What Do the Darwinists Have to Hide?

"The scientific evidence drove me into scientific heresy.... I embrace the theory of intelligent design."

By Jonathan Witt & Matti Leisola Published on February 11, 2018

I (Matti Leisola) started my science career as a Darwinist. But the scientific evidence drove me into scientific heresy. I now reject Darwinism. And I embrace the theory of intelligent design.

The theory of intelligent design holds that the appearance of design in nature is real, not illusory. It holds that organisms are sophisticated information systems best explained by reference to an intelligent cause. The founders of modern science were convinced that nature pointed to design. And a growing number of modern scientists think so too. This group even includes some religiously skeptical thinkers.

The famous philosopher Antony Flew defended atheism for almost all his life. But in 2004 he changed his mind. “The argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it,” he wrote.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

NYU philosopher Thomas Nagel — an atheist — endorsed a pro-ID book by Stephen Meyer. Then Nagel published a book with the pointed title Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.

There he writes that design theorists such as Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer have offered “empirical arguments … of great interest,” and should not just be reviled and dismissed. “The problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.”

Badly Designed Arguments

But many Darwinists go right on caricaturing intelligent design. They wrongly call it an argument from ignorance. No, it’s an argument from what we know natural processes can and can’t do. And it’s an argument from what we know intelligent agents can do.

Another tactic to discredit ID is to argue that God wouldn’t have done it that way. That is, he wouldn’t design certain biological forms that they insist are badly designed. Only a blind process like evolution would, they say.

I’m not afraid of academic freedom because I’m not afraid of the evidence. I know where it leads.

But many of these “bad design” examples fall apart under scrutiny.

For example, they argued our eyes are wired “backward,” a jerry-rigged fix compliments of blind evolution. But we now know that “backward wiring” actually improves oxygen flow.

Another example: Organs deemed vestigial and useless have proven to perform valuable functions.

But there’s a more basic problem with these bad-design arguments. They rest on a bogus assumption. The assumption? If there is a God, he would design every organism to be maximally fit and free of pain or weakness — every creature a little god. That reasoning collapses when you tap it.

There are well-established theological reasons why a good and wise God would not create such a world. Particularly a world he knew would be peopled by fallen and sinful humans.

Heretic Book Cover

Anti-design evolutionists ignore this rich body of theological reflection. Then they invoke a superficial theology of creation. Then they trash the strawman as incompatible with evidence from biology.

And if you call them on it, you get accused of talking theology in a science discussion. They deserve credit for brazenness, at least, since they introduced theology into the discussion. And badly at that.

Nothing to Hide

Meanwhile, championing atheism from the university lectern gets a pass. Richard Dawkins lectured in Finland in 2005, and no petition was gathered against him, although he freely mixes religion and science. He even wrote a book called The God Delusion. Physics professor Kari Enqvist teaches at Helsinki University and openly mixes religion and science while saying that “faith in God is like a viral disease.”

I believe Enqvist is wrong. And yet I support his right to speak his mind. This is called academic freedom. We need more of it. We need it both for those who think science points to atheism, and for those of us who disagree. I’m not afraid of academic freedom because I’m not afraid of the evidence. I know where it leads. Shine the brightest light you can find.

 

Matti Leisola and Jonathan Witt are authors of the new book Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design, available at Amazon. The essay above is adapted from Chapter 11 of the book.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Mavis

    As we follow the timeline of known history, it was the “already known”, branching out to find the method of “how” God created everything.
    We already knew there was a beginning, God created everything, but the method was a mystery. So with that solid basis, Creation of the Bible was a gicen.
    That gave rise to a solid foundation to explore nature. And many foundational Laws of Nature were discovered. Newton, etc.
    But as Judeao Christian truths were “cumbersome” to an increasingly immoral society, intellectuals, intellects sought to do away with the overbearing God of Moses.
    .. Lo! & Behold! Darwin comes up with a half-baked “theory”, that he knowingly lwaves future generations “to fill in the gaps”.
    And they have tried. Piltdown & Nebraska Man. Lucy, Archeoptryx etc. All frauds.
    What we are left with is the shambles of indoctrinated youth, that have immorality pumped into them, that they need safe spaces to retreat to, if they hear an argument against what they’ve been indoctrinated into.
    As a biological footnote: It is the strong in nature that survive, that thrive. If our young think that they need safe space spaces from hearing differing views… What does a salmon have to compete against to live? What does an eaglet have to do to break the shell of its hatching?
    Humans are more than animals. But they are still animals. Not less.

