NOT HERE BY ACCIDENT - PROOFS AND EVIDENCE OF GOD'S EXISTENCE – PART 1
BY: AUGUSTINE ANYIMADU-AHENKAE
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Obi nnkyere abofra Nyame -No one points God to a child" - An Akan proverb (Ghana,
W/Africa)
" For since the creation of the world His(God's) invisible attributes are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and
godhead..." - St. Paul of Tarsus, Rom 1: 20
"…every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter)
is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of
microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong...
The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science " - I. L.
Cohen, Mathematician, Scientist, Author, member of New York Academy of Sciences,
officer of Archaeological Institute of America
FOOLED FOR A LONG TIME
The charge that God does not exist because we supposedly cannot produce any evidence
for His existence has been around for quite a long time, but with the advent of
Darwinism and evolution theory, atheists seem to have had all they need- or so they
thought- to prove that we do not need a creator, hence God does not exist. As young
student philosophers in the early nineties, some of us used philosophical, logical,
metaphysical, historical and practical arguments to easily dispel these charges, and
made perfect sense. We did not use arguments from physical, chemical or biological
sciences. However, research into recent physical scientific findings as well as
basic operating principles of science reveal all the more the clearer, the
unquestionable and incontrovertible evidence of an intelligent creator, supporting
all the philosophical arguments and underscoring the senselessness of the so-called
scientific theories of "big bang' and natural selection etc
which we've been made to believe all along. As I write this, I'm very sad and
angry. I am sad that our textbooks have fooled us all along and made us believe the
church was wrong and that Darwin was right. I am angry that these atheistic
scientists allowed their sheer stubborn denial of a creator God overshadow their
duty to the truth, even when their research findings pointed to the contrary, and
tried theory after theory to go around the simple conclusion that life cannot
originate from non life, and that even if their 'big bang' theory is granted, the
energy that brought it into place must still be the source of life; because
something cannot spring out of nothing. 'Woate bi da?' (Have you heard it before?
that something springs out of nothing?)
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Atheists claim we cannot scientifically prove the existence of God. But they forget
that neither can they scientifically prove the non-existence of God, and since they
cannot prove the non existence of God, the worst mistake they could do is to
certainly deny His existence. I asked one questioner who asked me for a scientific
evidence of God, that he should first prove scientifically the non existence of God,
and what a mess he made of himself! No one, not even Einstein, can do that - can
convince us scientifically that God does not exist. The truth however is that the
existence of an intelligent creator is not only seen through nature and its laws,
but it is imperative from even the very principles and laws with which science
operates. Before I delve deeper into that let me first pose a few questions which
the "no-God" theory leaves unanswered, then lay the philosophical underpinnings of
the gaping evidence of God, conspicuously present all around us
and within us.
Regarding the origin of life, our textbooks teach the atheistic nonsense that life
sprung from non-organic matter exclusively through a natural mechanistic process on
a pre-biotic earth. They continue that original life form evolved through a natural
process of random mutations and natural selection, like Darwin said. For all this
time, one sounded more "knowledgeable" to hold the supposedly "scientific" view
rather than pointing to a creator, which sounded more like "faith" or being
"chrife". What we didn't know was that this rather "scientific" view was full of
conjectures and unproveable assumptions, and left many gaps in them, making it even
more necessary to need more faith to hold on to the 'scientific' theory than the
Biblical one. Question is, granted, that there was a big bang, it defies simple laws
of physics to say that what was "nothing" exploded. Or if it was "something", where
did that something come from? Where did all that matter and
energy come from? Remember the law of conservation of energy- that energy merely
changes form, and that it neither reduces nor increases?(I'll come to this later)
So where did the original energy come from? What triggered its release, and what
pushed the trigger? We know from archaeology and simple empirical observations that
any natural eruption leaves a disordered and chaotic residue - for instance, after
an earthquake, flood, volcanic eruption or even man-made eruptions like a bomb
blast, the ruins are chaotic and disorderly, with buildings tumbling upside down,
pieces of everything flying over everywhere etc. It takes a conscious effort to
reorder these again. That is a fact. So if they are saying everything originated
from a "big bang" explosion, how come it became so orderly by itself? How come the
universe is so governed by laws and principles, like the law of gravity (which was
not made, but only discovered, by scientists) and others? How come
there's so much complexity in the universe, if it all came from a simple single
explosion and a so called natural selection? Where did these Mathematical, Chemical
and physical properties and laws come from? How do we explain the evidence of
intelligent design in our solar system? How could life come from a "soup"
combination of water and rock?
