* Another Fun RSR List Show: In Real Science Radio's List of the Fine Tuned Features of the Universe, Bob Enyart quotes leading scientists and their astounding admission of the uncanny and seemingly never-ending list of the just-perfect finely tuned parameters of the physical features of the Earth, the solar system, and the entire cosmos. This program is brought to you by God, maker of heaven and earth and other fine products!

* The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe: Barrow & Tipler, in their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe," and include the wildly unlikely combination of:
- the electron to proton ratio standard deviation of 1 to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (37 0s)
- the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe
- the electron to proton mass ratio (1 to 1,836) perfect for forming molecules
- the electromagnetic and gravitational forces finely tuned for the stability of stars
- the gravitational and inertial mass equivalency
- the electromagnetic force constant perfect for holding electrons to nuclei
- the electromagnetic force in the right ratio to the nuclear force
- the strong force (which if changed by 1% would destroy all carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and heavier elements)
- all electrons in the universe are identical as are all instances of each fundamental particle
- etc., etc., etc. (including the shocking apparent alignment of the universe with the orbit of the Earth)

Omitting the Cosmological Constant: We have omitted from this list the commonly reported fine tuning of the cosmological constant to one part in 10 to the 120th. This is so very precise that if the entire universe had as much additional mass as exists in a single grain of sand, it would all collapse upon itself. That is, if a big bang actually formed our universe, and if it created a miniscule additional amount of mass than it is claimed to have created, then no planets, stars, or galaxies could exist. Conversely, if the universe had less mass, by that same quantity, matter would never have coalesced to become planets, stars, and galaxies, and again, we would not exist. So, why doesn't Real Science Radio include this astoundingly fine-tuned parameter in our list? Well, as physicist John Hartnett points out, the cosmological constant is only a fine-tuning problem for the big bang theory, so it is an argument only against a big bang universe, whereas in our actual universe, it is not a fine tuning issue. So, the comsomological constant does refute big bang cosmology, at least, for anyone who is objective, has common sense, and is not desperately trying to ignore the evidence for the Creator. (By the way, since NASA says that the confirmed predictions of the big bang theory are what validates it, you might want to Google: big bang predictions, and you'll find our article ranked #1 out of half-a-million, at rsr.org/bbp, presenting the actual track record of the predictions of the theory. Also, if you Google: evidence against the big bang, you'll find our article on that topic near the top of the first page of Google results!)

* The Whopping Physics Coincidence: NewScientist reports about gravity and acceleration that, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..."

* The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Solar System include:
- Our Sun is positioned far from the Milky Way's center in a galactic goldilocks zone of low radiation
- Our Sun placed in an arm of the Milky Way puts it where we can discover a vast swath of the entire universe
- Earth's orbit is nearly circular (eccentricity ~ 0.02) around the Sun providing a stability in a range of vital factors
- Earth's orbit has a low inclination keeping it's temperatures within a range permitting diverse ecosystems
- Earth's axial tilt is within a range that helps to stabilize our planet's climate
- the Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons
- the Moon's distance from the Earth provides tides to keep life thriving in our oceans, and thus, worldwide
- the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05) makes it's influence extraordinarily reliable
- the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses
- the Earth's distance from the Sun provides for great quantities of life and climate-sustaining liquid water
- the Sun's extraordinary stable output of the energy
- the Sun's mass and size are just right for Earth's biosystem
- the Sun's luminosity and temperature are just right to provide for Earth's extraordinary range of ecosystems
- the color of the Sun's light from is tuned for maximum benefit for our plant life (photosynthesis)
- the Sun's low "metallicity" prevents the destruction of life on Earth
- etc., etc., etc.

* What is the Multiverse? In June of 2016, Fred Williams passed along a question from a listener to his Real Science Radio co-host Bob Enyart.
Q: "What is the Multiverse?"
A: "The multiverse is a yardstick used to measure the strength of the fine tuning argument for God."
But then...
Q: "Why do so many atheists support the multiverse?"
A: "The degree of acceptance of the multiverse
measures the desperation of atheists."