    • AndRebecca

      Theology is the queen of the sciences, I like it. All of the great colleges were started by religious men to teach mainly religion and then to go onward and outward from there.

      • swordfish

        Theology isn’t a science. It’s a subject without an object, as someone once said. Theology has achieved nothing, and all the time and energy invested in it has produced a negative return by holding our civilisation back.

    • swordfish

      Where do I start? Society overall is more moral now than it was in biblical times, unless you think that stoning people to death for adultery, keeping slaves, or crucifying people is moral.

      Moses never existed according to most modern biblical scholars.

      Darwin’s theory of evolution has stood for 140 years. There is a mountain of evidence supporting it, from fossils to anatomy to DNA. Not one fact has been uncoverd which disproves it.

      You list four so-called “frauds”. Of these, none are actually frauds. One (Piltdown Man) was a hoax, one (Nebraska Man) was a mistaken classification and two (Lucy and Archeoptryx) were entirely genuine discoveries.

  • GPS Daddy

    They want us to buy the idea that the cell’s error correcting function that suppresses and corrects random mutations evolved by random mutations.

    • John Connor

      And you want us to buy into the bit about a supernatural being who poofed an entire world and its inhabitants into existence.

      • Daniel Staggers

        Best thing we’ve got so far.

      • tether

        You don’t have to buy into anything.
        I suggest you follow the evidence.
        Investigate all options with an open mind and seek truth. Not what people or science books tell you is truth.

        • Daniel Staggers

          The Truth Will Set You Free.

        • John Connor

          I spent 18 years in the church and have done my investigation. That’s why I no longer believe in the supernatural.

          • tether

            I am sorry you failed to find the truth.
            But I won’t give up on you and neither should you.

          • tether

            Just curious,
            Was it the church, or the imperfect people who are in the church?
            We are all imperfect, that is the point of all this. We all fall short of the glory of God.
            Non of us are righteous, no matter how good we may think we are.

      • I’m curious if you “buy into the bit” that everything came from nothing for no reason at all? And “the bit about” the insane complexity of nature being an accident, a grand cosmic coincidence? I’ll confess I don’t have enough faith to believe what to me is patently absurd. Do you have any proof or evidence that we’re just lucky dirt?

        • GPS Daddy

          >>Do you have any proof or evidence that we’re just lucky dirt

          Mike, believe it or not that is exactly what John believes. Its soooo sad. That someone actually thinks they are nothing more than dirt.

          • So typical. All you Internet atheists do is beg the question. That’s truly sad, not that you piece of dirt would know what begging the question is. (Actually, you are made in the image of God, but you love your wickedness too much to acknowledge the obvious, so you suppress it in a torrent of irrationality) You can write your vacuous drivel to your heart’s content, but I’m off to worship the Living God this glorious Lord’s Day! I will NOT be back to this comment section.

          • John Connor

            Absolutely. There is nothing after death, in my opinion.

        • swordfish

          “the insane complexity of nature”

          Compared to what? There are only four forces and a few dozen particles. It’s widely believed by physicists that the fources and particles are much simpler still at higher energies. It might one day be possible to print the formula from which the universe is made on a t-shirt.

          • Given your other comments, and your wasting your time here, I really do think you are insane. You should go hang out with other insane people like you who think the universe, or even the very simplest cell, isn’t incredibly complex. Bu-by.

      • GPS Daddy

        So going back to the first cell, cells had to have this error correcting function. You do know what that, correct? You claim to be the all-knowing science guy here. You did cover this in your biology classes, right?

