Science and the Bible

1Science and the Bible(with a view to Genesis or origins)

1To some people science is interesting and exciting. However, to others science is dry, dull and boring. So if youre in the second category, bear with us, and hopefully, this presentation will not reinforce your opinion.2

Assumptions/BiasAssumptions/Bias

2Before we take a look at science I would like to consider this diagram and point out two things. Firstly, it is important to remember that data/evidence does not speak for itself. A piece of fossil does not have a date on it such as a coin. The fossil is mute, it does not declare to us how it came to be or how old it is. Similarly, geologic strata do not come with dates and are mute, as well. Secondly, data is interpreted within a philosophical framework. The assumptions, or biases, one starts with will determine the interpretation or conclusion one reaches, which in turn may become an assumption. If you already believe in a old earth you will come to interpretations that support your assumptions. 3

Assumptions/BiasAssumptions/Bias

3However, if one holds different assumptions, or biases, one will come to a different interpretation. If one believes the Bible gives the real history of a young earth the data may be interpreted that is consistent with a young earth and global flood. Please note, both start with unprovable assumptions. The question is, Who are you going to believe--fallible men who were not present at the beginning or God, who said He was? Both interpretations are based on assumptions held by faith. So it is not really science versus the Bible, it really is one faith versus another faith.4It is often claimed or believed that science has proven the Bible to be wrong or untrue.

Often claimed that evolution is a scientific fact; and the Bible is religion.

Evolutionists believe in science; creationists reject science.

4Many people believe that science has proven the Bible to be in error. Many people strongly proclaim that evolution is a fact of science and belief in the Bible is religion. 5The last company I worked for was small (only 5 people) and 2 people were raised as Mennonites and 2 were raised as Catholics. All 4 had rejected Christ and one of the main issues was the scientific evidence against the Bible.

Chad K. quoted in Creation Ministries International, June 2007 newsletter.

5For example, Chad writes6Need to understand what science is

6Lets examine what science is; what is science? We need to understand what science is.7Need to understand what science isNeed to understand how science has been redefined

7We need to understand that science has been has been redefined; or what definition is being used.8Need to understand what science isNeed to understand how science has been redefinedNeed to understand limitations of science

8And we need to understand the limitations of science.9ScienceThe state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandinga: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (the ~ of theology)b: something that may be studied (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge (have it down to a ~)c: one of the natural sciencesa: knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific methodb: such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomenaA system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws (culinary ~)

Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

9Here is a dictionary definition of science. In its etymology, in its original sense, science simply means knowledge, as in the first definition. Most people think of science more in line with the third definition whereby we perform tests and experiments. However, today much science is equated with naturalism; that is, absolutely everything must be explained within a materialistic paradigm; that is, no explanatory models or theories are allowed if they even hint of the supernatural.10We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997

10Lewontin is an ardent evolutionist. Nowadays, science has been redefined to mean materialism or naturalism. He writes11 It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997

11You see, a prior commitment to materialism, automatically rules out anything supernatural. The Bible speaks of willful ignorance. Another place in the Bible speaks of men professing to be wise, they became fools.12Origins/historical OperationalScience Science

-not based on direct-direct observation observation

-cannot experiment upon-experimentsan historical event

-an historical event is -repeatablenot repeatable

12It helps to make a distinction between origins or historical science and operational science. The so-called scientific methodology used in the empirical sciences is based on experimentation, repeatability and direct observation. That is, some other person can perform the same experiments, achieve the same results and directly observe the whole process of experimentation and the results. Origins, on the other hand, cannot be experimented upon. One cannot experiment on an historical event; one cannot directly observe an historical event. One can certainly re-create an historical event, but it is not that historical event itself. Much of historical science is based on inferences.13Origins/historicalscienceOperationalscience

13The two areas of science are not totally separated and there is some overlap. For example, we can measure the length and width of fossilized bones, determine its chemical composition, note the type of material it was buried in, and so on, and we can make inferences about the animals weight and height within certain ranges, but we cannot directly measure its age; nor can we directly observe the behaviour of the animal from which the bone came and how it interacted with its environment. We cannot measure how long it has been buried.14Science cannot prove an historical event took place.

Can you scientifically prove the location of your maternal great-grandmothers birth?

14Science cannot prove that an historical event took place.Using a materialistic paradigm of science, can you scientifically prove the location of your maternal great-grandmothers birth?What test or experiment can we perform that would show this?15Science cannot prove what is true, it can only prove what is false.

