* Scientists, By Faith, Reject that the Universe has a Center: [Updated June 2020] Real Science Radio's Bob Enyart and Fred Williams document the admission by leading Big Bang scientists that there  is no known scientific evidence that confirms the widely accepted belief by cosmologists like Stephen Hawking and physicists like Lawrence Krauss that the universe has no center. Therefore we here document leading scientists who admit that the Copernican Principle (that we are not in the center of the universe), and its more generalized version, the Cosmological Principle, that the universe is homogeneous (the same everywhere) AND isotropic (the same in every direction). If those two claims had not been falsified by the greatest scientific observations ever made (see the first bullet at rsr.org/bbp), they would combine in support of the Copernican Principle, that the universe has no center. That Copernican claim though, of course, is not an observational but philosophical. All this current secular dogma amounts not to a scientific conclusion but to a presuppositional belief. Whether or not the universe has a center is not essential to the Christian faith, but is passionate dogma to most atheistic scientists. So below we:
- document leading scientists admitting that the Cosmological Principle is a philosophy
- give examples of atheists who hype the claim that the universe has no center
- present evidence that the universe may have a center from our catalog of papers on redshift
- show that it is an atheistic fabrication to claim that the Church ever taught that the Earth was flat
- point out that the president of the actual "Flat Earth Society" is not a creationist but an evolutionist
- remind everyone that geocentrism came not from the Bible but from the pagan philosophers Plato and Aristotle, and we
- observe that although the Earth is almost at the center of the concentric spheres of galaxies, it is just far enough off center to falsify the claim that the observational data is some kind of isotropic mirage.

* Hawking, Feynman, Tipler, Hubble, etc. Admit Cosmological Principle is Philosophy: The Standard Model cosmological claim that the universe has no center is based on philosophy and is not confirmed by observation. Consider:

- George Ellis: Scientific American profiled the Stephen Hawking co-author cosmologist Ellis quoting him stating [June 28, 2020 Update: SciAm put this behind a paywall or removed it. If you find a working alternative link, please send it along to Bob@rsr.org. Thanks!] that:

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations... For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations... You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds... What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

- Stephen Hawking: Likewise, Hawking wrote elsewhere, in The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time that scientists, "are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology." And in 2005 from The Theory of Everything, pp. 22-23:

"... it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no SCIENTIFIC evidence for, or against this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable [i.e. unexpected to materialists] if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe ..."

- Philip Gibbs: This former research fellow from Edinburg University wrote in a collection of articles posted at the University of California, Riverside, right on point, that: "Despite the discovery of a great deal of structure in the distribution of the galaxies, most cosmologists still hold to the cosmological principle either for philosophical reasons or because it is a useful working hypothesis..."

- Marie-Noelle Celerier: Even regarding supernovae data explicitly, French astrophysicist Celerier wrote that, "ruling out the Cosmological Principle" is a valid interpretation of the data.

- Richard Feynman: As a Nobel prize-winning physicist and author of QED on quantum electrodynamics (of one of Bob's favorite books), Feynman lectured, "I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice... It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary … To avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity." Yet thirty years after Feynman's warning, the journal Nature was still publishing (and to today) quotes like this: "Darwin showed that, in terms of origin, we are not privileged above other species. Our position around an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy in and ordinary supercluster continues to look less and less special." 

- John Barrow and Frank Tipler: These famed cosmologists begin their standard text, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, referring to that doctrine, which they themselves defend, as a "twentieth-century dogma" [emphasis added]. And they immediately admit that it is challenged by the apparent life-supporting fine tuning of the universe, and philosophy is an admitted recurrent element of the book's first few chapters, with the brief forward, written by theoretical physicist John Wheeler, twice mentioning the philosopher, and the philosophical considerations of the book.