* The Finely Tuned Earth includes:
- the Earth's surface gravity strength prevents the atmosphere from rapidly losing water to space
- the Earth's just-right ozone layer filters out ultraviolet radiation and helps mitigate temperature swings
- the Earth's spin rate on its axis provides for a range of day and nightime temperatures to allow life to thrive
- the atmosphere's composition (20% oxygen, etc.) provides for life's high energy requirements
- if Earth's oxygen content were higher, forest fires would worsen; at 30%-40% the atmosphere could ignite
- the atmosphere's pressure enables our lungs to function and water to evaporate at an optimal rate to support life
- the atmosphere's transparency to allow an optimal range of life-giving solar radiation to reach the surface
- the atmosphere's capactity to hold water vaper provides for stable temperature and rainfall ranges 
- efficient life-giving photosynthesis depends on quantum physics, as reported in the journal PNAS
- organisms do not metabolize lignin (component in soil) for otherwise most all plant life would be impossible
- the water molecule's astounding robustness results from finely balanced quantum effects. As reported by New Scientist, "Water's life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces. ... We are used to the idea that the cosmos' physical constraints are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water's quantum forces can be added to this 'just right' list."
- water is an unrivaled solvent; its low viscosity permits the tiniest blood vessels; its high specific heat stabilizes biosphere temperatures; its low thermal conductivity as a solid insulates frozen-over lakes and as a liquid its high conductivity lets organisms distribute heat; its an efficient lubricant; is only mildly reactive; has an anomalous (fish-saving) expansion when it freezes; its high vapor tension keeps moisture in the atmosphere; and it tastes great too!
- the phenomenally harmonious water cycle
- water permits the passage of the Sun's life-giving radiation to depths of 500 meters
- the carbon atom's astounding capabilities. As Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle wrote: "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
- etc., etc., etc.

[Updated July 1, 2021.]

* Made in God's Triune Image: After a couple science news items, Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams talk about God who said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..." (Gen. 1:26). God exists as three persons in one Trinity. Man also, as it turns out, has a triune nature.

Real Science Radio is brought to you by God,
maker of heaven and earth and other fine products!

* Three in the Bible: Consider the Bible's extraordinary use of this number. Christ was three days in the tomb, which Jonah’s three days foreshadowed, as did Abraham’s three days of thinking that he would sacrifice his son Isaac on that same hill called Golgotha, the Skull, and Mt. Moriah (Gen. 22:14; 2 Chron. 3:1). Israel's three patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The priestly tribe of Levi is from Jacob's third child (Gen. 29:34), as Leviticus is the third book of the Bible. And the day the law was given, the sons of Levi killed “about three thousand men” (Ex. 32:28), whereas the day the Spirit was given, “that day about three thousand souls" were saved (Acts 2:41; and see 2 Cor. 3:6 and The Plot).

The Hebrew Scriptures comprise three sections, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:44), and God created three archangels. The most noteworthy women are Eve, Sarah, and Mary. The magi brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. Three persons (one being the Son) started their public service at thirty years of age: Joseph (Gen. 41:46), a deliverer of his people; David (2 Sam. 5:4) seated on the messianic throne (2 Sam. 7:12-13); and "Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23). God could have led Esther to fast for two days, or four; and He could have kept Jonah in the whale for one day, or a week, but three days and three nights prefigures God’s plan of salvation for Christ’s time in the grave. For Jesus "rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:4). And thus, the triune Christian God, the mystery of the Trinity, Three Persons in One God, is the only true God. And even theoretically, unlike the unitarian Allah and any of the alleged pagan idols, the God of the Bible is the only one whose testimony we would be able to trust, for His triunity answers both the philosophical problem of the one and the many and it answers Socrates' challenge against theism titled Euthyphro's Dilemma. For, how could God Himself know that He is good, and not evil? Allah could not know that. But with the Triune God, the Son testifies that for eternity past, the Father has never wronged the Son, and the Father of the Spirit, and the Spirit of the Son, an eternal, threefold testimony, for by the testimony of three witnesses, the matter is established.