        I can understand back when Darwin was postulating his ideas that the thinking was that a cell was a little piece of goo. But were are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY past that point. Like extremely WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY past that point of understanding. Darwin himself said:

        “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could
        not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
        modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

        Well, when we discovered that cell’s are information based that should have done the job. Any truth seeking scientist would discard the Darwinian evolution paradigm. It is simply not scientific. But when we dug into this information processing center we call a cell, we have discovered that its VERY much like the information processing system we have today. When we transmit data over a network connection EVERY packet of information has a check bit that is used in error correction. There is an error correcting function. Without this networking computers would be IMPOSSIBLE.

        Cells do the same thing. When DNA is replicated this error correcting function corrects random mutations. Cancer is, in part, is the failure of these error correcting functions to work. Without this life would be IMPOSSIBLE.

        So your wanting me to accept that this error correcting function evolved one gradual step at a time by random mutations into a cell who purpose it is to eliminate random mutations. Gotcha. Yep. I see the light…. not.

        On the other hand, this further demonstrates design. BEFORE, let me write this again, BEFORE…. Lets look at the definition of this word, “before”:

        1. “during the period of time preceding (a particular event, date, or time).”
        2. in front of.

        Just want to make sure that we clearly understand this. Before we understood that DNA replication has an error correcting function we humans DESIGNED the error correcting functions in networks…

        If an intelligent agent DESIGNED the error correcting functions in networks then it VERY logical, rational, and reasonable to infer that an intelligent agent DESIGNED the error correction functions of information transmission in cells.

        • Daniel Staggers

          Thank you, I didn’t want to write all that.

          • GPS Daddy

            Daniel, what are you talking about? I’ve not responded to any of your original posts. I’ve only responded to you engaging me. This post that you responded to I was responding to John Connor not you. And, I’m not “going after” you. I’m only defending myself from your criticism of my posts.

        • John Connor

          I disagree. And thanks but I understand cell physiology.
          The complexity of the cell in no way equates to a supernatural creator nor does it rule out evolutionary processes. Neither does the complexity of our DNA.

          • GPS Daddy

            Nothing like trading the religion of the true God for the religion of dirt.

          • John Connor

            No religion in my life at all. I shucked off that yoke long ago.

          • GPS Daddy

            Except the religion of dirt worship.

          • John Connor

            No religion at all. Blind allegiance to the supernatural is nonsense.

          • GPS Daddy

            Attributing all that we see to the immense wisdom of dirt is irrational at best. All the attributes that deserve to be associated with God you assign to dirt. Hence, that makes you a dirt worshiper.

          • John Connor

            Ok all knowing one. All we see is attributed to evolutionary processes. No magic necessary. No evidence or proof of ANY supernatural beings.

          • GPS Daddy

            >> All we see is attributed to evolutionary processes

            Ah, yes, the imaginary process that must be assumed to exist Still does not change my point. You attribute our intelligence to dirt not God. You attribute life to dirt not God. You attribute wisdom to dirt not God. You attribute ultimate meaning and purpose to dirt not God… That makes you a dirt worshiper.

          • bullletbob

            Hmmm, ‘magic’ to us – maggots coming out of meat was spontaneous generation (magic) to the medieval people. But now, of course, we know everything – well, except maybe a few little things, like explaining the Cambrian explosion, how life itself started, just some small items. Dawkins himself used aliens coming to earth as a ’cause’.

    • swordfish

      Please explain why you think this isn’t possible. Take your time.

      • GPS Daddy

        And you don’t have religious beliefs… please. Its obvious that a random process is not going to build a process to eliminate random processes.

        • swordfish

          “It’s obvious” isn’t a reason. Random mutations can build anything which can be assembled in steps and which doesn’t significantly harm an organism’s reproductive success.

  • Daniel Staggers

    There are also other things to consider. Most theories made by man wind up being wrong.

    Case in point: The Big Bang Theory collapsed the day the Hubble was fixed. Instead of our one big bang, we were seeing them all over the place; at the same time in some cases. So, radio active isotopes were NOT all made at the same moment, therefore disproving even the premise. There goes Carbon Dating in all forms, the evolutionists best friend. I’m curious; why is Carbon Dating and the Big Bang Theory still being taught in the schools as fact?