- Edwin Hubble: As patron saint of atheist cosmologists, in his 1936 classic, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Hubble admits that it is philosophy and not observational science that leads him to believe that the universe has no center. Summing up his pages 50-59, creationist astrophysicist John Hartnett writes: "[W]hat Edwin Hubble concluded [was that] his observations of the galaxies’ redshifts indicated to him that we are at the centre of a symmetric matter distribution. But Hubble rejected his own conclusion—that we are in a very special place—on philosophical grounds." For example:

"Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome..." Regarding the possibility that "the observer [is] in a unique position [this] unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution..." -Edwin Hubble, author of, ehem, The Observational Approach to Cosmology ;)

- Willem de Sitter: In 1931, this early advocate of the expanding universe said to the British Association with Jeans, Eddington, Lemaître, et al, present: "In making a theory of the universe we must, however, adopt some extrapolation, and we can choose it so as to suit our philosophical taste… that our neighbourhood is just an ordinary point, or small area, in the universe, not differing from any other small area in any essential property." Further, de Sitter said that the expanding universe theory "shows the observed radial motions of the spiral nebulae to be in accordance with… the field equations of the general theory of relativity… I must lay stress on the fact that, in using the words 'universe,' 'radius,' 'expansion,' etc., we are really speaking metaphorically, putting an interpretation on the equation of the theory, which is by no means imperative. There occurs in the equation a certain quantity, which may be either positive, negative, or zero, and which is interpreted as the reciprocal of the square of the radius of the curvature. But both this interpretation, and the assumption tacitly made that it is positive (thus making the three-dimensional universe closed) are entirely gratuitous, and not demanded by the theory."

- Georges Lemaître: Also in 1931, to the British Association, the father of the big bang theory said: "I propose to give some answer to… Sir James Jeans… 'Is the universe expanding at about the rate indicated by the spectra of the nebulae,' … The expansion of the universe is a matter of astronomical facts interpreted [somewhat arbitrarily, as de Sitter pointed out] by the theory of relativity, with the help of assumptions as to the homogeneity of space…"

- Werner Heisenberg: Let's look at the larger picture with one of the world's fathers of the smallest picture, that is, of quantum mechanics. Making an observation about much more than mere cosmology, the physicist author of the Heisenberg Principle, also wrote, "All scientific work is, of course, based consciously or subconsciously on some philosophical attitude... Most scientists are willing to accept new empirical data and to recognise new results, provided they fit into their philosophical framework. But in the course of scientific progress it can happen that a new range of empirical data can be completely understood only when the enormous effort is made to enlarge this framework..." (Born and Einstein, 1971, p. x). Such empirical data may be staring in the face of the society of philosophy known as modern astronomy. Without accepting the data (see below) pointing to a center of the universe, the Uncertainty Principle if applied here ;) means that even if cosmologists determine the momentum of the expansion of the universe, they will know neither where it is nor from whence it came.

* An Atheist and an Evolutionist who Present Faith as Science: Theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss and popular evolutionist Aron Ra, both of whom have appeared on Real Science Radio, claim that there is no center of the universe, and as follows, that our Milky Way galaxy is not at or near the center.

- For example Lawrence Krauss said on RSR that he doesn't believe anything. Krauss fancifully claims that he holds no beliefs, as though he were bathed in facts, pure as the driven snow. But what's worse than those who make the naive claim that they hold no beliefs but only operate based on repeatable, observational facts, is that many scientists conduct their life's work while denying the existence of their own belief system yet allowing that very philosophy to control their conclusions and even the scope of investigation that they permit.

- And AronRa asserted on RSR that, "There is NO CENTER to the universe." Despite our effort in debates with Ra on air and in writing, neither Aron Ra (nor apparently his fellow atheists at the UK's League of Reason) have admitted that it is not based on evidence, but by faith. Countless atheists and evolutionists believe in the Cosmological Principle. In Aron Ra's case, he should be willing to admit that he thereby violates his own claimed standard, as he says, that:

…if you believe in truth at all, then you should make sure that the things that you say actually are true [something he hasn't done regarding the universe having no center]. That they are defensibly accurate, and academically correct. And if they are not correct, you should correct them. You wouldn't claim to know anything that you couldn't prove that you knew [like that the universe lacks a center]." hear it