* Three in Nature: God has imprinted our world and even ourselves with His triune nature. The number three manifested in Scripture turns the Christian's attention outward to see that  the universe exists in space, matter and time. Space itself exists in three dimensions, height, width, and length, as does time in past, present and future. (Even matter appears to be a wave, particle, information triality.) The electromagnetic force operates in positive, negative, and neutral, and in light, red, green, and blue blend into the hues of the rainbow whereas in pigment the three primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. We human beings live on this third planet from the Sun; we have trichromatic color vision; and we are made of atoms built of "just three basic particles", protons, neutrons, and electrons. For millennia, mankind knew matter only in three states: solid, liquid, and gas. When you look into those three particles that form the atom, you enter the triune world of quantum mechanics. Electrons are among the three "flavors" of leptons. Protons and neutrons are made of exactly three quarks, each of one of the three quark groupings, and each of one of three "colors" and of multiples of one-third electrical charge. And exactly three generations of elementary particles underlie all matter. Physicist Richard Feynman in QED asked how many fundamental actions are there to account for nearly all phenomena in the universe regarding light and electricity to which he answered: "There are Three!" And in his Nobel prize lecture Feynman said, astoundingly, that there are three unique ways of "describing quantum mechanics". Unlike arbitrary units of measurement, scientists so far have discovered "two natural units", Planck's constant, h, and the speed of light, c. A "still-unanswered question is whether a third natural unit awaits discovery", for such a triune "'all-natural' physics" would "form a basis of measurement as complete as, and much more satisfying than, the kilogram, the meter, and the second." And long before the advent of the theory of quantum mechanics, mankind's first known number system used the Sumerian term "man" for 1, "woman" for 2, and the word "plurality" for 3, with math itself happening in the realm of positive, negative, and zero. The strongest shape for building is the triangle. Writers often give three examples and artists group in threes as in interior design, sculpting, and even movie directing, as compared to trilogy (1, 2, 3) there is no actually used word for any other number of films. Photographers use the rule of thirds. Logicians use the three laws of logic as genetic scientists learned that DNA uses only three-letter words. And so we humans are body, soul, and spirit (1 Thes. 5:23), made in the image of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

* Too Many Bills: Bob Enyart relates his appearances on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect while reporting on Maher's recent conversation with Bill Nye in which they lie about Christians to convince their ignorant audience of a revisionist history.

Real Science Radio's Excerpts
from the WMAP & Planck Anisotropy of the Universe Papers
with a little help from New Scientist
aka The Big Bang Theory Goes Ker-Planck

* The CMB, NASA's Top 3 Proofs, RSR's #1 Ranking: [Updated in 2018] NASA ranks the CMB (cosmic microwave background) among the top three confirmations of the big bang predictions. (See or click the image, right.) Yet Google ranks rsr.org/bbp #1 among the millions of results for a search on: big bang predictions! So, who's correct in this standoff? NASA? Or Google and RSR? To decide, you can:
- check out today's RSR program on the CMB and the Axis of Evil, or
- see Part II of our BB video (just below), or
- hear our broadcast and/or read our article at rsr.org/bbp.  

Summary: The belief, held by faith by many cosmologists, that God did not create the universe suggests, as codified in their Copernican and Cosmological principles, claims that the Earth is not in a special place. If however, the most expansive scientific observations ever made demonstrate that the universe has, in effect, a north and a south pole, aligned in an uncanny way with the Earth's orbit around the sun, then that would suggest that when God created the heavens and the Earth, that He put the Earth in a special place. Thus, atheistic cosmologists have coined the term Axis of Evil because in their upside down worldview, anything is evil if it is evidence against the big bang and for the God of the Bible.

