In the book of Acts, we find evidence that all the apostles understood that the prophecies in Psalm 2 would be fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The combined prayer of the assembled apostles in Acts 4 shows that they understood that the prophecies in Psalm 2 were refering to Jesus Christ and were, in fact, beginning to be fulfilled in their days! Here is their prayer as recorded by Luke:

"And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God [Greek Thios, the Father] with one accord, and said, Lord [Greek Despotes, or Master, refering to the Father] Thou art God [these words are not in the texts], Which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of Thy servant David has said [in Psalm 2:1-2], Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord [Greek Kurios, the Father], and against His Christ [Greek Christos, the Son]. For of a truth against Thy Holy Child Jesus, Whom Thou hast anointed [resurrected], both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the People of Israel, were gathered together..." (Acts 4..24-27).

This prayer by the early apostles confirms that they understood the meaning of Psalm 2. They were fully aware that Jesus was the Messiah of David's inspired prophecy! They knew that He had been resurrected and had ascended to the Father's throne, and that He would return to earth with power and glory to rule all nations, as the Father had decreed.

In these early days of the church, Paul was not yet an apostle. Later in the book of Acts, we find the personal testimony of the apostle Paul concerning the identity of the, Jehovah in Psalm 2 Who was prophesied to become the Messiah. In proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Paul quoted Psalm 2:7 and other Old Testament prophecies as evidence that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah--originally one of the two Jehovahs, but now the immortal Son of, Jehovah. Here is Paul's testimony:

"And we [Paul and his co-workers] declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God [Greek Theos, the Father] hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He [the Father] bath raised up Jesus [the Son] again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art My Son; this day have I [the Father] begotten [resurrected] Thee [Psalm 2:7].

And as concerning that He [the Father] raised Him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, He [the Father] said on this wise, I [the Father] will give You [the Son] the sure mercies of David [Isa. 55:3]. Wherefore He [the Father] saith also in another psalm [Psalm 16:101, Thou [the Father] shalt not suffer Thine Holy One [the Son] to see corruption" (Acts 13:32-35).

Paul's inspired interpretation of Psalm 2:7 makes it clear that it was on "this day"--the day of His resurrection to immortality--that Jesus became the glorified Son of God. Contrary to the popular Trinitarian teaching, there has not always been a Son in the Godhead! The Father Himself has revealed that He did not have an eternal, immortal Son until He raised up Jesus from the dead. Paul emphatically states that it was in reference to Christ's resurrection that the Father declared, "Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee."

In his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul shows that when Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead by the power of the Father, He was also glorified by the Father. Paul again quotes Psalm 2:7 in reference to Christ's resurrection to glory.

"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God [Greek Theos, the Father], that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins .... And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God [Greek Theos, the Father], as was Aaron. So also Christ [Greek Christos, the Son] glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest; but He [the Father] that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, to day have I begotten [resurrected] Thee [Psalm 2:7, quoted from the Septuagint]. As He [the Father] saith also in another place, Thou [the Son] art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec [Psalm 110:5, quoted from the Septuagint]" (Heb. 5:1-6).

These New Testament interpretations make it undeniably clear that the Jehovah/Messiah of Psalm 2 became the glorified Son of God on the day of His resurrection to immortality. On "this day" He was exalted and restored to the full power and glory that He shared with the Father (The Ancient of days) in the beginning as the Word of God (John 1:1; 17:5). Now the Son of God, He is both our Savior and High Priest, ever living to make intercession for us with the Father. And, as the reglorified Word of God; He is preparing to return to this earth to rule all nations with a rod of iron, as the Father has decreed.

The Two Jehovahs of Psalm 16

As recorded in Acts 13, when Paul proclaimed Jesus Christ as the Jehovah/Messiah of Psalm 2, he also testified that Jesus is the "Holy One" of Psalm 16. When we examine the context of the verse in Psalm 16 which Paul quoted, we find that the "Holy One," or Messiah, is also called Jehovah, and that He is addressing a second divine Being. As in other passages which reveal two divine Beings, the Massorites altered the name Jehovah to read Adonay. We find this modification in Verse 2 of Psalm 16.

Psalm 16 begins with Davld's prayer to God. In Verse 2, David addresses his God both as "Lord" [Jehovah] and as "my Lord." David is clearly speaking to the same divine Being Who is called "my Lord" in Verse 1 of Psalm 110. As we have seen, this divine Being is the Jehovah Who was prophesied to become the Messiah and Son. David's Lord is revealed in all of David's psalms as the Son. These psalms prophesy that He would be both the Son of David and the Son of Jehovah. In many of these prophecies, we find one divine Being speaking to another, giving us much insight into the relationship that existed before one Jehovah became the Son of the other Jehovah.

It is important to understand that when David wrote of a Father/Son relationship between these two divine Beings, it was yet future. This truth must be emphasized, as false teachers are now claiming that the Son has always been the Son, and that the Father has always been the Father! They ignore the fact that the Scriptures reveal two Jehovahs Who existed side by side until one of these Jehovahs left His glory and became a fleshly human being. This Jehovah became Jesus Christ, the Messiah, Who suffered and died. He did not become the eternal Son of God until the day of His resurrection, as Paul testifies in Acts 13:33, where he quotes Psalm 16.

In Davld's prayer in Psalm 16, David calls the Jehovah Who was prophesied to become the Son by the name El. This fact is significant because El has always been viewed as a divine name referring only to the Father. Here is David's prayer to the Jehovah Who would become the Messiah:

"Preserve me, 0 God [Hebrew El, the future Messiah]: for in Thee do I put my trust. 0 my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD [Hebrew Jehovals, the future Messiah], Thou art my Lord [Hebrew Adonay, originally Jehovah]: my goodness extendeth not to [beyond] Thee; but to [concerning] the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom [them] is all my delight. Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerrings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips. The LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the future Messiah] is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: Thou maintainest my lot. The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage. I will bless the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the future Messiah], who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons" (Psa. 16:1-7).

At this point David ceases to speak about himself. The psalm continues in the first person, but now becomes a prophecy of the Messiah. The Jehovah Who will become the Messiah is addressing the Jehovah Who will become the Father! One Jehovah, the future Messiah, is speaking in the first person to another Jehovah, the future Father, Whom the first Jehovah addresses as "Thou." Notice David's prophecy concerning the Messiah:

"I [the Messiah] have set the LORD [Hebrew Jehovah, the Father] always before Me: because He [the Father] is at My right hand, I [the Messiah] shall not be moved. Therefore My heart is glad, and My glory rejoiceth: My flesh also shall rest in hope [prophesying His death]. For Thou [the Father] wilt not leave My soul in hell [the grave]; neither wilt Thou [the Father] suffer Thine Holy One [the Messiah] to see corruption [prophesying His resurrection]. Thou [the Father] wilt show Me [the Messiah] the path of life [prophesying His ascension]: in Thy presence is fulness of joy; at Thy [the Father's] right hand [where the Messiah sits] there are pleasures for evermore" (Psa. 16:8-1 1). To be continued.

Scientists go back to Big Bang atoms. Daily Telegraph Thursday February 10. 2000 page 17

by Robert Ward.

Physicists have turned back the clock 15 billion years to re-create a type of matter absent since a fraction of a second after the universe was born.

A team of physicists from 25 countries, including Britain, will announce today that they produced the matter by smashing lead atoms together in experiment at CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory in Geneva.

"This matter has never been made by man before and hasn't existed since the first few millionth of a second after the Big Bang." said John Kinson, who led the British team.

"We've always thought that we understood what happened just after the Big Bang, but this is the first experimental evidence that proves our theories are right."

Prof Kinson said the findings did not have obvious commercial applications. "But you would never have found nuclear power by giving money to people who build coal power station instead of spending in on pure science."

Scientists induced the collision of lead atoms travelling at the speed of light inside a particle accelerator. "This created temperatures of a million million degrees, more that 100.00 times hotter that the centre of the Sun, forming a droplet that has the same density as 20 Eiffel Towers compressed to the size of a pinhead," said Prof Kinson.

Ed comment--and my great grandmother was Queen Victoria.

For the uninitiated, The evolutionary idea of the Big Bang is in astronomy, the hypothetical explosive event which marked the origin of the Universe as we know it. At the time of the Big Bang, the entire Universe was squeezed into a hot, super-dense state. The Big Bang explosion threw this material outwards, producing the expanding Universe. The cause of the Big Bang in unknown; observation of the current (1990) rate of expansion of the Universe suggest that it took place between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago. From the Hutchinson concise encyclopiadia page 112.

Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as * Charles Darwin, * Austin Clark, or * Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on (see Order Sheet), only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."-* Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."-* Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of

faith."-* J. W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped. . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life. "- * W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life, " New York Times.

" 'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "-Sir John Ambrose Fleming, FR.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-* H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution, " Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity. "- * W. R. Thompson, Introduction to * Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was 'knowledge falsely so called.' "-* David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."-* Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other. "-J. Bonner, "Book Review, "American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modem times. . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe. "- * Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concemed exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concemed to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.

The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."-* Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist, " Report.' Perspective on the News, VoL 3, June 1966, P. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. "- * Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director ofresearch at the National center of scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"-* Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" 'Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being."-* Thomas Huxley, quoted in * Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."-* Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the 'theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all. "-* R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology, " A merican Naturalist (1 9 76), Vol. I I 0, No. 1, p. I [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation. "- * Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1 981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."-*H. Lipson, 'A Physicist Looks at Evolution, " Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallacel to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, 'All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism. "- * Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolutionfrom Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."-* D.J Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."-* Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1 95 7), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research-paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology-has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."-* Michael Denton, Evolution.. A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity-omnipotent chance."-* T Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."-* Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs-as has been repeatedly shown-the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."-* H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. I].

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."-* B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of doubts about Darwinism (1 982), p. I].

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."-* H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."-Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum ofnatural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusiomnent is practically endless."-* Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theor in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions. "-* Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."-* D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution, " Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."-* Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, 'Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "- * Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, 'Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."-* Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of natural History (November 5, 1981).

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen-belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."-* Arthur X Field.

8 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2000 The Daily telegraph

Scientists "asked to fix results for backer"

By Uz Lightfoot, Education Correspondent

ONE in three scientists working for Government quangos or newly privatised laboratories says he has been asked to adjust his conclusions to suit his sponsor.

Contracting out and the commercialisation of scientific research are threatening standards of impartiality, scientists claim. The survey was conducted by the union ,representing research scientists, which is campaigning, against further privatisation of public laboratories.

The Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists says that public, safety could be harmed by the Government's plans to bring private funding into the National Air Traffic Services and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.

Privatisations over the last few years have included the Radio Chemical Centre, now Nycomed Amersham Laboratories, and the Atomic Energy Authority, which trades as AEA Technology.

Charles Harvey, the institute's spokesman, said an increasing number of scientists had privately raised concerns with the union so it had decided to include a question about the influence of sponsors in a survey about pay and conditions.

Thirty per cent of the 500 respondents said they had been asked to tailor their research conclusions or resulting advice.

The figure included 17 per cent who had been asked to change their conclusions to suit the customer's preferred outcome, 10 per cent who said they had been asked to do so to obtain further contracts and three per cent who claimed they had been asked to make changes to discourage publication.

"Some were working for quangos and some for fully privatised laboratories,"said Mr Harvey. "The piper is calling the tune and it raises worrying issues.

"We have seen the BSE crisis, food scares and the GMO debacle and the public is losing confidence in Government as an independent, fair-minded arbiter."

Scientists should be given the right to publish their research instead of having to get permission from the sponsors, he said.

Concern over pressure brought to bear on medical researchers has prompted the British Medical Journal to insist that authors declare their source of funding and whether they have any "competing interests".

They must fill in a form declaring, for example, whether they have been paid to lecture or attend symposiums by companies connected with their work, or hold shares in them.

Richard Smith, editor of the journal, said the policy had been formally introduced because of evidence that the authors of reviews of research evidence were influenced by those who commissioned them to do the work.

Research into the funding of 10 papers on the alleged blood clotting risk of the third generation contraceptive pills found those funded by the pharmaceutical industry had discovered no risk, whereas those with other sources of funding claimed there was, he said.

Recent American research had also discovered links between studies which found passive smoking was not dangerous and the tobacco industry.

"These competing interests are very important,' said Dr Smith. "It has quite a profound influence on the conclusions and we deceive ourselves if we think science is wholly impartial."

Church of God African HQ, P.O. BOX 65 Prestea; West Region; Ghana; West Africa

Church of God, P.O. Box 53. Farnborough, Hants. GU14OYZ UK .

Church of God meets at Oak Farm School 3-5 Saturdays phone for local details