Ra says that Enyart wrongly claimed that PNAS published an alternative big bang model. Enyart acknowledged that he did not himself know whether or not the universe had a center, but added that the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2003 published a paper proposing an alternative cosmology, of a bounded universe centered on our Milky Way galaxy. Aron dismissed this on air, and in our later written debate wrote:

"Bob claimed an alternative model to Big Bang cosmology -which does not exist…" -Aron Ra

Standard BB cosmology claims an unbounded, homogeneous (the same everywhere) universe that therefore lacks a center. The alternative BB model I referenced was published in 2003 in PNAS. Smoller and Temple describe their proposal writing, "by incorporating a shock wave at the leading edge of the expansion of the galaxies… [which would be] bounding a finite total mass", that yields, "a cosmological model… of an asymptotically flat Schwarzschild spacetime." Physics professor John Hartnett explains that Smoller thereby "implies that the earth or at least the Galaxy is in fact close to the physical center of the Universe." As Smoller and Temple themselves admit, in their paper, "the Copernican Principle is violated in the sense that the earth then has a special position relative to the shock wave.

"Bob claimed an alternative model to Big Bang cosmology -which does not exist, and he said it was concordant with the creationists' model of the universe -which also does not exist." -Aron Ra

See the two creation models I briefly describe and link to at rsr.org/starlight-and-time#time-dilation proposed by two physicists, one a professor in Australia who has received a prestigious IEEE award, and the other an alumnus of Sandia National Labs where he received awards, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion–fusion target theory. RSR doesn't promote these young-earth models, but we've said on air, they are consistent with that 2003 PNAS paper including in that they propose a bounded universe centered on our solar system. Yet instead of engaging on the substance Ra and the atheists at League of Reason prefer to mock.

* Observational Evidence Pointing to a Center: The most extensive observational evidence ever collected in the history of science is being subjected to intense philosophical bias because of the "embarrassment" mentioned by Feynman above and the emotional anti-creationism of atheistic cosmologists. The most apparent interpretation of the redshift data averaged from about a hundred billion stars in each of hundreds of thousands of galaxies suggests that these galaxies may be positioned at preferred distances from the center of the universe in concentric galactic spheres. As bolstered by the statements above from leading secular physicists and astrophysicists like Hawking, Ellis, Feynman, etc., that the cosmological principle is philosophical rather than observational, consider these secular and creationist astrophysicist and cosmologists who have documented the quantized redshift suggesting that galaxies may exist in preferred distances and concentric shells out from the center of the universe:

* What Do the Big Bang, Chalk, Whales, Bacteria, & Fish Have in Common? Co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the latest issue of Creation magazine that raises questions about fascinating scientific matters, including:
- The 9-year life cycle of a volcano
- The island that formed "million-year" features in months
- The 24 eyes of the jellyfish that focuses on the tops of trees
- Saturn's young moon Titan
- Left-handed amino acids
- Just discovered dinosaur DNA
- Wildly inflated radioisotope ages of rocks of known age
- Jesus says love is the great command; for Buddha it was the enemy.
- The silky anteater might eat 8,000 ants per night, but that's just the hook to get an evolutionist's attention!

* The Paricutin Volcano: If no one had witnessed Paricutin's birth, evolutionist geologists would likely have said that it died out hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago. Along with the Darwin marketing reps generally, National Geographic, for example, will tell their readers that any particular formation or feature is eons old, even though their bias leads them to guess incorrectly a thousand times over.

* Real Science Radio Predictions: As a post-show update for this last program of the year, see below for a listing of the RSR science predictions.

* Upcoming 2013 RSR Shows: Next year, Lord willing, we'll expand our tradition of annual shows to this:
January: List of Not So Old Things
March: List of Evidence Against the Big Bang
May: List of Peer-reviewed Dino Soft Tissue Papers
July: List of Answers to Hydroplate Objections
Aug: List of Scholars Doubting Darwin and the Big Bang
Sept: List of the Fine Tuning of Creation
Oct: List of Carbon 14 Where it Shouldn't Be
Nov: List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit

* What Do the Big Bang, Chalk, Whales, Bacteria, & Fish Have in Common? RSR co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the latest issue of Creation magazine that raises questions about fascinating scientific matters.