Click Play for RSR's BB Part 2 on the three main predictions...

* First – The BIG NAMES in Cosmology and Physics Admit It's Philosophy: Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Edwin Hubble, George Ellis, and so many other accomplished scientists admit that it is not observational science, but philosophy, that leads such big bang advocates to claim that the universe has no center (and thus that it is homogenous and isotropic, the same everywhere and in every direction). If you don't know that, read their quotes at rsr.org/cosmological-prinicple. If you've read their comments, and you are still in denial about this, ask God to help you, and He will. Meanwhile, the rest of us may proceed...

* Second – Another Big Name Admits What the CMB Data Seems to Show: Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (emphasis on the theoretical), put it this way:

But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong [RSR: That's extreme hyperbole; No operational science would be wrong, only the typical wild guesswork of origins science would be wrong] and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.

* Third – WMAP PROJECT (2001 – 2013): This mission was the result of a partnership between Princeton University and the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and later the ESA Planck spacecraft (2009 – 2013) complemented and greatly enhanced the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) mission to map the CMB. As stated on an official Planck site, "Planck data reveals the presence of subtle anomalies in the CMB pattern that might challenge the very foundations of cosmology."

* The CMB Segment of our BB Video Queued Up: In case you didn't watch Part 2 of RSR's BB video just above, at least check out the CMB segment that's queued up here. Just click...

* Post-show Updates: Unexpectedly, NASA's Voyager 1 & 2, having now both crossed the heliopause and left the solar system as of 2018, have both found, separately, that the solar system's north is aligned with the north of interstellar space, and how this could be is "simply not understood." Separately, regarding the axis of evil, see creationist cosmologist Dr. John Hartnett's Cosmology is Not Even Astrophysics (the last paragraph) and his excellent 2006 article CMB Conundrums.

* New Scientist: Planck shows... axis of evil: This article by Jacob Aron reviews the latest science on the mapping of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The title of the article is Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil. It's about:

… a four-year mission conducted by the European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft, which has created the highest-resolution map yet of the entire cosmic microwave background (CMB)… Planck's map greatly improves cosmologists' understanding of the universe, but it does not solve lingering mysteries over unusual patterns in the CMB. These include a "preferred" direction in the way the temperature of the light varies, dubbed the cosmic "axis of evil"…

The high-resolution results from Planck show very strong agreement with cosmological theory. 'The overall conclusion is that standard cosmology is an extremely good match to Planck data,' said Cambridge astrophysicist George] Efstathiou. 'If I were an inflationary theorist I would be extremely happy.'

Cosmologists can't pack up and go home just yet though, as Planck's map has also confirmed the presence of a mysterious alignment of the universe. [RSR: Seems like they are committing a rsr/org/ReMineism.] The "axis of evil" was identified by Planck's predecessor, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe…

The pattern of hot and cold variations in the CMB should be randomly distributed – and they are when comparing small patches of the universe. At larger scales, however, Planck reveals that one half of the universe has bigger variations than the other. Planck's detectors are over 10 times more sensitive and have about 2.5 times the angular resolution of WMAP's, giving cosmologists a much better look at this alignment. "We can be extremely confident that these anomalies are not caused by galactic emissions and not caused by instrumental effects, because our two instruments see very similar features," said Efstathiou.