If all life came from matter, as our big bang and natural selection theories would
imply, how come we are more than matter? How about our sub-conscious, our spiritual
aspect, and our extra-sensory life? Don't they point to a non-matter origin? How
about life after death, and if you doubt that, how about OBEs (Out of Body
Experiences) and NDEs (Near - death experiences) which have all been scientifically
proven to exist? Back to matter, where did our DNA originate from? How does a mere
evolution or big bang explosion account for the perfectly designed complex
intricacies of our biological make up - the human eyes, brains, heart, all our
systems, etc?
EVIDENCE FOR GOD: THE PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS
Before recent scientific discoveries corroborated the case for God's existence,
philosophers of yesteryears had used four different arguments to prove God's
existence outside the Bible. I will only summarize them here, for the sake of
brevity. These include the cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral
arguments.
THE COSMOLOGICAL argument, also known as the first cause argument, to me is the most
common -sensical and eternally valid argument which every little child can use
against the most learned of atheists. It argues for the necessity of a creator, a
first cause, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, who put all this into place. The
cosmological argument (from the Greek word "cosmos"- world) says that nature itself
points to its maker, that since the world has a beginning, there must be someone who
started it, and that starter must be eternal, timeless, not having any beginning.
None has been able to successfully dispute this, and none will, in spite of the
evolutionists' drive. What the evolutionists propose is that the whole thing began
with a "big bang" explosion that set the universe in motion, but what they fail to
answer is where that "big bang" came from, who caused it, and if we evolved from
something, where that something came from originally. Since
evolution does not say the universe was eternal, and since even that conception is
scientifically incomprehensible, then they admit that it came into being at a
certain time, which means there was a time that it was not. Consequently, this
calls for an originator. This originator is whom we call God. You can call that
entity any name you want, but the fact is, there was an originator, since something
cannot come out of nothing. Moreover, the so-called “big bang” itself implies a
beginning when the big bang had not yet been, a time when it happened, and
something that triggered it. Wherever or whatever the origins of that trigger or
initial element is-is our uncaused cause and unmoved mover- God!
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, like the cosmological one, has received a lot of
empirical boost from recent discoveries in the physical and biochemical sciences.
From the Greek word "telos" meaning 'end' or 'purpose', the teleological argument
argues that the beautifully and complexly designed universe, as well as man, points
to an intelligent designer who has a purpose or interest in us. It says the evidence
of all these laws of nature, and now of science, the beauty and carefully designed
complexities of our solar systems etc, point to the fact that it could not have been
by chance, but that someone somewhere, a more powerful entity, put them in place
for a purpose. Recent scientific discoveries, which we will soon turn to, are
proving that if the arrangements put in place in the universe had slightly changed
in any little way on any side, life here would not have been possible. The
accuracies and perfections are too many to be ascribed to chance, and now
Mathematicians have joined the quest by calculating various probabilities- all with
the startling conclusions that life here could not have been by chance, and that
there was a super- intelligent designer. This designer is the one we call God.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, first proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109),
attempts to prove the existence of a perfect being that cannot possibly fail to
exist. The word 'ontology' itself deals with the study of 'being-ness', or if you
like, 'existence', from the Greek ' on' which means 'entity'. His original argument
goes: 'God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived' - in other words,
the fact that you can conceive something like 'power', for instance, in varying
degrees, means that there is an absolute power somewhere who is the highest of all
power. Turned another way, one would say we are a reflection of the absolute. If the
ocean exhibits such force, it means whoever or whatever created that ocean must have
more than that force or power the ocean has, to be able to create it that way. So
the power of the ocean for instance points to a more powerful originator of the
ocean. One philosopher- Scientist who furthered this Anselmian
argument so much is the French Mathematician Rene Descartes (1596-1650). His
'cogito, ergo sum' (I think, therefore, I am) principle equated thinking with
beingness, and, even though he himself knew that not all beings think, he tried to
emphasize for us the fact that our conceptions could be our realities.
THE MORAL ARGUMENT simply says that existence of the moral law point to a moral law
maker. That there are universal moral laws among people everywhere is unquestioned,
and philosophers, scientists, humanists down the ages have emphasized it. Human
beings everywhere recognize, without being taught, that stealing someone else's
property, or killing another person deliberately (if not in self defence), is bad.
Whoever put the universal laws of right and wrong in our sub conscious must be the
one who created us, and it is that entity we call God. Let's move to the physical
sciences evidence.
EVIDENCE FROM THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES:
1-FROM MICRO BIOLOGY: BIOGENESIS
The principle of biogenesis, a basic principle of biology, is that life springs from
life. Biogenesis is a combination of the two words “bio”- life, and genesis,
beginning. However, to say life comes from life means to admit that life on earth
must have started from a living entity, which atheists and evolutionists don’t want
to hear anything about, so they coined the term abiogenesis, which means life does
not spring from life (the prefix “a” is a negation). Hence they proposed a chemical
evolution as the origin of life- also called “pre-biotic” conditions (before life
started). In 1953, Stanley Miller showed through a laboratory experiment that
passing a spark through a chosen mixture of gasses will form amino acids, which are
the building blocks of proteins, the main ingredients of living cells. These were
claimed to have gotten together with DNA to form the first living cell. Suddenly the
world hailed its “proof that life did not
originate from a living entity, let alone a creator”! Biology books were changed
and Miller’s experiments and its wild conclusions have been taught to students
since. How sad! Thankfully, today, the truth is known by not a few scientists, yet
the error has still not been corrected. Two things must be said about this: one,
the experiment itself, and two, the simple biological truth of living cells as
consisting of the DNA and protein.
SCIENTIFIC DECEPTION
As Dr. Gary Parker and many others have already pointed out, Miller’s experiment had
three big problems that make his conclusions inapplicable to real life: he had the
wrong starting materials, used the wrong conditions, and got the wrong results.
WRONG MATERIALS? Yes. Stanley Miller deliberately left out oxygen in the materials
he used. Why? Because he knew oxygen would destroy the molecules he was trying to
produce. Anaerobic organisms and most viruses are quickly destroyed on contact with
oxygen. A.I. Oparin, the Russian biochemist who “fathered” modern views of
spontaneous generation or chemical evolution, knew oxygen in the atmosphere would
prevent evolution, so he left oxygen out, since, as a believer in the materialist
philosophy of Engels, he did not want to concede to the logical conclusion of a
non-material or metaphysical source of life. However, since we find traces of oxygen
in the atmosphere all around, as in oxidized rocks etc, it clearly shows that
firstly, that chemical evolution proposed was impossible, and secondly, that
Stanley’s experiments so filling our textbooks could not correctly exemplify real
life conditions, and therefore are wrong. Stanley’s spark chamber
also shows the presence of methane (Ch4) and ammonia (Nh3), prime gases that could
not have been present in large amounts-ammonia dissolving in the oceans and methane
stuck to ancient sedimentary clays.
Supporters of the chemical evolution, embarrassed about these problems, have been
trying to use different materials now to simulate the origin of life, although
unsuccessfully, and their every attempt leaves more questions than answers.
WRONG CONDITIONS?
The same electric spark that miller used to get the gas molecules to combine also
tears the amino acids apart. What is more, it does better at destroying them than
making them. As a seasoned bio-chemist, who is aware of this, Miller used a
chemist’s trick to trap the gases out of the chamber so that the spark would not
destroy them. Then he used the principle of Le Chatelier or law of mass action to
increase yield. Question is, was he not supposed to have been demonstrating the
existence of life without an outside influence? So how come he had to intelligently
control these chemicals lest they be destroyed? So then the chemicals could not
produce life by themselves without help? Does creating a life in a test tube by an
intelligent scientist not offer more support to the theory that someone somewhere –
an intelligent creator- rather brought life into being?
WRONG RESULTS? Miller produced amino acids, as he wanted, along with sugars and a
few other things, yet he got the wrong results. Why? Because whereas the proteins in
living cells are made of the short ‘alpha’ (left-handed) amino acids, Miller’s
“primordial soup” as is called, contained many long (beta, gamma, delta) as well as
equal numbers of both right and left handed forms. The problem is, if we are to
insert even one long or right handed amino acid into a chain of short, left-handed
forms, that would prevent them from coiling and folding which are necessary for
proper protein functions. Translation? Miller’s experiment rather produced poisons
that could destroy any hope of chemical evolution of life.
Lesson from the experiment, which is supposed to have proved that life came from
“non –life” but rather a chemical mix of substances, rather proved the contrary-
that the chemical substances of themselves could not produce life, just as bricks
and mortar of themselves and by themselves alone cannot produce a building, let
alone a magnificent multiplex!
ORIGINS OF LIFE: EVIDENCE FROM DNA AND PROTEIN
The discovery of the DNA in the 1800s by Johann Friedrich Miescher, and its
subsequent code-breaking in the 1950s by Watson and Crick has brought us quite a
useful wealth of information about life and ourselves. Interestingly, it has also
pointed us more to the direction of a creator as the origin of life, and discredited
any notion of a chemical or so called “pre-biotic” origins of life. DNA is an
abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid, a nucleic acid which is often referred to
as the “building blocks of life” because it contains the genetic material for its
parent organism. As Dr. Gary explains,
“DNA is the molecule that gets passed down from one generation to the next. Each of
us starts off as a tiny little ball about the size of a period on a printed page. In
that tiny ball, there are over six feet (2m) of DNA all coiled up. All of our
characteristics (height, skin color, etc.) are “spelled out” in that DNA.
What are proteins? Proteins are the molecules of structure and function. Hair is
mostly protein; skin cells are packed full of proteins; the enzymes that break down
food and build it up are proteins; the filaments that slide together to make muscles
work are proteins.
So, DNA and protein are two basic “parts” of every living system. When you get down
to a virus, that’s all you find—DNA and protein. (In some viruses, RNA substitutes
for DNA.) The DNA molecules code for the protein molecules that make us what we are.
That same principle applies to all life forms: viruses, plants, animals, as well as
human beings.”
These biological facts hold true, that:
• Two basic parts of every living system are DNA and protein.
• DNA does not form outside of living cells, nor do proteins.
• The left-handed amino acids which gives proteins life are only formed by living
cells.
In other words, the existence and working of both DNA and protein point to the
origin of life as life itself.
Thomas F. Heinze, in his “Scientific Evidence that God Created Life”, noted, that
“After having taught for 40 or 50 years that amino acids first concentrated, then
linked together to form proteins, atheists are abandoning this claim. Why?
•Amino acids do not concentrate in the ocean; they disperse and break down.
•Amino acids will not link together in nature to form proteins; not even when
scientists help them by buying all left-handed amino acids from a chemical supply
house to make the perfect “organic soup.”
•If proteins could form, they could not get together with DNA because DNA does not
form outside of living cells either. Scientists can’t even make DNA in the
laboratory.”
The conclusion of the DNA evidence is that life could not have originated in a
pre-biotic condition or in any “chemical soup”, as spontaneous generation theorists
would argue, but only from life. In other words, a living entity must have created
or begun the first living cell. That living entity, we decide to call God.
RNA TO THE RESCUE?
Instead of admitting that they are wrong and have been wrong all this while, as DNA
and protein evidence show, atheistic scientists have tried to seek refuge in a
different source: RNA. RNA is an abbreviation for Ribonucleic acid. It is a chain of
nucleotides present in the cells of all life. RNA has a number of important
functions for living organisms, ranging from the regulation of gene expression to
assistance with copying genes.
Authors Johnson and Raven write:
“Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join
together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino
acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. However, most
scientists no longer argue that the first proteins assembled spontaneously. Instead,
they now propose that the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA
later catalyzed the formation of proteins.”(George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven,
Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinhehart and Winston, 1996 p. 235).
However, what these scientists cleverly leave out is the truth about RNA, that it
cannot be made except by already living cells. Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee
write, that
“ no one has succeeded in creating RNA” (Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth,
Why complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 65, see also 62-6).
As a matter of fact, the RNA-world hypothesis has been attacked left, right and
center by prominent scientists that today the proponents seem to be looking for
cover. Writing on “The scientific origins of Life” Mario Vaneechoutte a chemist and
Microbiologist, in a paper published in the Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, March 2000, said:
“it is virtually impossible that the highly complicated system 'cell' developed
gradually around some simple self replicating molecules (RNA-hypercycles,
autocatalytic peptide networks) by means of natural selection, as is proposed by
e.g. the RNA-world hypothesis”.
Giving scientific evidence of this assertion, he wrote:
“The discovery of catalytic activity of RNA-molecules (ribozymes) has led to the
revival of the idea uttered in 1968 by Francis Crick that a single biopolymer, like
RNA, might have served both informational and catalytic roles and thus have
propelled the evolution towards the first cell by means of natural selection . To
the contrary, … no such autonomous duplication existed before the first cell and
thus that natural selection started only with the first cell.”
“Despite searching quadrillions of molecules, it becomes clear that such a
spontaneous RNA-replicator is unlikely to be found . Reports of self replication of
nucleotides (2, 4, 6) and peptides (12) still depend upon human intervenience (for
instance by changing the environmental conditions between two rounds of replicaton
or by denaturing the double strands). The problem of how to denature the double
nucleotide-strand in a nonenzymatical manner has been overlooked and has contributed
to the failure to establish molecular self-replication.”
Even if these practical problems could be overcome, the RNA-world puts the burden of
both replication and variable informational content on the same molecule, so that
the COSMIC-LOPER (Capability of Searching Mutation Space Independent of Concern over
Loss Of Properties Essential of Replicaton)(11) will be very limited. Indeed, as
explained above (see the difference between natural and cultural selection),
introducing natural selection too early is a limitation rather than a gain. I
propose that the original role of nucleotides was not self replicative so that high
recombinatorial freedom of the information they carried existed, as is the case in
current human culture, using printed texts. It should be stressed here that many of
the important findings of RNA-world research (e.g. 13) need not to be dismissed, as
long as the catalytic role of ribozymes is restricted to metabolic and translational
functions. ..”
Another problem with the RNA-world hypothesis is known as Eigen's paradox: the
simplest cell known today contains a chromosome with 2000 genes, most of these
encoding for very different functionalities and with none of these genes by
themselves containing sufficient information to cover the complex process of
autonomous duplication. Eigen realized that a society of self replicating competing
RNA-hypercycles will outcompete each other when brought together in a cell, instead
of merging into a chromosome. (Eigen's paradox is solved only by the rather
artificial stochastic corrector model
Some more Evidences for a beginning
Relativity. Strong evidence for a creation event in this century began with
Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which predicted the universe’s expansion.
Einstein himself refused to believe it for years. Expansion implied a beginning and
a beginning implied a Beginner.
Hubble Expansion. The evidence became undeniable, however, when Edwin Hubble used
the largest telescope of his time to discover that all the galaxies are rushing away
from us, and that there was a precise, linear relationship between the galaxies’
distance and their velocity, as Einstein’s equations had predicted.