15Science cannot prove what is true; it can only prove what is false. Surprisingly, few people have been taught this concept. The popular notion is that science proves things to be true but the scientific methodology actually proves what is false. Sir Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, posited that falsifiability was a criterion of science. The following example may help.16The Null Hypothesis

16For some people, the Null Hypothesis is controversial; and may not be applicable to all scientific experiments. However, scientists and statisticians commonly use it. Many scientific experiments are based on probabilities and use statistics. It is called the null hypothesis because the effect of what is under study is said to be zero or null. 17The Null HypothesisThe rejection of an hypothesis is to conclude that it is false, while the acceptance of an hypothesis merely implies that we have no evidence to believe otherwise.

17The rejection of an hypothesis is to conclude that it is false, while the acceptance of a hypothesis merely implies that we have no evidence to believe otherwise.18The Null HypothesisThe rejection of an hypothesis is to conclude that it is false, while the acceptance of an hypothesis merely implies that we have no evidence to believe otherwise.Experimenter or statistician should always state the hypothesis that which he/she hopes to reject.

18The experimenter or statistician should always state the hypothesis that which he/she hopes to reject.19H0: There is no difference in lung cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers.

H1: There is a difference in lung cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers.

19Lets look at lung cancer rates as an example. There is a common belief that smoking causes lung cancer, but belief is not science. If we look at the null hypothesis H0 that there is no difference in lung cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers; that is, the difference in lung cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers is null. Research and studies have shown that there is a 3 to 4 times higher lung cancer rate in smokers than non-smokers. The null hypothesis H0 has been falsified, therefore the alternative is accepted, but not necessarily proven true. The most scientific statement we can make about smoking and lung cancer rates is that there is a 3 to 4 times more probability of a smoker getting lung cancer than a non-smoker. Also, it can be reasonably inferred that the greater the frequency of smoking the greater the probability of getting lung cancer. As well, it can be reasonably inferred that the longer the time one smokes the greater the probability of getting lung cancer. 20Type I error Rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true.

Type II errorAccepting the null hypothesis when it is false.

Probability of committing a type I error is called the level of significance of the test and is denoted by .

20When analyzing data through the use of statistics there is also the probability of committing an error. There is something called a type 1 and type 2 error. [Read slide] If you watch the news, there is often a report of some poll that was done. The reporter often states that the results are correct within, 5% 19 times out of 20. This is more or less what they are referring to. 21Science is tentative.

What may be thought of as scientific may be overturned as new information or further discoveries are made.

21Science is tentative. The findings of science may change over time.What may be considered true scientifically at one period of time may be considered false at a later date; and the reverse works as well.

22Phlogiston?first posited by Johann Becher, 1677an attempt to explain oxidation processes, such as, combustion and rusting of metalsfor almost the entire 18th century the theory was more satisfying than alternativeslater experiments and discoveries showed better explanations

22Have you ever heard of phlogiston? In order to explain oxidation processes, such as, combustion and oxidation, phlogiston was invoked in order to account for the weights of material before and after oxidation processes. For pretty much the entire 1700s this is what scientists believed in. With later experiments and the discovery of oxygen, the idea of phlogiston was put to rest.23Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists

23Here are other current examples.The big bang theory is now falling out of favour with a growing number scientists. The theory requires so-called fudge factors to support it. For example, this theory posits that the visible, observable material of space that we can see is about 4% of the universe, dark matter is said to comprise about 22% of the universe and the remaining 74% is said to be this dark energy. No one has yet observed this dark matter, directly or indirectly. No one has observed this dark energy, directly or indirectly. Dark matter and dark energy are inferred to make the big bang model work.

24Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists

Junk DNA, once thought to be evolutionary remnants, now found to be functional

24Junk DNA was once thought to be evolutionary remnants of our past and useless in current cell processes. 97% of the non-coding sequences of the human DNA were thought to be junk DNA. However, with more and more research being done, many so-called junk DNA is found to have functionality.

25Big Bang Theory now falling out of favour with many scientists

Junk DNA, once thought to be evolutionary remnants, now found to be functional

How many planets in our solar system?

25How many planets in our solar system? On a science exam, before August 25, 2006 if you were asked this question and you answered 8 you would have been marked wrong. If you were asked the same question on a science exam today you would be marked right. What has changed? The number of orbiting objects around the sun has not changed, only the definition of planet. So now all the science textbooks published earlier, when it comes to the number of planets, are scientifically wrong.26What is evolution?