* Chalk, of all things, Thwarting Evidence for an Old Earth: Out with the old; in with the new! Not only do satellite images demonstrate how chalk formations can be deposited rapidly, but chalk-like diatomaceous earth buried a whale in many, many layers of allegedly super-slowly deposited diatoms. Discovery of an 80-foot long fossilized baleen whale in a diatomite layer at the Miguelito Mine in Lompoc, California, indicates rapid diatomite deposition, as documented in a paper by Dr. Andrew Snelling and presented at youngearth.com. If this diatomite was deposited gradually, as claimed by uniformitarian-biased old-earth geologists, the diatomite would not be pure, as it is. (Similarly, the extraordinary purity of some limestone deposits should be sufficient to falsify claims of million-year depositions.) And most significantly for this creature, a slow deposition rate would result in corrosion and scavenging of the whale's bones, because the rib cage, for example, would have been awaiting burial for hundreds of thousands of years or longer. Rather, this whale was buried rapidly in diatomite along with fish, sea lions, birds, and other whales.

* Chemical and Engineering News & YoungEarth.com: This important find was also reported in Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 54, 1976 by Kenneth M. Reese in “Workers Find Whale in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry.” Lawrence G. Barnes of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County reported that he also saw other whales along with a small seal, fish, and birds in that quarry which is 238–530 feet above sea level and at 34°37'30.40"N, 120°29'01.79"W. See this also at YoungEarth.com!

* More Physicists Suggest Alternative to the Big Bang Contrary to Lawrence Krauss Assertions to Bob Enyart: More physicists are rejecting the big bang. When theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss indicated that only scientists in irrelevant fields would doubt the big bang, and also that "all evidence supports the big bang", he opened himself to being easily proved wrong (by both atheists and creationists). Bob and Fred add to the list of those who disagree with Krauss the physicists from the University of Melbourne, who are part of the growing list of cosmologists, astronomers, physicists, and astrophysicists who are suggesting alternatives to and even publicly rejecting the big bang. (See also our growing List of Scientists rejecting the big bang, rejecting Darwinism, and our List of Evidence that Contradicts the Big Bang.)

* Amazing Ten Commandments Research at the University of California: be amazed!

* The "Simple" E. coli Bacteria Blows Everyone's Mind: Bob & Fred update their previous report on a simpler microbe which required 128 computers to simulate. Brace yourself!

* Forget Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Now they've got 86 million year old living bacteria. :)

* Fish Swarm Brilliantly, Like Birds & Bees: The researchers say that what fish do is similar to how highway drivers navigate, however, bees, birds, and fish do this not in simple two dimensions as on the plane of a highway, but in a three-dimensional 360-degree space.

* Fossil Insect Ears Sound Warning to Darwinists: RSR co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss a great David Coppedge story in the July - Sept., 2012 Creation magazine about fossilized insect ears. Darwinists have claimed that, prior to the (alleged) evolution of bat, early insects would be seen to lack ears. Lo and behold though, a study including by a scientist up the road from RSR, at the University of Colorado at Boulder, have found modern insect ears fossilized where they had expected to find deaf bugs.

Don't miss our DinosaurSoftTissue.com and YoungEarth.com sites!

* Jerry Coyne is a fruit-fly expert and evolution professor at the University of Chicago, well known for his opposition to creation and his website Why Evolution Is True. Bob Enyart is a young-earth creationist. So which man would you think, the evolutionist or the creationist, would more accurately understand and present the latest cutting-edge discoveries from the world of genetics, and which one would be in denial? See for yourself...

The following three screenshots are from Coyne's criticism of Real Science Radio in his Nov. 19, 2012 blog, with the third presenting his scientific criticism. Following them is the comment that Bob Enyart posted which Jerry has so far rejected from appearing on his blog. First, Coyne's heading...

Next, see Jerry's fun visual comparison of the logos (with RSR hoping that National Public Radio's SciFri sticks with their logo and doesn't copy ours ;)

And last, here is the main scientific criticism that Jerry Coyne chose to level against RSF.