    Second Case in Point: (and I could do this all day) The Collider: The Higgs Bosom was NOT found. Despite what the MSM may have led you to believe. There is no God particle therefore there MUST be a God was their conclusion. Didn’t hear that, did you? But, they were pretty excited about it. You never heard about it on the MSM. Irony to, especially if you consider over 8 billion was spent just to prove there is no God.

    And what about the Japanese find of Noah’s Ark? What? Haven’t heard about that on the MSM either? Look into it.

    So, what does just these three things do to Evolution Theory? HUH????

    • swordfish

      Please tell me this comment is satire.

  • GPS Daddy

    Now that we know about this error correcting function in cells that correct random mutations in DNA transmission, the criticism of atheists that theists relay on a magical being who poofs things into existence is now on the other foot:

    Random mutations are extremely rare. There must be a magical process that gets all the correct mutations in place at the right time to make all the necessary changes for the new function to work.

    • Daniel Staggers

      Random processes? Really? Do you have a clue how many happen in the body every hour? Out of control is cancer. Hello? How old are you exactly? How do the random processes know the mutations are random? Do they suddenly get smart? Do you even hear yourself?

      • GPS Daddy

        Well, Daniel, what perspective are you coming from?

        • Daniel Staggers

          It’s called medical science. My family is full of them and they don’t have a clue. What perspective do you come from?

          • GPS Daddy

            What theistic perspective do you come from?

          • Daniel Staggers

            What? What does that have anything to do with what I just said? Atheist much?

          • GPS Daddy

            It has everything to do with my original post. So your an atheist?

          • Daniel Staggers

            What is your point? Did you read my posts? Apparently not, I was going after the next poster, but if the shoe fits. What magical process do you decree, because it had to be one.

          • GPS Daddy

            You certainly did not answer my question in your original post to my post. So I will ask you again, are you an atheist?

          • Daniel Staggers

            I didn’t make a religious argument so your question is mute. My question was simple:

            And I’ll Quote? “Random processes? Really? Do you have a clue how many happen in the body
            every hour? Out of control is cancer. Hello? How old are you exactly?
            How do the random processes know the mutations are random? Do they
            suddenly get smart? Do you even hear yourself?”

            I would think before you ask me anything, you have to answer that, yes?

            And please, argue with my next post.

          • GPS Daddy

            I did not say you made a religious argument. Knowing where you are coming from will help me in answering you. I think that is fair. So, can you answer the question?

            Are you an atheist?

          • Daniel Staggers

            No, I won’t answer, If I say I’m a Christian you’ll just say I’m bringing religion into science therefore you don’t even count. It’s NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT I BELIEVE. This is supposed to be about science, yes?

          • GPS Daddy

            Well, thats your choice. I will start then: I accept that there is an intelligent designer behind life. Do you?

          • Daniel Staggers

            Just get barefoot and walk across your grounds outside. This grounds your electronics to real ground. Many supplements wouldn’t even exist without this fact. And none of them are as effective. In fact, I dare say these drugs cause people to die.

            All I know is simple; The human body is supposed to be naked, outside, and eat natural foods. Anytime you mess with this “Garden of Eden” edict? You do at your own risk. Take if for what it’s worth.

            And yes, that was by design, one only look to a model of the human sinuses to know this. Duh?

          • GPS Daddy

            Ok, Daniel, I tried. You need to work on your communication. I’m guessing from this response that you accept that there is an intelligent designer. I will proceed with that assumption.

            In my original post I’m arguing that the atheists criticism of theists invoking a magical being to poof life into existence is now on their foot. In order to get increasing information into DNA by random mutations (this is the Darwinian Evolution view) then there has to be some magical processes by which this happens. The error correcting functions in DNA are there to prevent random mutations, good or bad, from happening. What we do know is that cancer can some from these error correcting processes failing. So not only do these “magical processes” need to circumvent the error correction functions in DNA they need to do it in such a way as to not cause cancer AND it needs to be done in high speed in order to get all the information in the DNA so that “new structures” can be built.

          • Daniel Staggers

            And you couldn’t say this first? Really? It certainly would have saved a lot of my time. Thanks for nothing. What do you think free radicals are? Mutations that would go away if you would ground yourself from time to time to the earth! Why do I have to say this a third time?!

          • GPS Daddy

            Well, lets see here. I was asked to respond to:

            >>How old are you exactly?
            >>Do you have a clue how many happen in the body every hour?

            And you want me to engage you without caution?

          • Daniel Staggers

            I’m done, you still want to argue, do it with your wife. Bye.

          • GPS Daddy

            The pot calling the kettel black.

          • Andrew Mason

            The problem is your post is incoherent. Are you not a native English speaker? It’s fine if you’re not but it can complicate things.

          • AndRebecca

            Are you O.K.? Too much caffeine in your system?

          • SWohio

            ‘going after’?????? You are looking for a fight, as you admit yourself. Does that make you feel better about yourself?

          • AndRebecca

            Huh?

  • Paul

    those who deny intelligent design sure look stupid to me.

  • tz1

    Tongue in cheek, but only half trolling:

    Eugenics! The white race is superior! Haven’t you read “Civic Biology” the subject of “Inherit the Wind” and the Scopes trial? Whites are best, followed by Asians, then I forget, Africans, Native Americans, and the Mauri and Aussie Aborigines!

    This whole racist stuff is SCIENTIFIC!!!

    Darwin said so!

    • Andy Holland

      The second title of Darwin’s book, ‘or the Preference of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” I don’t think it was a coincidence that Adolf titled his book off his struggle. This nonsense has to end as we have a hiroshima of humanity obliterated globally in abortion every day – 120000 a day – because of lies about the nature and origin of life and lies about science, engineering, agriculture and frankly faith. We have little confidence in God.

  • davidrev17

    “In the beginning were the particles. And the particles somehow became complex living stuff. And the stuff imagined God, but then discovered evolution.”

    — Phillip E. Johnson, Emeritus Professor of Law, Univ. of CA., Berkeley, “In the Beginning Were the Particles,” Grace Valley Christian Center, (March 5, 2000).

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    When it comes to questions of ontology and/or “Ultimate Questions,” thus one’s worldview considerations, this ain’t rocket science, as one’s options are severely constrained.

    One either believes, BY FAITH ALONE, that mass/energy (or nature itself) represents Ultimate reality – as is made unambiguously clear in the above penetrating synopsis of the worldview of atheistic materialism, or “high-octane naturalism” – or one also believes, BY FAITH ALONE, that “Mind” represents Ultimate reality, as is made abundantly clear below:

    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:1-4/ESV).

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    Yet the atheistic materialists are forever saddled, in true Sisyphean style at that, by having to live with the profoundly embarrassing (no, almost mindless!) logical IMpossibility, that an EFFECT – i.e., in this case, the entire material universe, or nature itself – can never be responsible for its own CAUSE; in spite of the recent hopelessly incoherent conclusions proclaimed by the likes of Lawrence Krauss, and Stephen Hawking, in both of their books: “A Universe From Nothing” & “The Grand Design.”

    So the biblically theistic notion of a SELF-existent, transcendent, personal/eternal “Uncaused First Cause” (or “Beginner”) being the causally-related “Mind,” responsible for the origin of this “contingently existing” universe, all life itself, human consciousness/cognition – and even objective moral laws, plus reason and logic – is surely NOT so far-fetched-of-an-idea; given the available evidence with which we rational/moral, conscious observers called Homo sapiens must consistently contend – within this mind-bogglingly sophisticated , and staggeringly complex “quantum reality” of both the physical & non-physical??

    Pssst: all of this is found throughout the Judeo-Christian Scriptures…and that’s a fact!

    • swordfish

      There’s no evidence that the universe came into being out of nothing. The big bang may represent nothing more than a change of state.

      • GPS Daddy

        So a little physics lesson. Time is not infinite in the past. In order for there to be a previous state there must be a previous time for that state. But for that to be true time must be infinite in the past. That means that time NOW is at infinity. Since we cannot have an actual infinity then time is finite in the past. There is an actual time zero before which the space-time continuum does not exist. This is central to the Big Bang theory. Atheists rail gains that scientifically established theory because of its implications.