* CMB Map Resolution Improvement Since 1992: Wow! Via Planck.

arXiv Aug. 19, 2013 Dipole Anisotropy in Integrated Linearly Polarized Flux Density in NVSS Data
Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur - 208016, India

There currently exists considerable evidence in favor of a large scale anisotropy in the Universe with the preferred axis pointing roughly in the direction of Virgo, close to the CMBR dipole [that is, within margins of error, which dipole itself is much larger than expected by the Doppler effect]. Furthermore it seems very unlikely that systematic effects would pick the same direction in so many different observations, i.e. radio polarizations orientations (Jain & Ralston 1999), optical polarizations (Hutsemekers 1998), CMBR quadrupole and octopole (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 2004), radio number counts (Blake & Wall 2002; Singal 2011) and radio polarization flux (present work). In all likelihood this alignment of axes (Ralston & Jain 2004) is caused by a physical effect.
(Tiwari and Jain, 2013, pp. 1, 13)

arXiv Aug. 8, 2013: Testing the Dipole Modulation Model in CMBR
Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur - 208016, India, Pranati K. Rath and Pankaj Jain

…there are several observations which suggest a preferred axis pointing roughly towards Virgo [1–6]. One also observes a hemispherical anisotropy [7–13], where the power extracted from two different hemispheres shows significant difference from one another. The power in each hemisphere is estimated by making a harmonic decomposition of the masked sky. … This direction is nearly perpendicular to the direction towards Virgo. These observations suggest a violation of the cosmological principle… the hemispherical anisotropy found in [7–12] cannot be consistently attributed to the dipole modulation model, Eq. 1.1. The true anisotropy model is likely to be more complicated and might contain higher order multipoles.

TELETHON FREE GIFT: RSR airs only by the financial support of our listeners! Make a one-time or monthly donation to keep Bob Enyart and Fred Williams on the air. To say thanks, we'll send you Ray Comfort's really fun and revealing DVD, Evolution vs. God.

* Dragon "Legends" Reveal Dinosaurs: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams review Vance Nelson's great book, Dire Dragons, documenting the widespread historical evidence of the co-existence of man and dinosaurs. With the support of university infrastructures and a lot of research money, it often took paleontologists decades, even a century, to correctly interpret the actual form of various dinosaurs from their fossilized bones, yet predating modern science, cultures around the world accurately depicted many kinds of dinosaurs. This is one observation among many powerful arguments showing that human beings recorded their sightings of actual dinosaurs.

* Dragon Legends Convinced Carl Sagan They Reveal Dinosaurs: Carl Sagan in his book, The Dragons of Eden, wrote, "The pervasiveness of dragon myths in the folk legends of many cultures is probably no accident." Since Sagan was himself an old-earth dinosaur :) he had to reject the obvious conclusion, that cultures around the world saw dinosaurs firsthand. Instead, he concocted a bizarre explanation that is contradicted by the collective experience of billions of human beings (and animals). Sagan, trying to explain the persistence and accuracy of legends and depictions that appear to refer to dinosaurs, claimed that since we evolved from animals that lived 165 million years ago, we inherited their memories of dinosaurs complete with accurate anatomy, habitat, and behavior, of many different kinds of these reptiles, which dwelt on land, in the air, and in the sea. Wow.

* Most Recent Version: See the latest version of this program and written show summary at RSR.org/scientists-doubting-darwin.

* Nobody Doubts Darwin, Except for This Guy: When anyone claims that all scientists are Darwinists, they are omitting neurosurgeon Ben Carson, and the crew over at The Third Way. And they also omit all the others who have gone out of their way to declare their doubt about Darwin.

* Nobody Doubts Darwin, Except for These Guys:
- 100 Ph.D.s listed at Australia's creation.com
- 200 scientists with master's degrees or Ph.D.s listed over at AiG
- 300 medical doctors at Physicians & Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
- 500 Ph.D. scientists at the Korean Association of Creation Research
- 600 advanced degreed scientist at the Creation Research Society
- 800 scientists who signified their opposition at DissentFromDarwin.org
- 3,000 scientists and professors, nearly, (most of whom hold a Ph.D. in some field of science) who reject secular Darwinism to varying degrees as named online by Dr. Jerry Bergman

* Another Scholar Doubting Darwin: Remember that the famed atheist professor Thomas Nagel wrote Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false!