So the question is, on this specific scientific matter, is the famed University of Chicago evolution professor correct, or is the fundamentalist Christian young earth creationist correct? Well, for starters, far from this being primarily a single-celled pheonomena, even vertebrate genomes are so erractic and unwilling to be forced into a Darwinian lineage, that in their January 2013 journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that horizontal gene transfer must have "transformed vertebrate genomes."

But that was published after Coyne's blog post. So here's my original, contemporaneous reply to Prof. Coyne that so far he has not OK'd for display:

* Feature Creep:  Real Science Radio co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart discuss articles from two great magazines Answers and Creation, including...

* Elephants Trunks: Engineers wanted to create a robot that reproduces just the function of an elephant's trunk that enables it to manipulate objects. They were astounded to find out that an elephant's trunk has 40,000 muscles that give it its amazing flexibility. If Darwinism were true, then evolution supposedly caused some creature's nose to begin growing longer and longer, enabling it to begin grasping things with its nose. The theory of neo-Darwinism fundamentally claims that evolution has no forward-looking mechanisms. So, without planning, supposedly, the elephant ended up with the additional ability to snorkel (with its trunk, which requires a significant and unique redesign of the lungs), and to siphon drinking water with it, and to spray water into the mouth, to shower with its trunk, to dig with it, to hear better by augmenting already amazing sound reception, to communicate with trumpet blasts, all while evolution (allegedly) also provided through that trunk the elephant's olfactory (smelling) abilities, breathing, and picking up and manipulating anything from a blade of grass to a tree trunk, with all of these features being enabled with no forward looking design planning. And as Dr. Walt Brown points out, damage to an elephant’s trunk usually results in death. Thus adding to the absurdity of the entire Darwinian claim, each of these features would have had to develop and integrate into the overall mission-critical system without sending the species to extinction.

* Poison Dart Frogs: Hunters in South America rub their blowgun darts onto the backs of these frogs to kill large game. But why would God create poisonous frogs? It turns out that Ken Ham's Creation Museum has a poison frog exhibit, which is perfectly safe, because the poison is a result of a very particular food chain, providing an example of a creature that might have been perfectly safe before the Fall but ...

* Two Pastors, Two Paths: One pastor found out that creation ministries like Creation Ministries Int'l are able to demolish the claims that undermine the truth of the Bible, and the other pastor gave into the false teachings of an old earth and evolution. The latter pastor eventually wrote a "letter to the editor" promoting homosexual marriage, arguing that since we no longer believe what the Scriptures and Jesus say about a global flood, we would be wise to also reject the Bible's opposition to homosexuality. Thus, typically, rejecting Genesis leads to rejection of many life-giving biblical truths.

* Gecko Feet: A recent journal paper claims that gecko feet, eleven separate times evolved their amazing ability (like the ability to run across a ceiling), which is similar to many other extreme claims, including for example that eyesight evolved 40 different times!

* Simplest Cell Would Need Half-a-Million DNA Letters: Evolutionary scientists, hoping to show how simple the first life could have been, have shown the opposite, that the simplest demonstrable life requires 500,000 letters of genetic information, ordered in particular sequences! (Remember, that vast quantity of genetic information is just one of many other requirements for life, including the protoplasm, a thousand non-genetic elements in the cell, and the cell's membrane.) For those like Darwin who think that if you get just the right chemical soup, life is likely to arise by chance occurrence, then consider that if you make a frog smoothie (or just observe any decomposing organism), all the chemical elements are there for life, yet no life arises from such chemical stews. Further, like cosmologists typically do, Darwin overreached with his title, Origin of Species, because his story begins with living creatures already in existence. Similarly, Big Bang theorists who claim that they can explain the origin of stars commonly begin their story with pre-existing stars which then explode to provide materials and conditions to form other stars.

* Craig Venter's Simplest Cell: Learn more about this extraordinary technical accomplisment in the journal Science, Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome. And remember that, as reported by the journal Nature in Synthetic genome resets biotech goals, "only the genome of the new cell was custom-built", yet "the researchers refer to the entire cell as 'synthetic'..." Though this Nature news report offers a justification for Venter, not uncharacteristically, exaggerating his extraordinary accomplishment, the parenthetical sentence in the above paragraph demonstrates that Venter's claim is false.