        • swordfish

          “Time is not infinite in the past”

          It isn’t known what happened before the big bang.

          “In order for there to be a previous state there must be a previous time for that state.”

          This doesn’t necessarily follow, and in any case, there may have been an infinity of big bangs each creating their own time.

          “Since we cannot have an actual infinity then time is finite in the past.”

          Why can we not have an actual infinity? There’s no such principle in physics.

          “There is an actual time zero before which the space-time continuum does not exist. This is central to the Big Bang theory.”

          What happened before the big bang isn’t central to the big bang theory, or even covered by it at all. You’d have to turn to quantum mechanics to examine those very small distances and times.

          “Atheists rail gains [?] that scientifically established theory because of its implications.”

          This doesn’t follow either. Even if it were true that the universe came into existence out of nothing, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that God created it, or that He exists, as it’s just an argument from ignorance.

          • GPS Daddy

            swordfish, I’d recommend you stop drinking the Sean Caroll cool aid. He is leading you down the road to blind faith. I recommend the article “Sean Carroll’s Preposterous Universe” by Michael Egnor over at Evolution News. Also Dr. Craig has some good articles on this topic over at reasonable faith dot org.

            Our wordview matters, swordfish. You need to stop being reckless with yours.

          • swordfish

            I read the article by Egnor you mention. I didn’t find it very interesting as it was just the usual string of assumptions and logical fallacies.

      • davidrev17

        Swordfish:

        What I offer below is cutting-edge scientific analysis (Nov. 2017) re: “Big Bang Cosmology” – aka “The Standard Model of Physics” for more than 60-years now – and whose results were published in the prestigious Journal ‘Nature.’ You can find the entire article in a ‘National Post’ piece (Nov. 3, 2017) entitled, “Our Universe Should Not Exist, CERN Antimatter Study Confirms.”

        And though I readily concede that my contribution pales in comparison to GPS’ textbook physics comment to you, please don’t ignore the reality of this present universe with which we “conscious observers” are contending today, found under the title “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle” – i.e., the “fine-tuning of the laws of physics & chemistry found throughout nature.”

        The “Big Bang” wasn’t your typical chaotic explosion, with which we’re familiar! Plus, the four (4) laws/forces of physics literally breakdown at the “singularity,” moving backward-in-time, to the moment at which “time” itself is literally an incoherent/vacuous concept. Or said another way: the four (4) fundamental laws/forces of physics, literally breakdown at Genesis 1:1. There’s NO such thing as detectable physicality. (See Hebrews 11:3 for a precise 21st-century description of “Big Bang Cosmology.”) It’s called, “and God said”!

        “By the word of YHWH were the heavens made, and the starry host by the Ruach [breath/wind/spirit] of his mouth.” (Psalm 33:6)

        ▪ ▪ ▪

        “One of the deepest and most enduring mysteries in the study of the universe is why anything exists at all…Current physics predicts that when the universe expanded from an infinitely hot and dense point nearly 14 billion years ago in the Big Bang, particles of matter and antimatter were created in equal measure. They should have annihilated each other completely, perfectly, leaving nothing but a flash of light.

        Clearly, this is not what happened. Some matter was left over. What seems to have happened is that for every billion or so annihilations in the moment after the Big Bang, a single regular particle was left behind, with no antimatter counterpart to annihilate it. This left over matter was like the lingering smoke after a flash, and it is the key to all material existence today, everything from stardust to supernovas to spaghetti bolognese and the people who eat it.

        The rest of the story is on solid observational footing. The flash of those early annihilations can still be seen today in the Cosmic Microwave Background, a faint glow in the universe, the literal first light. But the cosmic surplus of regular matter remains a total mystery.”

  • Thor

    The conciseness of this article is both refreshing and an enticement. I have been an ID proponent for a long time and will purchase this book.

Inspiration
I Am No Angel, He Said
Bobby Neal Winters
More from The Stream
Connect with Us