They are also omitting those who doubt Darwin who have been identified by research including:
- 30,000 U.S. public high school biology teachers do not endorse Darwinism in class
- 100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that "intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution."
- 570,000 medical doctors in the U.S., specialists in applied science, say God brought about or directly created humans. Whereas Darwinsim is dominated by storytelling, the field of medicine is an actual applied science (see definition and applied science section below) within biology that is practiced by highly educated professionals. Thus it is significant that 60% of all U.S. medical doctors reject the strictly secular Darwinist explanation for our existence, with three of five docs agreeing that either God initiated and guided the process that led to human life or that God specially created human beings as we are.

* Honorable Mention: It is observed that "authorities" should not be counted, but weighed. So weigh them. (The two-thirds of a million Ph.D.s, professors, and advanced degreed scientists doubting Darwin listed here would weigh more than 100 million pounds. :) Speaking of gravitas, however, for honorable mention, consider the RSR list of the many fathers of the physical sciences, both before and after Darwin, who rejected naturalistic origins, including Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Harvey, Boyle, Huygens, Newton, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Dalton, Faraday, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, and Carver.

* Answering the Atheist's Argument from Authority: This list above is not an argument from authority. Rather, it is a REBUTTAL to logical fallacy committed often by evolutionists (including Krauss) when they commonly make their invalid argument from authority. There is nothing wrong with quoting an expert on a topic. But evolutionists frequently use the bait and switch tactic of identifying experts in one topic and then without acknowledging the switch, proceeding as though they were experts in a different field, which is one way of committing the logical fallacy of an invalid argument from authority. Being a pilot doesn't mean that you know how to make an airplane, let alone gravity. So we should take care not to commit the logical fallacy of argument from an invalid authority, like this:

Scientists are experts in operational physics, chemistry, and biology.
Most scientists believe in naturalistic origins.
Therefore naturalistic origins must be true.

Aside from the severe misrepresentation that "all scientists are Darwinists", it is also a logical fallacy to imply that success in operational science translates to deserved trust in origins. Real Science Radio suggests, don't believe lies.

* Summary of the DI's Scientific Dissent from Darwinism: The Discovery Institute describes the hundreds of scientists who have signed their statement of dissent as made up of those holding "doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley.  Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel."

* Of Course There's Overlap: Admittedly these lists contain some overlap but the orders of magnitude difference in the numbers indicate that the vast majority are not duplicates.

* Scientists Doubting or Rejecting the Big Bang: Unlike as with Darwinism, big bang cosmology is relatively insulated from real-world feedback because millions of professionals do not work in related fields as with biology. If hundreds of thousands of professionals received actual astronomical feedback in the same way that farmers, veterinarians, and physicians do daily while working with biological systems, then surveys might show a picture similar to that regarding Darwinism. That is, if professionals interacted daily with all the astronomical data that challenges and undermines the expectations of big bang theory, then the world would likely see a similar percentage of professionals in related scientific fields rejecting the big bang too. Cosmological dogma, further removed from human observation than are theories on anatomy, "benefits" in a backward sense, from the herd mentality that reinforces the tendency to believe authorities because most people lack daily experience with first-hand evidence that may contradicting (or support) the received account. Thus when that theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical), Lawrence Krauss told RSR that, "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang", he of course was ignoring all the apparently contradictory evidence.  So he asks expects everyone to "Trust us", i.e., trust those with the inscrutable knowledge. Scientists who doubt or outright reject the big bang include:
- acclaimed astronomer Fred Hoyle, father of stellar evolution theory (whom Stephen Hawking pointed out also rejected Darwin; see biography, A Life in Science)
- acclaimed astrophysicists Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge
- the hundreds of members of the young earth Creation Research Society
- the National Academy of Sciences which in 2003 published an alternative model for a bounded universe
- hundreds more scientists who are signing the extraordinary declaration at cosmologystatement.org.

* RSR Reports on the Int'l Creation Conference: Fred Williams continues from Part I his interview of Bob Enyart who attended the 7th ICC in Pittsburgh a couple weeks ago. A few hundred conferees, including many engineers and scientists from some of the world's most prestigious secular institutions, enjoyed an amazing week of the scientific exploration of God's creation. Bob and Fred discuss the conference proceedings that may be of greatest interest to the Real Science Radio audience.

* Courage in Crosswords: A Real Science Radio listener from Indiana sent in a screenshot of his New York Times crossword puzzle app...

"If the government were
actually reading my emails,
I'd have hope
for this country."
-Bob Enyart, rsr.org

Today's Resource:
Please browse the Science Department
of our online store and help keep
Real Science Radio on the air!

* Fred Interviews Bob on the 7th Int'l ICC: Along with a few hundred others, including many engineers and scientists from some of the world's most prestigious secular institutions, Bob Enyart attended the 7th International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh. Fred Williams interviews Bob about the happenings that may be of interest especially to the Real Science Radio audience.

Bob Enyart noticed that while other flood and creation models are knocking themselves out, in the process, though unintended and unstated, they seem to be highlighting the strengths of Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory.

"If the government were actually reading my emails
I'd have hope for this country." -Bob Enyart, rsr.org

* Radiometric Dating: Real Science Radio's Bob Enyart interviews nuclear chemist and text book author Dr. Jay Wile on radiometric dating. A week after interviewing Stephen Meyer on his new book, Darwin's Doubt, Bob handed the book to Jay and asked his guest to read a sentence written by this intelligent design advocate with the Discovery Institute. Meyer wrote that radiometric dating is a straightforward practice. Jay has quite a chuckle with that one. Here's the sentence, from page 109: "Unlike radiometric dating methods, molecular clocks depend on a host of contingent factors." If the Discovery Institute spent a twentieth of the energy that they do looking for evidence against neo-Darwinism, on two other secular doctrines, looking for scientific evidence contrary to the the big bang, and evidence that undermines ancient radiometric dates, they would stun themselves by what they would find! :)

* Meanwhile, Three Years Later: 2016 Show Update. Over at rsr.org/predictions, BOb Enyart and Fred Williams predicted that original dinosaur and other biological tissue will be found largely independent of the claimed age of the fossil. Our prediction has been RECONFIRMED in June 2016! The journal Nature Communications reported original biological material in Gunflint chert allegedly from 1.88 billion years ago in the Proterozoic "Eon" (i.e., layer). Our prediction was first CONFIRMED in 2014 when the Journal of Paleontology reported original soft tissue in Precambrian "beard worms" that are allegedly 530 million years old! (See 60+ similar discoveries.)

* Dr. Wile on RSR about Making Sausage: Recently, Bob Enyart interviewed Wile, who was the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship's speaker, Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry, former asst. professor and researcher on Department of Energy and NSF projects. Dr. Wile spoke on radiometric dating and (surprisingly) variable radioactive half-lives. Here are notes from that program's show summary...

* Atheists Attend this RMCF Event: The Denver Atheists Meetup Group encouraged participants to attend Friday's RMCF event. The whole meeting went splendidly. After Dr. Wile's insightful presentation, especially enjoyable were the questions raised by the atheists in attendance and Dr. Wile's comfortable approach and great answers. My brief dialogue with Dr. Tom Kashuba, a retired atomic spectroscopist, can be read best if you go to the end and read upward :) .

* Atheist Origins -- A Chat with Chauncey: One visitor from the atheist group, Chauncey, spoke for a while with RSR friend Patrick Shamblin and with Bob Enyart. We asked Chauncey to consider two things: 1) If you don't have a theory of origins that accounts for human consciousness, then you don't have a theory (and you don't even have a hypothesis). And 2) That they do not have even a hypothesis on origins is demonstrable by this pattern:
- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence
- the origin of stars begins with existing protostars and the explosion of existing stars
- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes
- the origin of species by neo-Darwinism begins with wildly complex reproducing life
- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from pre-existing alien life
- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse.