* Salt Water Binds with Phosphate: It's awfully tough for chemists to explain how amino acids begin to chain themselves together in long sequences. Why? Amino acids have very high decomposition and melting points, making it tough to get them to assemble in typical dry conditions on Earth. Now, evolutionists have realized that ions that are ubiquitous in salt water will bind with phosphate, making phosphate unavailable to form DNA, RNA, ATP, and OOPS! And even in fresh water, chemists have long realized that they'd need to get rid of water to assemble amino acid chains. In reality, as the law of biogenesis states, life comes from life!

* Humans Can Hear Each Other Even in Loud Environments: Cell-phone (and hearing aid) engineers are mimicing the human brain's ability to minimize background noise to focus on the human voice. Bob and Fred consider this as evidence against the theory of evolution.  

* Computer Animator Eric Donovan on RSR: Lobos Animation founder Eric Donovan, who's previous animation work helped keep the public safe from nuclear waste, shares with Real Science Radio the insights that arise from the technology when computer animating the tectonic implications of the global flood and Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory.

* See Eric Donovan's Animations: Check out Eric's highlight reel with clips from his industrial, government, hydroplate, and Noah's Ark, animation projects. See also this Dropbox link to seven minutes of video that contains some of Eric's HPT animation and the older animation that Walt Brown has atop his homepage, at YouTube.

* RSR Developing New Hydroplate Theory Animations: Bob Enyart is working to produce animations of the global flood through the biblical and scientific insights of Dr. Walt Brown. As of January 1, 2017, we have raised enough funds to begin this project. Would you like to be a part of this wonderfully rewarding program? Through the tried and true method of state-of-the-art animation, we will both entertain and educate people so that more families will learn to trust God's Word, including its historically accurate account of Earth's tumultuous past. Whether you are a graphic artist, an animator, or if you would like to find out what is involved in funding a specific aspect of the Hydroplate Theory, we would be honored to hear from you! Please email Bob@RealScienceRadio.com or just call us at 1-800-8Enyart and Bob will return your call. to participate.

* Animation Helps Confirm Hydroplate Model: The Hydroplate Theory that Donovan has investigated addresses many observations from the physical sciences, including explaining:

- that the continents do not fit together well against each other, as presented in the Pangaea hypothesis, unless you shrink Africa by 30%, and make other dramatic manipulations.
- that the jigsaw shape of the continents does fit well against the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
- what formed the 46,000-mile long Mid-oceanic Ridge.
- that the Atlantic Ocean is relatively shallow, whereas the Pacific is relatively deep.
- what formed the deep Pacific trenches including the 36-thousand foot-deep Marianas Trench.
- that the fountains of the great deep launched the solar system's asteroids and comets.
- that Mars is not the source of Antarctica meteorites, but they were launched from Earth.
- that the debris launched from the Earth beat up the moon, which helps to explain why the near-side has suffered much greater impactors.
- that NASA discovered the earth-like composition of comets, fulfilling Dr. Walt Brown's published prediction that they would find minerals common from Earth, as they indeed found minerals in the olivine family.

* UPDATE on NPR Program's Lawsuit Against Bob Enyart and KGOV's Science Program: As reported by the NY Post in their article, Science radio showdown, and with more detail by the Denver Post, National Public Radio host Ira Flatow of their Science Friday program filed suit in the State of New York against Bob Enyart over the name of our weekly program, Real Science Friday. This week our attorney filed papers in a Manhattan court and successfully moved the case out of state court and into federal court, which is a more natural venue for our free speech defense. We'll keep you informed! And meanwhile, check out, from a well-known evolutionist, Jerry Coyne's scientific criticism of RSR (and our rebuttal). University of Chicago Professor Coyne's scientific allegation against RSR has already been refuted, not by research done here at Real Science Radio, but by published work from cutting-edge evolutionary geneticists at some of the world's leading institutions. Jan. 2013 Update: The Denver Post reports that the NPR radio program settled its lawsuit with Bob Enyart's Real Science Radio program.

