Get ready to think. And brace yourself. Winston Ewert, Ph.D. from Baylor University in computer engineering, explains why Darwin's tree of life is being cut down (rsr.org/tree) as genetic discoveries  (rsr.org/genomes) confound the hypothesis of common descent. Dr. Ewert describes his insight, as published in Bio-Complexity, in seven stunning words: "DNA is the product of a compiler." The Creator designed genetic sofware, so to speak, writing DNA code libraries, and then called upon those coding libraries in hierarchical patterns as He called into existence the various kinds of living organisms. Note: We'd like to thank Yvon, a Real Science Radio listener from Vancouver, British Columbia, who recommended Dr. Ewert's paper.

Rigorous mathematical analysis, briefly discussed on today's program and detailed in Ewert's paper, is indicating that rather than genomes reflecting Darwin's "tree" (see Charle's sketch, right, although as modified by RSR), the data is far better explained by the software model of a "dependency graph". Ewert works at the Biologic Institute, a research arm of Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which, outside of the young-earth creation movement, is the primary organization promoting intelligent design. The one disagreement that Bob Enyart raised regarded Dr. Ewert's claim that the "compiler" that the Creator used to produce DNA was actually a kind of machine that God made, whereas Bob argued that God Himself compiled the code, from the coding libraries that He had previously written and had retained in His memory. God the Son is the Author, the Word, the Creator, and by Winston's insight, the Compiler. 

* Bob Enyart vs. Eugenie Scott on TV: A while back Real Science Radio aired six minutes of audio from Bob's 1998 informal debate with leading anti-creationist Eugenie Scott. Genetic scientists, Dr. Scott  tells Enyart, were "over the hump" and affirmatively knew that pseudogenes had no function and that such "junk DNA" was therefore evidence against the existence of a Designer. Hear the fundamentalist Bible teacher disagree with the degreed scientist, and guess who science has vindicated? Get the DVD Bob Debates an Evolutionist!

The debate is decided in the first round, by TKO. That’s after Bob asked the well-known scientist for any evidence that any high-level function had ever evolved, like eyesight, or hearing, or flight, or mobility in general? Through the hour-long debate, this evolutionist refused to offer any such evidence but finally settled on a claim of evidence against design, which was: junk DNA! Ha!

Bob Enyart interviews Pat Roy, creator of the great Jonathan Park Adventure Series, on the brand new Genesis Apologetics project, Debunking 7 Myths by G.A. founder Dr. Dan Biddle. The guys answer the Myth 3 claim that Genesis 1 & 2 are conflicting creation accounts and they briefly discuss the Myth 6 claim that Moses couldn't have written the Torah. See the short video for each of the 7 Myths at these links. Also, Dr. Biddle's 7 Myths book has just been mailed to all of America's 1200+ Christian high schools!

For Real Science Radio's
List of Scholars Doubting Darwin and the Big Bang
please see rsr.org/doubters and
click to hear Bob discuss this on the radio.

Telethon update: We're now at $25,800 of our $40,000 goal! Please help if you can!

In an online discussion over at Prometheus Unbound, Santi, an agnostic who's had millions of visits to his blog, asked Bob Enyart about his doubts. You can read that discussion over at santitafarella.wordpress.com. This List of Doubts Christians Have (below) and first, the List of Doubts I Never Have is based on Bob's answer.

Santi: Bob, I’d like to ask you a personal question. When you doubt, what is it exactly that you doubt?"

Bob: Well Santi, I doubt that the rising mountain of evidence utterly refuting Darwinism will bring a majority of evolutionists to acknowledge our Creator God. I doubt that the failed predictions of the Big Bang Theory will lead atheists to…

But wait. I’m sure those are not the kinds of doubts you’re asking me about. You’re asking me to indicate, of the beliefs that I hold, which ones do I sometimes doubt. To help myself think this through Santi, I’ll first list the things I never ever doubt.