This pattern demonstrates that many in the public, following a gullible media, have undue confidence in the claims about origins from materialists. Consider also the ORIGIN of the process of encoding a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule. Atheists have nothing. And they have nothing, also, for the origin of something as relatively simple as the eye's trochlea (click or just Google: PZ Myers trochlea).

UPDATE -- Published Book Review: The CRSQ creation science journal has published Bob Enyart's review of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt. 

* New York Times Bestselling Author: Bob Enyart interviews old-earth anti-evolutionist Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute on his instant bestseller, Darwin's Doubt. After a dozen conservative talk radio interviews with scientifically challenged show hosts hosts (like Dennis Miller who kept referring to the Caribbean Explosion rather than the Cambrian), Dr. Meyer relaxed and talked science, recognizing, as he said, that this program was "real science radio." Bob concluded asking Dr. Meyer, a leader in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, to keep an eye out in his future research for a particular kind of fossil at the base of the grand canyon. (Remember the Nautiloids!) If you enjoy this program, you may enjoy our follow-up interview during which Stephen Meyer answers his critics.

* Bob's 2011 Comment Prefiguring Meyer: Part II of Stephen Meyer's 2013 book is about "The Cambrian Information Explosion", genes, epigenetics, etc. In a comment to an evolutionist on TheologyOnline.com in 2011, Bob wrote Alate_One, "And as for [Charles Doolittle] Walcott and the Cambrian Explosion, adding to his being stunned by the complexity of life so low in the geologic column, I imagine you've thought through the stunning discoveries in molecular biology that supercharges the 'explosive' part of all that variety?"

* Stephen Meyers is Not a Creationist: Sadly, Dr. Meyer, along with virtually all the Christians in the ID community, rejects the young earth as well as the need to take the scriptural account of the global flood as literal. As a further result, typically, old-earth Christians also reject the literality of many divine interventions taught in the Bible, including about the Tower of Babel, the creation of the Earth before the stars, etc. So, sadly, it is incorrect to refer to them as creationists. Still, we love those guys and pray for them!

* A Shared Antagonist Eugenie Scott: Dr. Meyer seemed interested in the claims made by anti-creationist anthropologist Dr. Eugenie Scott when debating Bob Enyart on national TV. Hear these select soundbites from Eugenie Scott, an adversary of both Meyer's ID community and Enyart's creationist allies. In 1998, answering Enyart's repeated request for her best evidence for evolution, Eugenie said that the non-coding regions of DNA were affirmatively known to be useless, that further research would not show otherwise, and so that Junk DNA was great evidence against the existence of a Creator. (Of course, as offered for decades by virtually the entire evolution community, that is not an argument based on the laws of science, but a metaphysical argument, based on what a Creator may or may not be inclined to do; and the irony of it all, is that the this neo-Darwinian assumption retarded the advancement of science, for many years, as an evolutionary bias set in against recognizing function in the regions of DNA that did not code for protein.

* Another Shared Antagonist Jerry Coyne: Update: Bob Enyart submitted a comment to Jerry Coyne's blog, whyevolutionistrue.com, quoting this infamous anti-creationist who had written, "Note that the DI will continue to ignore negative verdicts [about Meyer's Darwin's Doubt] by scientists like Matzke..." Enyart and Coyne had previously sparred regarding a humourous disagreement over horizontal gene transfer and whether genetic sequencing shows "the tree of life branching in a nice Darwinian way." At any rate, to Coyne's comment about Meyer's book, Enyart added, "Just fyi, if you read the newly released paperback, you'll see that Meyer addresses Matzke's critique at length. For example, Meyer addresses the claim that the hypothetical creatures inferred by conflicting cladograms provide sufficient evidence of the actual existence of such transitional forms." That comment, submitted on May 30, 2014, would have been #22. If you notice that Jerry decides to post Bob's comment, feel free to let us know at Bob@RealScienceRadio.com.