Remnant Radiation. Early big bang theorists predicted that we should be able to
detect left-over radiation from the heat of this early dense state, since there is
nowhere "outside" the universe for it to escape. Bell Lab’s Arno Penzias and Robert
Wilson won the Nobel prize for their accidental discovery of this radiation with the
world’s most sensitive low-temperature radio telescope.
"What we found," Penzias said, "was radiation for which there is no known source in
the universe." And this pointed the two discoverers away from their previously held
belief that the universe was eternal to belief in what Penzias calls "a creation out
of nothing."
Since then, NASA’s COBE satellite measured the precise signature of what’s known as
the ‘blackbody’ radiation formed by this microwave background, the spectrum of an
event too powerful to be explained by anything in this universe, but expected to
characterize the entire universe at its creation. Recognizing this precise curve on
his monitor during the first COBE measurement, Richard Isaacman said, "I felt like I
was looking God in the face."
Numerous evidences from the field of astronomy, such as:
• The Background Radiation Echo
• The Second Law of Thermodynamics
• The Motion of the Galaxies
now overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe actually began to exist a
finite time ago in an event when all…
• the physical space
• time
• matter
• and energy
.in the universe came into being.
The entity that started it all is that which we call God.
SOME FEW QUOTES:
David Hume, a non Christian philosopher, zealous skeptic of Christianity:(In 1754),
“I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a
cause.” [David Hume, The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols., ed. J Y. T. Greig (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1932), 1:187]
Well-known atheist, J.L. Mackie : “I myself find it hard to accept the notion of
self-creation from nothing, even given unrestricted chance.” [J. L. Mackie, Times
Literary Supplement, February 5, 1982, p. 126.]
Stephen Hawking, the very popular and immensely respected astronomer from Cambridge
University, says, “Almost everyone believes that the universe, and time itself, had
a beginning” Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The
Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1996), p. 20.]
Charles Darwin himself- would you believe it? After everything? Did he change his mind?
Darwin said, “[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility
of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his
capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind
chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause
having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve
to be called a Theist.” [Cited by Antony Flew in There is a God: How the World’s
Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 2007, p. 106]
CONCLUSION OF PART 1:
To keep the article brief, we will end here and continue with more evidence in part
two.
A CLARION CALL
If you or anyone else you know has ever been a victim of this mis-education of
atheistic nonsense while going to school, because of which you almost lost your
faith in God, the time has come for you to discern truth from sheer stubbornness and
lies, and go back to your maker.
Can it be, that a car should be without a manufacturer? Can it be that even water
can flow without a source? Is your life not worth more than a car, pen, or any of
the things we make? What sense does it make to you, that such a complex entity like
you would just originate by chance or by accident? Don’t you feel insulted by the
atheistic and evolutionary nonsense? If you believe that you came from an ape, or a
monkey, don’t you feel insulted by it? So if you have developed, why is the monkey
still a monkey but has not developed yet? And we sometimes wonder why so many
people- especially in the developed countries, have lost their faith in God! It all
starts from such wrong education in the schools!
God bless our homeland Ghana/And make our nation great and Strong/Bold to defend
forever/The cause of freedom and of right/ Fill all our hearts with true
humility/Make us cherish fearless honesty/And help us to resist oppressors’
rule/With all our will and might for evermore
God bless you all
-Augustine Anyimadu-Ahenkae
gtrabboni@yahoo.com
REFERENCES
Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985
Johnson, George B, and Raven, Peter H. Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt,
Rinhehart and Winston, 1996 p. 235
Lipson, H. S., A Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin, p. 138, May 1980
Parker, Gary E., W. Ann Reynolds, and Rex Reynolds, DNA: The Key to Life, Rev. Ed.,
Programmed Biology Series, Educational Methods, Inc., Chicago 1977
Vaneechoutte, Mario “The scientific origins of Life” New York: Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, March 2000,
Ward, Peter D, and Brownlee, Donald, Rare Earth, Why complex Life is Uncommon in the
Universe, 2000, p. 65, see also 62-6).
Wilder-Smith, A. E., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, Master Books,
Colorado Springs