- I never doubt that I exist.
- I never doubt that truth exists, because for example, it is true that I exist.
- I never doubt that reason exists, because I can reason to the truth of the previous sentence.
- I never doubt that there is a reality, because truth and reason exist.
- I never doubt that the universe exists, because I exist as part of it, and I can reason to the truth of its existence.
- I never doubt that the universe must have had a beginning, because stars still burn available energy.
- Since truth and reason exist, I never doubt that logic exists.
- Since I exist and logic exists, I never doubt that existence itself must be rational.
- Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that whatever has a beginning must have a cause.
- Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that the effect cannot be greater than the cause.
- I never doubt that whatever caused the universe must be powerful and even greater than the universe itself.
- And since logic exists, I realize that nothing that has a beginning can have existed forever.
- And since the Cause of the universe must exist, I realize that it has no beginning, and has existed forever. 
- And since this uncaused Cause created the universe, i.e., its ingredients, I don't doubt that it also created me.
- And since I'm a person and the effect can't be greater than the cause I don't doubt that the Creator is personal.
- And because we persons are creative like He is, I never doubt that we are made to some extent in His likeness.
- And because the Creator is a person, I never doubt that He must be alive.
- So I never doubt that the attributes of our eternal Creator are that He is living and personal.
- And I never doubt that human beings refer to the living and personal eternal Creator as "God".
- And I never doubt that to be a person, one must have a will, so that it is by God's will that I exist.
- And because we creatures have the ability to know our Creator, I never doubt that He is relational.
- And because He made us with the ability to love, I never doubt that the Creator Himself can love.
- And because God can love, and He made us to know good and evil, I therefore never doubt that He is good.
- So I never doubt our all-powerful, eternal Creator God who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving.
- And I never doubt that all these things could be intuitively understood by everyone who's ever lived.
- And because God is good and loving and made us, I never doubt that He cares about us and wants to save us.
- And I never doubt that if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead as prophesied, that Christianity is false.
- Nor have I ever doubted that if Jesus did rise from the dead, then all other religions are false and as He claimed, He is the only way to eternal life.

Santi, these are some of the things I never doubt.

Now, what do I sometimes doubt? There are many particulars regarding the universe, the world, mankind, doctrines of Scripture, points of history, economics, science, etc., that I’m eager to learn more of and to be corrected where in error. The more significant errors I’ve made over the years are listed on our Errata page which we link to from our KGOV.com home page and from the footer section of every one of the 10,000 pages on our site. (This article is one of those pages, at kgov.com/on-doubt, so you can see the Errata link just below.) And when I make a lesser error in a radio program, etc., we correct that error on that show’s summary page.

Was this a sufficient answer, or would you like some particular detail?

Thanks Santi!

-Bob Enyart
Pastor, Denver Bible Church
Conservative talk radio host, KGOV.com
Co-host, Real Science Radio
Teacher, Theology Thursday 

p.s. Santi, as C.S. Lewis once wrote, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it, I see everything else."

For more information:

* The 23.7 of 40 Ratio: Our telethon's at $23,700 of $40,000! Thanks so much! And to others, please help! :) Bob Enyart reviews the RSR list shows that we're considering producing (promising to work next on our List of Problems with Star Formation). Bob also mentioned the six quiet galaxies that transformed into quasars just in the past few months. Elsewhere we're told that our Milky Way may have been a quasar a few billion years ago, and maybe will become on again in four billion years or so. So it's fun to be able to add these half dozen galaxies to our List of Not So Old Things and to rsr.org/transients. Then there's that scary, or is it encouraging, 59 percent. We're 59% of the way toward our vitally important $40,000 telethon goal. Please help if you possibly can by subscribing to one of our monthly resources, or making a one-time or monthly donation, or picking up a great resource from our store, including perhaps some science videos or books for Christmas presents!

Today's resource: Bryan Nickel's Hydroplate Theory- Origin of the Grand Canyon: (DVD or Blu-ray!)

Bryan Nickel, a mechanical engineer in the aerospace industry, produced and narrates this in-depth explanation of Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory for the origin of one of the seven wonders of the world. Just as his "HPT Tutorial" series dealt with the globe and the solar system, Nickel's current video explains the initial conditions and the mechanisms that led to the formation of the Grand Canyon.

Content:

Video: Beautifully illustrated physics-based failure analysis of the formation of the Grand Canyon on the Colorado Plateau. The excavation resulted from the aftermath of the global flood of Genesis as explained by Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory. 94 minutes.

Audio: Bonus MP3 disc with five tracks of Bob Enyart interviewing Bryan Nickel for Real Science Radio's Grand Canyon Month series. You'll enjoy RSR's...
- List of Problems with ‘The River Carved the Canyon’
- List of Problems with the Canyon’s Millions of Years
- List of Problems with ‘The Flood Carved the Canyon’
- List of the Initial Conditions that Preceded the Canyon

Note: Bats do not have hollow bones. Their delicate bones have proportionately much less marrow than most other mammals.

* How'd Bats and Dolphins Evolve This? (Make sure to start with Part 1. And our annual September telethon is at $20,500 of $40,000! Please help!) This series on bats, whales, and dolphins fits into our List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit and our Evolution's Big Squeeze programs. For example, do you recall that horse DNA is closer to bats than to cows? Hmm. Evolutionists have the same contradiction to their theory when it comes to dolphins. Looking at their genes and sequencing the genomes of bats and dolphins gave researchers a shock. They discovered that not only is the primary hearing gene, prestin, astoundingly similar between bats, whales, and dolphins, but there are also shocking similarities between in 200 other genes between bats and dolphins! That blows out of the water the Darwinian claim that similarities can be used as evidence of common descent. Clearly, because echolocation has uncanny and massively extensive similarities between animals without a common ancestor for those features, that means that the whole concept of homology to show evolutionary descent is bogus.

* RSR's Echolocation and Related Resources:
- rsr.org/echolocation
- rsr.org/echolocation-2 (this program)
- rsr.org/echolocation-3
- rsr.org/evolution
- rsr/genomes-that-just-dont-fit.
- rsr.org/evidence-against-whale-evolution.

* Homology Dead, Elephant Shrew Alive: Similarities, even extraordinarily and complex similarities, do not indicate common descent! Thus the superficial claim that similarities in teeth, or hair, or five digits on a limb, indicate common descent. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the physical demands on a system that can produce and detect an echo coming off of a mosquito! Then, remember RSR's PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge. In like form, the guys give examples showing why evolutionists don't propose algorithms for how echolocation could have arisen by any evolutionary mechanism. Because they can't!

* Trochlea Challenge: Infamous evolutionist PZ Myers replied to RSR and to his credit, he acknowledged that he does not have an answer for our trochlea challenge... 

* Yale's Dr. Gelernter: Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart reports on the latest headlines. Another scholar, Yale University Prof. David Gelernter has given up Darwin. Gelernter has astutely observed that:

[T]o help create a brand new form of organism, a mutation must affect a gene that does its job early and controls the expression of other genes that come into play later on as the organism grows. But mutations to these early-acting "strategic" genes, which create the big body-plan changes required by macro-evolution, seem to be invariably fatal... Evidently there are a total of no examples in the literature of mutations that affect early development and the body plan as a whole and are not fatal.

* RSR/BEL September Telethon: And of vital importance for RSR to continue broadcasting and podcasting, Bob asks you to consider donating to our annual September telethon by calling 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278) or at our online store by subscribing or getting some of our extraordinary resources!

* A (Thankfully) Picky Ovum: "She's" preferentially receptive to gametes that offer good copies of "her" own corrupted reproductive genes...

Research shows that if the egg (ovum) has corrupted copies of its reproductive genes, it attempts to select a sperm with good copies of those degraded genes. So the ovum apparently can discern, out of about 20,000 genes scattered among billions of nucleotides, whether or not a sperm possesses a good version of one of its own damaged reproductive genes. (The genome modifies its expression in three dimensions based on the temporal needs of the cell or even of the entire organism. So RSR expects that the X and Y chromosomes will have manipulated their contents to insure that those relevant reproductive genes will not be deeply buried within but will be readily available on their surfaces.) This astounding ability to screen the sperm for good genes is consistent with other examples of extremely robust reproductive quality control design features. So the ovum prefers and admits the sperm with the healthier genes. Wow. Here at RSR we predict that this ability (like countless other biological functions and pieces of biological information) is not being controlled by genetic information within the DNA molecule itself but by some kind of "epigenetic" process. And, as California listener Randy Hayes often says, "How'd that evolve?" For, after all, unlike with genetic mutations, textbook neo-Darwinism doesn't even have a mechanism for explaining modifications to the exceedingly abundant and varied forms of non-genetic biological information.

* Babylonian Enuma Elish Helps Corroborate Genesis: Bias against the Scriptures, by atheopaths and others, leads scholars to a backward conclusion. Widely, as Joshua Mark does in the Ancient History Encyclopedia, they attempt to discredit Genesis by claiming that the Enuma Elish was the source material for the Bible's creation account. To discredit Moses though, you have to do something other than provide evidence consistent with his account. And that's all that such scholars have done. For if Genesis were true, then within a few centuries of the global flood, scholars would expect that the generations descended from Noah would be aware of the creation, fall, and flood accounts. And further, as documented in Scripture, in their rebellion they would twist God's words and the truth into deception and worship entities of their own creation. The wildly mythological Babylonian account is far more likely to be the derivative account, taken from their gradually blurring societal recollections of the true history of the world. Yet scholars think that the "primitive" Hebrews, whom they deride, retained the core of the idolatrous accounts but without the idols. The extraordinary nature of this state of affairs is not so much that mainstream scholars haven't discredited Genesis. It's that they are fully incapable of recognizing that have done nothing but produce vast troves of evidence consistent with the Bible. The source material for the Enuma Elish was the actual creation and flood, as later recorded authoritatively through divine inspiration by Moses. Without performing a search of the literature, it is RSR's impression (see for example the Ancient History Encyclopedia) that many critical accounts do not object to this latter explanation because they don't even recognize it. In their deep bias these scholars presume that their discoveries consistent with Genesis have thereby discredited Genesis.

* How'd Bats and Whales Evolve This? This program on bats and whales fits into our List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit and our Evolution's Big Squeeze series. For example, do you recall that horse DNA is closer to bats than to cows? Hmm. Evolutionists have the same contradiction to their theory when it comes to whales. Looking at the genes and sequencing the genomes of bats, whales, and dolphins gave researchers a shock. They discovered that not only is the primary hearing gene, prestin, astoundingly similar between bats and whales, there are also shocking similarities between them in 200 other genes! That blows out of the water the Darwinian claim that similarities can be used as evidence of common descent. Clearly, because echolocation has uncanny and massively extensive similarities between animals without a common ancestor for those features, that means that the whole concept of homology is bogus. (Here's Echolocation Part 2.)

* Homology Dead, Elephant Shrew Alive: Similarities, even extraordinarily and complex similarities, do not indicate common descent! Thus the superficial claim that similarities in teeth, or hair, or five digits on a limb, indicate common descent. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the physical demands on a system that can produce and detect an echo coming off of a mosquito! Then, remember RSR's PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge. In like form, the guys give examples showing why evolutionists don't propose algorithms for how echolocation could have arisen by any evolutionary mechanism. Because they can't!

* RSR's Echolocation and Related Resources:
- rsr.org/echolocation (this program)
- rsr.org/echolocation-2
- rsr.org/echolocation-3
- rsr.org/evolution
- rsr/genomes-that-just-dont-fit.
- rsr.org/evidence-against-whale-evolution.

* Trochlea Challenge: Infamous evolutionist PZ Myers replied to RSR and to his credit, he acknowledged that he does not have an answer for our trochlea challenge... 

Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart shares a few discoveries reported in the latest edition of Creation magazine and interestingly, they further SQUEEZE the theory of evolution as in our latest series, Evolution's Big Squeeze! But then Bob shares another extraordinary discovery that fits in with our List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit! As presented on RSR for years now, we believe that the distribution of gene families will not support common descent and the Darwinian Tree of Life. Instead, they will support the software engineering model of shared code libraries, including for example the shared echolocation coding among bats and whales, the elephant shrew being closer genetically to an elephant than to other shrews, and the close relationship between the zebra finch and zebra fish which by common descent should share no unique gene families but which actually share nineteen! See rsr.org/predictions#libraries.

RSR needs Adobe Framemaker help for a very important, even historic, creation project! If you are good at Framemaker, please email Bob@rsr.org. Thanks!

* Bob & Friend vs. Resasons To Believe Scientists: Fifteen years ago in front of a liveB audience Bob Enyart and a friend debated scientists with the Denver chapter of Hugh Ross' old-earth Reasons to Believe group. This was in the early days of Bob's focus on creation and evolution. With a Christian high school teacher, Bob debated a geophysicist and a CU mathematician. The full Age of the Earth Debate on disc and download is still available and includes Bob's written notes.

* The Opponents: Bob debated mathematics professor Gordon Brown, from the University of Colorado in Boulder and the late John Nicholl, former president of EEGS, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society.

* The Physicist Witness: An atheist physicist named "The Phy", well known from his  presence on TheologyOnline.com, traveled from Seattle to Denver for the debate. Upon his return to Seattle he posted on TOL that even though he utterly disagreed with them, the young-earthers clearly won the debate.

* Debate Aftermath and the 770,000 Dead: Immediately after the event, John Nicholl asked Enyart, "If the earth really were young, and had recently experienced a global flood, that would mean that geologists should give governments greater warnings about earthquake risks. So do you think we should do that?" Bob answered yes, governments should be warned of risks greater than that predicted by old-earth assumptions for earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The 9-11 attack left was about 3,000 dead from terrorism and since governments have spent trillions to minimize further such deaths. In contrast, for the casualties in the years since Bob's debate with Reasons 2 Believe more than 770,000 people have died from earthquakes. (See this documented at rsr.org/earthquakes.)

Bob Enyart and Fred Williams conclude RSR's List of Discoveries Squeezing Evolution, aka, Evolution's Big Squeeze! Many discoveries squeeze beyond recognition the timeframe of the theory of evolution! And of course, without a workable timeframe, there is no workable theory. And make sure to see the list itself at rsr.org/squeeze where you can also hear Part 1 and make sure to also check our Part 2 at rsr.org/sq2.