* We're REAL Thankful: to have this great program to air over the Thanksgiving weekend while your hosts Bob and Fred enjoy a leisurely respite (while frantically preparing for the first court hearing from a National Public Radio program's lawsuit against RSR). And check out evolutionist Jerry Coyne's criticism of RSR, rebutted.

* Real Science Radio has a Far Ranging Conversation with Krauss: In this re-run, co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's interview of theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical), atheist Lawrence Krauss. As the discussion ranges from astronomy and anatomy to cosmology and physics, most folks would presume that Dr. Krauss would take apart Enyart's arguments. But he planned 27-minute interview ran 40 minutes, so there's also a Krauss Part II. Also, make sure to read the really fun show summary at the original realscienceradio.com/krauss show page!

For today's show RSR recommends
the best astronomy science DVD ever made!
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System!

Post-show update: Jerry Coyne, fruit-fly expert and evolution professor, has just blogged against Real Science Radio. Bob Enyart's comment in reply is "awaiting moderation" :) See all of this at our article at realscienceradio.com/Jerry-Coyne.

* Flying Like a Falcon: Bob and Fred talk about the terrific new issue of "Answers," the magazine by AnswersInGenesis.org. The fastest land animal on earth is the cheetah, but the fastest animal of all is the peregrine falcon. Dr. Don DeYoung, one of the foremost Creationist research scientists in the world and president of the Creationist Research Society, recently spoke at the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship. His article about peregrine falcons describe how they can fly at speeds of 200 mph thanks to highly specialized "equipment" in their physiology.

For the falcon to breathe at such high speeds, their nostrils have a conical structure in the center of their nostrils, functioning as a “baffle” which is copied in the designs of jet engines to this day. Did this “evolve” independent of the bird’s body shape, feather design, wing angle and optical system?

A falcon's eyes must be exceptional, with four times as many photo-receptor cells as a human eye, helping give it amazingly clear long-distance vision. Their eyes are also capable of functioning while speeding through the air at such high speeds, unlike the human eye, in part thanks to nictitating membranes, which are transparent eyelids, so that they can "close" their eyes and yet still see clearly.

This brings to mind Bob's debate with a University of California professor of Ophthalmology on the evolution of the eye, in which the evolutionist made the following erroneous claims about the human eye:

* Evolution Makes Eye Expert Ignorant on the Eye: Gary Aguilar repeatedly claims that the plica semilunaris (in the corner of your eye), is a functionless leftover of evolution. However, according to the authoritative Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology (Vol. 2, Ch. 2: Plica Semilunaris), the plica functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage, and to permit greater rotation of the eyeball, for without the plica, the membrane called the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement. Rather than being informed with the latest knowledge from his own field, Aguilar is decades out of date on the anatomy of both the wiring of the retina and on the plica, claiming it is a functionless leftover of the nictitating membrane (an additional, transparent eyelid in some creatures). Rather than researching his Darwinian claims in the most relevant scientific literature, Aguilar, following Dawkins, gets his outdated claims from a 150-year old book by Charles Darwin. Aguilar also repeats Dawkins' long-refuted claim, based on scientific ignorance and evolutionary bias, that the human eye is wired backward. For an explanation of why our eye is wired the reverse of an octopus, and optimally for human vision, listen to the Enyart-Aguilar-Eye-Excerpts, see Dr. Carl Wieland's article, and the peer-reviewed paper by Peter Gurney, a fellow of the Royal Colleges of Ophthalmologists, as well as his popular article that deals with both the plica and the wiring. (See more at realscienceradio.com/eye.)

* The Planet Mercury Leaves NASA Jaw-Dropping Shocked: RSR co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams have a ball talking about the amazing planet of Mercury and how, for such a small planet, it's causing such a load of trouble for the evolutionists.

