Proofs Of God's Existence

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