26The word evolution is a slippery one. Always ask what the person means by evolution. Evolution means different things to different people.27What is evolution?change?

27Some people define evolution as simply change. Well, I changed my socks this morning, have I evolved? I have more white hairs than previously, have I evolved?28What is evolution?change?Natural selection?

28Some people equate natural selection with evolution. However, natural selection is not evolution in action as they suggest.29What is evolution?change?Natural selection?descent with modification?

29Charles Darwin used the phrase descent with modification meaning that gradual changes over time would result in a new type, or kind, of organism. This is in a sense what most people today understand as evolution. 30What is evolution?change?Natural selection?descent with modification?Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + time

30The evolution of living things is also said to be combination of random genetic changes, natural selection and long periods of time.31What is evolution?change?Natural selection?descent with modification?Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + timemolecules to man

31However, as well, today the word evolution also means that inorganic chemicals gradually over time turned into living organisms. You might call this the molecules to man evolution. This definition not only entails the idea that one kind of living organism gradually changed into another kind of organism, but that inorganic chemicals somehow got together to form biochemicals which eventually became a living cell. It is this sense of the word that evolution is used in this presentation.32What is evolution?change?Natural selection?descent with modification?Evolution = random genetic mutations + natural selection + timemolecules to man

Beware of bait switching

32And be aware of bait switching, that is, using one definition for evolution and then switching it for another definition. For instance, examples of natural selection are always given as an example of evolution happening, yet evolution is more than natural selection.33Has science proven evolution to be true?

-Miller-Urey spark exchange chamber-NH3, CH4, water vapour, H in sparking chamber-got some amino acids and other compounds

1930-200733When he was graduate student, in 1953, Miller devised an experiment, often known as the Miller-Urey spark exchange chamber. Urey was Millers advisor. Stanley Miller died in May of 2007 at the age of 77. In a chamber, Miller put NH3, methane, water vapour and H in a chamber, applied high voltages and collected the resulting products in a trap. What he got was a tar-like substance, carboxylic acid, and some amino acids. It is known that proteins are made from amino acids. This was hailed as scientific proof of evolution. But was it?34amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein

34It is true that the building blocks of proteins are amino acids. 35amino acids are the basic building blocks of proteinare left-handed and right-handed amino acids

35What students are not taught in introductory biology or chemistry classes at universities and colleges, is that there are left-handed and right-handed forms of amino acids. In other words, while having the same chemical composition, they are mirror images of each other, just like you have a left hand and right hand, each has four fingers and a thumb but they are mirror images. 36amino acids are the basic building blocks of proteinare left-handed and right-handed amino acidsmammalian protein only made of left-handed amino acids

36Proteins of mammals are made up solely of left-handed amino acids. For a protein to function properly, it requires the correct 3 dimensional structure of all left-handed amino acids. One right-handed amino acid in the protein structure would render it useless, or even, fatal.37amino acids are the basic building blocks of proteinare left-handed and right-handed amino acidsmammalian protein only made of left-handed amino acidswithout a living mechanism, protein will form into 50:50 left-handed and right-handed (a racemic mixture)

37Without a living mechanism, protein will degrade into a 50/50 mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. This is what Miller obtained, a 50:50 mixture of left-handed and right-hand amino acids. So far, there have been over 2000 amino acids discovered. Living organisms use twenty specific amino acids. 38Amino acid list1.Glycine------------2.D-AlanineL-Alanine3.D-ValineL-Valine4.D-LeucineL-Leucine5.D-IsoleucineL-Isoleucine6.D-SerineL-Serine7.D-ThreonineL-Threonine8.D-CysteineL-Cysteine9.D-CystineL-Cystine10.D-MethionineL-Methionine11.D-Glutamic AcidL-Glutamic Acid12.D-Aspartic AcidL-Aspartic Acid13.D-LysineL-Lysine14.D-ArginineL-Arginine15.D-HistidineL-Histidine16.D-PhenylalanineL-Phenylalanine17.D-TyrosineL-Tyrosine18.D-TryptophanL-Tryptophan19.D-ProlineL-Proline20. D-HydroxyprolineL-Hydroxyproline

D Dextrorotary (right-handed)L Levorotary (left-handed)Different forms are known as enantiomers (enantiomorphs) or stereoisomers.

38For those of you who like science and want a bit more detail, here is a list of the twenty amino acids. Only one, glycine, does not have a right or left handed form. The more technical term for handedness is dextrorotary for right-handed and levorotary for left-handed forms.39simplest protein around 400 amino acids

R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

39The simplest protein in a living organism is about 400 amino acids long.The probability of a small protein forming by chance is so low that it will never happen. 40simplest protein around 400 amino acidsBorels law of mathematics: probability of 10-50 will never happen

R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

40Borel, a mathematician, said that anything with the probability of 10-50 is basically impossible. It should be mentioned that Borel believed in evolution and stated that this probability may not apply to evolving organisms.41simplest protein around 400 amino acidsBorels law of mathematics: probability of 10-50 will never happenassume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X 1018 sec.

R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

41If we assume that the earth is 15 billion years old, this equates to 4.8 X 1018 seconds, that is, the number 4.8 times 10 with 18 zeroes behind it.42simplest protein around 400 amino acidsBorels law of mathematics: probability of 10-50 will never happenassume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X 1018 sec.over this time period a reaction rate of 10 billion/sec results in 1028 reactions

R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

42If we allow a rate of 10 billion reactions/second we get 1028 reactions, or 10 followed by 28 zeroes.43simplest protein around 400 amino acidsBorels law of mathematics: probability of 10-50 will never happenassume earth is about 15 billion years old or 4.8 X 1018 sec.over this time period a reaction rate of 10 billion/sec results in 1028 reactionsprobability to form a 400 amino acid protein by chance is 10-257

R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, ninth printing 1993.

43If a protein is 400 left-handed amino acids long, and if left to chance, the probability is 10-257.44Scientists say no to spontaneous generation and yes to biogenesis (life gives rise to life).

44In high school biology, I was taught that life gives rise to life; this is called the law of biogenesis. Non-life, or non-living things do not give rise to life. The idea that non-living things can give rise to life is called spontaneous generation and was said to be scientifically disproven.45Scientists say no to spontaneous generation and yes to biogenesis (life gives rise to life).

but.many scientists believe thatabiogenesis (biopoiesis) occurred in the distant unobservable, unrepeatable, unexperimental past.

45Later, I was taught that there was a big bang, the earth was a molten blob which eventually cooled down, rain fell down, there was a chemical pea soup of sorts, out of which some chemicals got together to form amino acids, these amino acids somehow got together and formed proteins, these proteins got together and formed cells which eventually turned into every living organism we see today. 46Scientists say no to spontaneous generation and yes to biogenesis (life gives rise to life).

but.many scientists believe thatabiogenesis (biopoiesis) occurred in the distant unobservable, unrepeatable, unexperimental past.

Isnt this just spontaneous generation under another name?

46Isnt this spontaneous generation? Only it happened billions of years ago out of observation, out of experimentation, out of repeatability. You see, the alternative, that God created, is so repulsive to some that they will accept any theory except that God created.47Understanding what has been observed, what has been tested and what has been experimented upon will aid in discerning interpretation and the just-so stories.

47The story of evolution, that is, the molecules to man story is just that, a story. Someone has referred to evolution as a fairy tale for adults,once upon a time, millions and millions of years ago48At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses.

Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 1718. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.

48Rensberger is a science writer who is anti-creationist; he writes49 As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.

Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 1718. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.

50Science is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as truth is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm in this case neo-Darwinism so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. Theyll find it difficult to [get] research grants; theyll find it hard to get their research published; theyll, in fact, find it very hard.

Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

50Richards, a science historian writes[read slide]In other words, if you dont tow the party line you wont get published or get funding.51Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.

Dr. Steven WeinbergNobel Laureate in Physics; in New York Times, 11-21-06.

51If anything, Weinbergs bias is showing.52It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).

Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 4243, January 19, 1984.

52Shallis at least recognizes the limitation of science.53No product, discovery, medical procedure, or advance has come out of evolutionary theory. Without evolutionary theory, all practical biology would stand just as it is. No major corporation has a Department of Evolution because scientists who have to produce results dont use it.

In fact, I would like to challenge the readership of this publication to come up with one practical application of biology that would have been impossible were it not for the hypothesis of evolution.

In the meantime, I think that scientists should leave the important questions, such as what is the meaning of life and is there a God, to religion, which knows how to answer such questions, and stick to what they know how to do, such as breeding insect-resistant corn and curing cancer.

Avraham SonenthalThe Scientist 11(14):10, 1997quoted in Creation 29(3) June-August 2007, p. 48.

54Magisterial vs Ministerial use of science

54In looking at the relationship between science and the Bible, it may help to distinguish between the magesterial and ministerial role of science[read slide]

Science can be useful if used in a ministerial manner. A magisterial use of science overrules scripture and compels one to practice eisegesis, not exegesis when interpreting Scripture.55Magisterial vs Ministerial use of scienceThe ministerial use elaborates on the clear teachings of the Bible, and may help to decide on equally plausible alternatives consistent with the language. Note that this approach to Scripture does not deny the authority of Scripture, but rather recognizes that while Scripture is true truth it is not exhaustive truth.

Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, 2004, p. 50.

55In looking at the relationship between science and the Bible, it may help to distinguish between the magesterial and ministerial role of science[read slide]

Science can be useful if used in a ministerial manner. A magisterial use of science overrules scripture and compels one to practice eisegesis, not exegesis when interpreting Scripture.56Magisterial vs Ministerial use of scienceThe ministerial use elaborates on the clear teachings of the Bible, and may help to decide on equally plausible alternatives consistent with the language. Note that this approach to Scripture does not deny the authority of Scripture, but rather recognizes that while Scripture is true truth it is not exhaustive truth.In contrast, the magisterial use overrules the clear teaching of the Bible to come up with a meaning inconsistent with sound hermeneutics. Instead of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), this is Scriptura sub scientia (Scripture below science).Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, 2004, p. 50.

56In looking at the relationship between science and the Bible, it may help to distinguish between the magesterial and ministerial role of science[read slide]

Science can be useful if used in a ministerial manner. A magisterial use of science overrules scripture and compels one to practice eisegesis, not exegesis when interpreting Scripture.57Theology wed to science in one age will find itself a widow in the next.

Herman Bavinck, a Dutch theologian, 1854 1921.

57Bavinck was a wise man. He recognized the tentative nature of science. If your theology is based on changeable scientific claims, what happens to your theology when the claims become falsified or unacceptable? Will your theology remain the same or will you change it? And what does that mean for theological truth?58Some people prefer to separate religion (Bible) and science

Stoner, for example, says that science is mans interpretation of the natural/material world and theology is mans interpretation of the Bible. Both are prone to error.

However, he never mentions the limitations of science and states that theologians are human too; all the while giving science a magisterial role over the Bible.

Don Stoner, A New Look at an Old Earth, 1st edition, 1985, revised 1997.

58Stoner, a retired Christian scientist, who holds an old earth view, would prefer to separate science and theology.He writes that science is mans [read slide].The late Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, and former Harvard professor, who described himself as an atheistic Jew, has stated that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). The effect of this would be to make the Bible (religion) unrelated to the real world. Science deals with the real world. To separate the two will ultimately lead to demise of the Bible (religion).59Phenomenological language-the sun rises and sets-science has proven a heliocentric solar system as opposed to a geocentric one-we still speak of the sun setting and rising; does that make us less scientific?-some would suggest that Genesis is phenomenological, but where is the phenomenom to suggest days=ages?

59In some parts, the Bible uses phenomenological language. Some people have suggested that Genesis is similar.Read slide.60If you cannot believe the very first verses of the Bible then why believe any other verses, or the rest of the Bible?

60If the Bible is wrong on origins, what makes it right on matters of faith and morals? Genesis was written as an historical narrative, not allegory, poetry, or parable.61

61When God finished creating at the end of six days, He proclaimed it very good. The fossil record has bones with diseases and broken bones. There are fossils of thorns. The fossil record is a record of death. By allowing millions of years of earth history before Adam and Eve, we allow death and suffering before sin.62

62The Bible is Gods inspired and inerrant word. Mans opinion changes over time. However, [read slide caption].63

63All of us have filters with which we view the world. It is called a worldview. Which one is correct? Which one is true? Some try to combine the two but end up as shown in the previous slide; the Bible gets compromised.64The real issue is the authority of Gods Word.

Who are you going to believe?Scientists who werent there orGod who was?

64Who are you going to believe? Scientists who werent there, even Christian ones who believe in a old earth, or God who was there and spoke about it.Make no mistake, the battle is for the authority of Gods Word.65The End.

For those of you who stayed awake,Thank You.

For those of you who didnt; I hope you had a good nap.66NarratorWalter Hayashi

DirectorWalter Hayashi

ProducerWalter Hayashi

Co-producerWalter Hayashi

Assistant Co-producerWalter Hayashi

EditorWalter Hayashi

WriterWalter Hayashi

Production StudioMy Living Room

TransportationMy Toyota

CatererMr. Refrigerator

MMIX