- Details: Big Bang proponents can look on the bright side, where Mercury is 800 degrees Fahrenheit and 200 below zero at night. But after that, the Mercury messenger is a harbinger of bad news for evolutionary astronomers.
- Density: From its pull on NASA's 1974 Mariner space probe, we learned that Mercury's density is far beyond what evolutionary accretion could produce. So as they do with most of the planets, Big Bang proponents including theoretical physicists (with the emphasis on the theoretical, as in the RSR interview with Lawrence Krauss), appeal to catastrophism, whereby first Mercury formed in the traditional way claimed through the condensing swirling nebula (which Isaac Newton evaluated as impossible via gravity), but then a planet-level collision ejected all the light matter off of Mercury and left just the heavy stuff. Really.
- Magnetism: The claim that Mercury is four billion years old led BB proponents to predict that it would be a dead (so to speak), inert rock having no magnetic field. But in 1974, NASA's Mariner 10 spacecraft readings contradicted that fundamental evolutionary assumption, detecting a significant magnetic field. Then in 2008, NASA's Messenger craft measured the field's strength as significantly decreased, in only those few decades, which again contradicted their theory. Then in 2011, Messenger orbited the planet, and confirmed a startling (to old-earthers) 8% decrease since 1974. So, as with the Earth's rapidly decaying magnetic field, if Mercury were billions of years old, planet-wide features like it's magnetism would have reached stasis and not demonstrate such rapid change.
- Angular momentum: Mercury's rotation and orbit around the sun, as representative of the other planets, points out a huge contradiction to the most fundamental assumptions of evolutionary solar system formation. For its Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic! That alone validates Isaac Newton's scientific insight against the nebula hypothesis because if it were true, then something would have to either tilt the massive sun (something rather difficult, to put it mildly, to get a handle on), or shift, as a group, the orbits of the planets. Then to pile on, when adding up the mass of Mercury and all its fellow planets, you get only about one percent of the mass of the Sun, whereas 99% of the energy of the spin of the solar system (its angular momentum) resides in the planets, with the Sun, contrary to all evolutionary expectations, has only one percent of the spin, which at least on the surface, directly contradicts the conservation of angular momentum. (And to make matters worse yet again, exoplanets and their stars appear to contradict the secondary assumptions appealed to for explaining away this one particular problem, just as exoplanets are contradicting the solar system formation theory in many ways, a theory created to explain our own system, which it fails to do at almost every point, and fails again with exoplanets.)

For today's show RSR recommends
What You Aren't Being Told [by NPR's Science Shows for example] About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System!

* The World's Best-selling Creation Author on RSR: Creation Ministries International's Dr. Jonathan Sarfati talks to Bob Enyart about the most recent scientific discoveries which have been disturbing the evolutionists. Real Science Radio is happy to get input from a Ph.D. chemist who's done post-graduate work in nuclear physics, on the science themes that we've covered so far this year. UPDATE: See also our 2014 interview, rsr.org/jonathan-sarfati. 

* Jonathan Sarfati Coming To Denver: You are invited to join Bob in attending the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship meeting to hear Dr. Sarfati, the world's most-popular creation scientist! Click for more info. Opportunities to see Dr. Sarfati:
- Fri, Nov. 9, 7 pm, Lakewood, Rocky Mtn Creation Fellowship, 2100 N. Wadsworth
- Sat. Nov. 10, 7 pm, Longmont, Faith Baptist Church, 833 15th Ave
- Sun Nov. 11, 9am & 10am, Longmont, Faith Baptist
- Sun. Nov. 11, 6pm, Littleton, 6100 S. Divinney Way

* FLASHBACK: Dr. Sarfati Rebuts Richard Dawkins:  The world's #1 creation author takes on the world's #1 evolution author Richard Dawkins. The pro-evolution book, The Greatest Show on Earth, is refuted by Dr. Sarfati's The Greatest Hoax on Earth! In this chat with Jonathan Sarfati, BEL's producer 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: BEL has now spliced audio of Dawkins admitting exactly what Bob had accused him of back in that 1997 call. See it below or on YouTube: Dawkins Proves Creationist Right.)

* BEL Telethon: We're at $20,150 of our $30,000 goal to help keep Bob Enyart Live and Real Science Radio on the radio for another year! Please click to help!

Today’s Resource: Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? You’ll love our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine that features the writings of Dr. Sarfati!

* 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: