediction" falsified and shown to be just an illusion by Dawkins' aliens:
...the finding of the same genetic code in microbes, plants and animals (except for minor variations in intracellular organelles) spectacularly confirms a strong evolutionary prediction. -B. D. Davis, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1985. (more...; See also Bob Enyart's peer-reviewed Dobzhansky: Forty Years Later Nothing Makes Sense.)
Darwinist origin-of-life researchers too falsified claims of such fulfilled "predictions" by typically denying that DNA even existed in the first reproducing organisms, as Dawkins himself admits on page 261 of Climbing Mount Improbable: "The original replicator probably was not DNA. We don’t know what it was..." (Like many atheists, RSR sparring partner atheist Aron Ra avoids discussions of the origin of both the universe and of life. After all, the field of abiogenesis is basically dead, losing its initial excitement after following its early hypotheses to their logical dead ends and now languishing with few new ideas, less excitement, virtually no funding, and a total lack of consensus.)
* Aliens Didn't Make Humans, Humans Made Aliens: Atheists claim that, "God didn't make man, man made God." However, belief in aliens is undeniably a man-made thing. Further, many atheists say that aliens made man. So, atheists are doing exactly what they falsely accuse Christians of.
* Meanwhile, the World's Leading Atheist Cosmologist Goes Insane: First, end-of-the-world doomsday prophet astrophysicist Stephen Hawking wants mankind to respond to the problems of global warming by colonizing the Moon or Mars evidently forgetting that the Moon's daytime temperature is over 200 degrees (107 C) and that neither location has liquid water or oxygen. The Sun is Earth's source of global warming, and because Mars is 50 million miles further from our Sun, its temperature ranges from 1 degree F down to 178 below! So mankind should flee from a temporary one degree increase in the Earth's temperature into about 200 degrees, above and below zero, and say good-bye to liquid water and oxygen. And if global warming is so threatening, why does Hawking overlook the more logical safe havens of Antarctica, Greenland and Siberia?
* Hawking Thinks Aliens Are Monsters: Next, Stephen Hawking urges mankind: "Don't talk to the aliens!" Why not? Well, they may be mean! No? So if aliens land, say, in your front yard, or on main street, just encourage your neighbors to walk around them and by all means, avoid eye contact. 2011 Update: Aliens may destroy humanity [for global warming], say scientists [who are from Penn State and affiliated with NASA in a peer-reviewed journal]. Really.
* Please Help BEL: Bob Enyart Live continues the battle to keep broadcasting on KLTT Radio. If you listen in Denver, (or anywhere else) call the station and encourage them keep Bob on the air! Then subscribe to one of Bob’s monthly resources or make a donation to do your part to preserve Godly Truth on the radio.
* The Christian Fish Flashback: Atheists and evolutionists widely desecrate the Christian fish symbol by putting legs on it to symbolize evolution. Dr. Thomas Lessl of the University of Georgia researched the motivations and was told, "I did it to annoy the Christian right wing, since they are fond of putting the fish/Christ symbols on their cars..." and "Creationists are [expletive]... Humans are no better than chickens [BE: How does he know, has he tasted them?]... earthworms... algae or infectious salmonella..." Dr. Lessl commented, "By inserting Darwin's name in the place of the fish icon usually reserved for Christ, the icthus symbol is ritually profaned."
Christians of course have responded with a larger Jesus fish eating the Darwin fish. And BEL adds to the mix an alien fish standing on end bearing Dawkins' name to illustrate the atheist's claim in the documentary Expelled that microbiology may provide evidence that life on earth is the result of intelligent design from somewhere out there in the universe! Richard Dawkins added that such an alien species would most likely have evolved by some Darwinian mechanism. He seemed unaware, as atheists tend to be, that this claim merely punts the issue of origins, since the origin of life on an another planet would face the same dilemma as life arising on earth. Yet atheists commonly put hope in aliens with no logical defense of their blind faith.
Post-show Note: ID Movement's Brief Analysis of Dawkin's Greatest Show: Check out Casey Luskin's interesting article, Dawkin's Greatest Show Shies Away from ID, Vindicates Behe.
* Enyart's Creationist Claim from 1997 Eventually Confirmed By Richard Dawkins: On national TV, Bob Enyart claimed that Richard Dawkins' books never presented any evidence for evolution but only the assumption that evolution were true. A dozen years later, Dawkins admits that in all of his previous books, he only assumed, but did not provide evidence for evolution. That vindicates Bob Enyart's direct statement to a caller who recommended that Bob read Dawkins (which Bob had done, but which the caller had not). See it unfold:
* Update -- Bob on the Pepperdine University Campus re Theistic Evolution: See rsr.org/pepperdine for the Summer 2015 event details or just see Bob's presentation right here...
* PZ Myers Writes about RSR: PZ wrote about RSR's debate with atheist Aron Ra and another time he blogged, Bob Enyart's wants me to respect his intelligence. In that entry, Myers quoted the nicest thing ever written about Bob by anyone he's ever debated (from British Darwinist James Hannam):
"Richard Dawkins once said that 'if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).' It rapidly became clear that Bob was none of these things. For a start, I know a fair bit about evolution and genetics. But when it came to familiarity with the arguments, he was way ahead of me. On epigenetics, RNA/DNA chemistry, and animal physiology, I was hopelessly outclassed. Bob is not ignorant. And it is pretty clear he is neither stupid nor insane. He came across, in fact, as extremely intelligent. So perhaps he is wicked? Well, despite a brush with the law a few years ago, I am sure he is nothing of the sort. Comments such as those made by Dawkins only further undermine the presumption of good faith on the part of creationists and Darwinists." -British Evolutionist Richard Hannam quoted by PZ Myers
* PZ Goes ad hominem On Us, So We Went All ad hominid On Him: So we posted to his blog: "PZ, since you won't debate him, Bob Enyart has now posted what he's calling his one and only question to you: The PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge. It's a sketch of the human eye with the question in its caption." -A Bob Enyart Live staffer
* PZ Responds to Our Trochlea Challenge: "...Enyart has challenged me to explain how this feature evolved. I have an answer. It’s easy. I don’t know. I don’t see any obvious obstacle to an arrangement of muscles evolving, but I don’t know the details of this particular set." Of course though pretty much everyone else posting on his blog has an answer. :) And as Bob posted at Myers' site and at RSR, when PZ asks whether or not the muscle could have attached without the trochlea he is obfuscating. Of course that or any muscle could be fastened somewhere without first passing through a trochlea. Intentionally or not, PZ is missing the point of the trochlea diagram.
Today’s Resource: Have you browsed through the Science Department in our KGOV Store? We think you just might love the compelling materials there! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine that features the writings of Dr. Sarfati!
* Bob Enyart on National Geographic's Website: Real Science Radio's Geo Earth Explorer (GEE) proposal was accepted as an entry in National Geographic's 2014 contest with a summary of that proposal appearing online at Expedition Granted at nationalgeographic.com.
The Creation Research Society also recently published our proposal, with much more detail, describing this proposed Google-based fossil and strata exploration tool. In CRSQ:
We have discussed using Google Maps and Google Earth to create presentations of the young-earth evidence in fossils and formations. What is the extent, in length and breadth, of some particular layers of strata that contain young-earth fossils or features (such as polystrates, a flat gap, or a highly purified deposition)? Being able to show how far and wide such strata extend can help drive home the strength of such evidence. more...
* Bob's Research Trip to England: The British people love Darwin because they hate God. See also, rsr.org/wallace-beat-darwin and check out Doug McBurney and Bob's discussion of Enyart's 2015 trip to the UK, and the UK's patron saint: