Charles Darwin

There are only three options for the existence of the universe:

1. It has always been.

2. It created itself.

3. It was created by something or someone outside of itself.

Let's walk back through these and see which of these options is the most reasonable to believe. The first option, that the universe has always been (i.e., it is eternal), has been utterly rejected by the scientific community. Why?

The scientific evidence against an eternal universe has demolished this theory. Numerous evidences from the field of astronomy, such as:

• The Background Radiation Echo

• The Second Law of Thermodynamics

• The Motion of the Galaxies

…now overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe actually began to exist a finite time ago in an event when all…

• the physical space

• time

• matter

• and energy

….in the universe came into being.

We don't have time to discuss all of these evidences, but the consensus amongst the majority of astronomers is this: The universe began to exist. Stephen Hawking, the very popular and immensely respected astronomer from Cambridge University, agrees. He says, "Almost everyone believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning." [Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.]

That's interesting. This is in perfect harmony with what the Bible says (in the very first verse!)…

Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

The Bible makes it very clear that the universe actually had a beginning, exactly like the scientific community has discovered-more than 3,000 years after Moses penned those words.

Arno Penzias, who was awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering evidence (the background radiation echo) that the universe did have a beginning, agrees that the scientific data lines right up with the Bible. He said: "The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole." [Cited by John Lennox in Ravi Zacharias, editor, Beyond Opinion, 2007, p. 121]

Now because the universe had a beginning, that rules out option 1, that the universe has always been. That leaves us with two options for the existence of the universe:

2. It created itself.

3. It was created by someone or something outside of itself.

Option two, that the universe created itself, is philosophically impossible.

The atheist asks, "Why?"

Well, of course, before the universe existed it would not have been around to do the creating. Obviously, a non-existent universe could not have done anything! It did not exist. Ask most atheists, "What was around before the universe came into being?" and they will say, as does the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins: "Nothing." [Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, (First Mariner Books, fifth edition, 2005), p. 613]

Well, we all know that nothing can not do anything. What is nothing? Have you thought about that? Right here; this is what nothing looks like…[fade PowerPoint to black screen]. What is nothing? No - thing. No-thing can't do anything. It cannot see, smell, act, think, let alone create something. In fact, it sounds pretty ridiculous for me to even refer to nothing as an "it" because nothing is not even that!

Even David Hume (1711 - 1776), one of the most zealous skeptics of Christianity ever, agreed that things don't just pop themselves into existence. In 1754, he wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."[David Hume, The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols., ed. J Y. T. Greig (Oxford: Clarendon, 1932), 1:187]

The impossibility of something creating itself is in harmony with a basic law of physics called "The Law of Energy and Matter Conservation." If you've ever had a physics class you'll recall this. It basically states: "From nothing, comes nothing." Now, I don't know who the rocket scientist was who finally penned this down, but this is considered to be a bedrock law of science. Why? Well, there has never been a single observed instance in the history of mankind in which this law has been violated. Can you imagine turning on the news and seeing the headline: "Nothing caught doing something on film! See the footage at eleven."What? No. You'd think, "What channel is this?! What's going on here."

Even the well-known atheist, J.L. Mackie said: "I myself find it hard to accept the notion of self-creation from nothing, even given unrestricted chance." [J. L. Mackie, Times Literary Supplement, February 5, 1982, p. 126.]

So, there are three options for the existence of the universe…

1. It has always been.

2. It created itself.

3. It was created by someone or something outside of itself.

Option one and two can be thrown out on scientific and philosophical grounds. (You don't even need to bring the Bible into the debate to rule out these first two options.) Option three, that someone or something outside of the universe (i.e., God) created the universe, is the only reasonable option.

The existence of the universe has led many people to conclude that God must exist, including, Charles Darwin himself . Darwin said, "[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." [Cited by Antony Flew in There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 2007, p. 106]

Isn't it ironic that so many atheists today consider Charles Darwin their hero --many of them not knowing that he himself actually believed in a creator ? The universe compelled Darwin to believe in an intelligent mind that brought it all together.

SKEPTIC: Well Charlie, you know, I just have a hard time believing in something that I can not see.

I understand that. I struggled with that as well. Let me help you think through this. Let's imagine I have a painting. Question: When you see a painting, what proof do you need to establish the fact that a painter exists? Well, the obvious answer is nothing besides the painting itself. The painting itself is absolute proof that there was a painter. You do not need to see the painter to believe that he or she exists. The painting is all the evidence you need. The painting would not be there if the painter did not exist; and so it is with the universe. The existence of the universe (a giant painting if you will) itself proves absolutely that there is a creator.

I believe that it takes far more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God. Atheists believe that everything that exists (the entire universe) came from nothing and by nothing. That takes a lot of faith!

So the first reason I believe that God exists is the cosmos.

The second reason I believe that God exists is…

SKEPTIC: "Charlie, not so fast here; I have a question. If the cosmos demands a creator, then why can't we just say God must have a creator as well?"

ME: This is a very common question that people have. In other words: WHO MADE GOD? Nobody made God. Unlike the finite universe that demands a creator, God does not need a creator.

SKEPTIC: Why?

ME: Because He is eternal . Someone who has always existed does not need a creator or someone to have brought Him into existence, because He's always been. Psalm 90:2 says, "Even from everlasting to everlasting You are God." God is eternal. But the universe falls into an entirely different category. As the scientific discoveries have shown, it has not always existed. And anything that begins to exist, requires a cause or maker. Things don't just pop into existence all on their own. Nothing does not produce something.

SKEPTIC: Okay Charlie that makes sense, but you believe that God has just always existed?"

ME: Yes.

SKEPTIC: Impossible!

ME: Well, before you scoff at the notion of God having always existed, keep this in mind: something must have always existed. Do you realize that?

SKEPTIC: Why do you think that?

ME: Well, think through this with me: If nothing cannot produce something, and yet

something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has always existed (in order to bring the something into existence). Think of it this way:

1. If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.

2. Something exists now.

3. Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed.

So, to answer the question, Who made God? we say: No one. God is eternal and does not need a maker. The universe is not eternal and does require a maker. Now, obviously more could be said about this, but for time's sake, let's move along.

The second reason you can be confident that God exists is…

2. THE CONDITIONS FOR LIFE

What am I talking about? Well the more scientists study the universe, the more they discover that conditions in the universe appear to have been extremely fine-tuned (designed) to permit life. Scientists call this apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe the "Anthropic Principle."

The word anthropic comes from the Greek word anthropos which means "human" or "man." So the term "Anthropic Principle" is just a fancy name to describe the numerous highly improbable environmental conditions that exist in the universe that make life possible.

Numerous conditions have been identified that have to have just the right values (in other words, they need to be "tuned" to just the right degree) for any kind of conceivable physical life to exist in the universe.

If any of these conditions were to change even a little, the universe would be hostile to life and incapable of supporting it. I'll quickly mention a few of these conditions and then I'll tell you why many scientists think they point to the existence of a designer.

The first life-permitting condition is the force of gravity. If the force of gravity were much stronger everything would collapse. If it were much weaker everything would drift apart. If the speed of light or the mass of an electron, were even slightly different there would be no planet capable of supporting human life. If the force that binds subatomic particles (such as neutrons and protons) together within the nuclei of atoms were stronger or weaker by more than about one percent, the universe would be either all hydrogen or have no hydrogen at all. The energy levels in carbon atoms are just right for life to exist. Change them a little and the universe would be incapable of supporting life. And we could go on and on.

When it comes to these kinds of conditions, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, states that if any of these constants "was off by even one part in a million, or in some cases, by one part in a million million...there would have been no galaxy, stars, planets or people." [August 2006 interview with Salon.com]

Now, the odds that so many conditions in the universe could be so finely tuned has led many cosmologists and physicists to conclude that something supernatural is going on behind the scenes.

Stephen Hawking said, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." And elsewhere: "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." [Brief History of Time, p. 125. Second quote is in Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, p. 134.]

So even scientists, like Stephen Hawking, who don't consider themselves Christians are bringing God into the conversation when they discuss these finely-tuned life-permitting conditions.Hawking is not saying that he believes in God. He remains agnostic on the issue. He's just saying that it is very difficult to explain all of these life-permitting conditions apart from a God.

Well, this conclusion (that God is behind it all) of course does not sit well with atheists who are committed to a godless universe. So where do they run? How do they explain the fine-tuning of the universe?

(They do acknowledge that what appears to be "fine tuning" exists.) So what do they do with it? Well, they-and this includes the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins-explain away the apparent fine-tuning of the universe with a fairy-tale like hypothesis called "The Multiverse."

The multiverse? What's that?

Their "multiverse" hypothesis says that there are an infinite number of universes (thus the term "multi-verse") and that somewhere in the mix of all these universes a finely-tuned universe will appear by chance alone. And we humans just happen to live in that finely-tuned universe (So, 'There's no need to believe in God!' they say. 'This universe ended up like this by chance!').

Well friends, this is a desperate theory that atheists have come up with. What evidence is there for the existence of a multiverse? There is none. There is not a shred of evidence that there is even one universe outside our own, let alone an infinite amount of universes. I find it ironic that atheists always tout their interest in observational evidence but when faced with the observational evidence of fine-tuning, they retreat to an elaborate scheme that has no observational evidence to support it. None! And even if their multiverse theory wascorrect (and there are millions of universes in addition to our own), that still does not end the debate over the existence of God, for the question would remain:

How did those universes come into existence?

Nothing does not produce something.

I think the multiverse theory actually makes the atheist's dilemma more difficult. For, if the multiverse theory were true, "nothing" not only made one universe, nothing made a lot of universes. Well, I don't have enough faith to believe in a multiverse. The incredible fine-tuning of thisuniverse-the only one we know exists-is compelling evidence for the existence of God.

A third reason you can be confident that God exists is…

3. THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE

Let's imagine for a few minutes that you have decided to go on a two week cruise to Tahiti, compliments of your boss. Sound nice? Well it seemed like a good idea but someone forgot to check the weather report. And much to your horror, the largest storm that the South Pacific has ever seen capsizes your cruise liner and sends you and the others out into the middle of the Pacific Ocean for a night.

You awake to find yourself shipwrecked on an island somewhere in the South Pacific. As you walk around the island with one of the other survivors, you begin to wonder if there might be any intelligent life there on the island that may be able to help you get home. As you're walking along the shore you spot something lying there in the sand. Upon closer examination you discover what appears to be an arrowhead.

Question: After this initial discovery, what do you think the chances are that human life might exist on the island? Pretty good. Now, it may not be the kind of intelligent life you are hoping for. It may be a tribe of headhunters!

Much to your surprise, the other person who survived the shipwreck with you, suggests that, "Well, let's not get too excited about going home anytime soon. Perhaps over billions of years the wind and the waves and the rising and falling of the tides just happened to form a rock that looks like an arrowhead."

Finding that hard to believe, you agree to remain open-minded and continue searching. Another mile down the beach, you discover what appears to be a canoe anchored up on the shoreline. Now you're convinced that some sort of intelligent life must exist on the island! But just in time to dampen your enthusiasm, your new friend and fellow shipwreck survivor suggests that: "Perhaps millions of years of storms and waves just shaped a pile of driftwood into what appears to be a well designed canoe-shaped boat."

Okay. Now, finding the statement about the canoe even harder to believe than the comments about the arrowhead, you agree to continue searching. A hundred yards down the beach you encounter what appears to be writing in the sand. The letters spell out the word "Welcome." You look over at your open-minded evolutionist friend only to hear him say, "Perhaps the wind and the waves just formed that sequence of letters."

Now, what would you say to this person who thinks that simple things like arrowheads, canoes, and letters in the sand may have evolved?

__ A. "You're probably right. Please forgive me for believing that intelligent life brought these things about."

__ B. "What have you been smoking?"

I'm sure that most of us here would conclude that the arrowhead, canoe, and the letters in the sand were surely designed by some intelligent life form. Why?

Design is not hard to recognize.

And everywhere we look on planet earth we find amazingly complex life forms that are millions of times more complex than arrowheads or canoes. This amazing complexity that permeates all of life is another reason why more and more scientists are concluding an intelligent designer must exist.

Let's consider some of the complexity we see in nature and for time's sake let's just limit our consideration to the human boy. It has an amazingly complex:

• Nervous system

• Cardiovascular system

• Reproductive capability

• Skeletal system

• Muscle system

• Digestive system

• Ability to heal itself

• And fight off diseases

I find it difficult to believe that the human body could have come into existence by some mindless process, apart from an incredibly intelligent designer, even given millions of years.

You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to,

• Wind

• Rain

• The forces of nature

• Chance

• And millions of years of time

…and you would never get a Mt. Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention. [It took 400 intelligent workers fourteen years (1927-1941) to carve those four faces. And George and Abe just stare at you. They don't talk. They don't smile. They don't do anything. How much more intelligence would it take to create a living breathing human being? Good question.]

As Dr. Norman Geisler points out, it would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and it would take even greater intelligence to create a real human being.

No one alive today would believe that the faces of Mt. Rushmore came about by millions of years of...

• Erosion

• Wind

• Rain

• And undirected random acts.

And yet atheists believe that real-life human beings with…

• 206 bones

• 640 muscles

• and hearts that beat over 100,000 times a day

…are the product of a mindless, random series of accidents. This is foolish.

Not only is the body as a whole incredibly complex, the individual parts making up the body are highly complex. The late agnostic astronomer Carl Sagan conceded that the brain alone is a "machine more wonderful than any devised by humans" and that it holds enough information to "fill some twenty million volumes." [Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1985, p. 230]

Is it possible that this "machine more wonderful than any devised by humans" came into being from nothing, by nothing, and then evolved via some mindless, random series of accidents, as evolutionists believe?

I don't have enough faith to believe that.

Consider the heart. The heart, a muscle about the size of a man's fist, contracts and forces blood through 60,000 miles of veins, arteries and capillaries in your body. Every hour it pumps about 75 gallons of blood totalling more than 50,000 gallons every month.

A good question to ask atheists is: What do you think evolved first? Hearts, blood or veins?

ATHEIST: Hearts.

ME: All right. What did they do? What did they pump?

ATHEIST: Maybe blood evolved first.

ME: All right. What did it do? Where did it go? How did it get there?

ATHEIST: Well, maybe veins evolved first.

ME: All right. What did they do? What did they carry? What were they connected to?

ATHEIST: I don't like this question.

Yes, this is a dilemma for the atheist.

Consider the human eye. The eye is composed of more than two million working parts.

[J.P. Moreland and Tim Muehlhoff, The God Conversation, p. 1]

The eye is a ball with:

• a lens on one side

• and a light sensitive retina made up of rods and cones inside the other

• The lens itself has a sturdy protective covering called a cornea

• and sits over an iris designed to protect the eye from excessive light

• The eye contains an amazing watery substance that is replaced every four hours

• Tear glands continuously flush the outside clean

• An eyelid sweeps secretions over the cornea to keep it moist

• Eyelashes protect it from dust

• And extraordinarily fine tuned muscles are attached to the eye that move the eye and shape the lens for the function of focus. [Adapted from Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws, 2003, p. 43]

The eye is far more complex and advanced than the world's greatest auto-focus camera that took researchers and developers numerous years and millions of dollars to design and create. Did this amazing piece of complex machinery (the eye) come together by some mindless process and random series of accidents? Atheists muster up the faith to answer "Yes" to that question. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Even the most well known Darwinist of all time had difficulties believing that the eye came into being by blind forces. Who am I talking about? Charles Darwin. Darwin himself found it hard to accept the notion that the eye could be the product of evolution. Before his death, he said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." [Letter to Asa Gray, 8 or 9 February 1860. In F. Burkhardt and S. Smith (eds.), The Correspondence of Charles Darwin 1860 (1993), Vol. 8, p. 75.]

In his famous book, On The Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin said, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable [matchless] contrivances [plans] for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." [p. 217]

Not only does the body as a whole, the brain and the eye point to an intelligent designer, so does something as small as a living cell. A cell is considered the smallest unit of matter alive and measures less than a thousandth of an inch in diameter. In Darwin's day, cells appeared to be little unsophisticated globs of jello, mysterious little parts of life that no one could see into.

But now that we have the ability to peer into the cell with electron microscopes, we see that life down at the cellular level is immeasurably more complex than Darwin ever dreamed.

Speaking about the cell, Dr. Walter Bradley, a respected scientist and author of The Mystery of Life's Origin, says: "A one-cell organism is more complicated than anything we've been able to recreate through supercomputers." [Interview with Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, 2000, p. 98]

According to Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, widely regarded as the greatest chemist of the twentieth century, just one living cell in the human body is, "more complex than New York city." [Cited in Dave Hunt, In Defense of the Faith, 1996, p. 22].

I don't know if you have been to New York city, but it is one complex place. With eight million residents, it is the largest, and probably most complex city in the United States. Imagine for a moment how complex New York City is:

• Hundreds of skyscrapers

• Hundreds of thousands of residences and offices

• Subways zipping around under ground

• Hundreds of taxi cabs racing around

• Planes landing at all hours of the day

• Ships pulling in and out

Now imagine packing that kind of complexity into a single cell inside your body. And that is just the beginning. Your body is comprised of thousands of different kinds of cells totaling more than: 100,000,000,000,000 (100 trillion) in number. And your body makes millions of new cells every second and they all work together!

How do they all work together? How do they know what to do, where to go, what organs to produce, what color hair to produce, what to do when you cut yourself? Ahhh, it's the DNA in the cell. The six feet of coiled up DNA in every one of your cells contains a staggering amount of detailed complex information and instruction that tells each cell how to function, where to go, what to do.

Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, said this about DNA: "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created." [Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, 1996, p. 228]

Where did this staggering amount of complex detailed information in a cell's DNA (that is far more advanced than any software Microsoft ever created) come from? Computer programs do not write themselves. A programmer is always involved. Even if you provide lots of time, a computer program cannot write itself. The same is true with the complex information stored in DNA. Where did it come from?

Perhaps skeptics should consider what the late Oxford professor Antony Flew had to say. Up until 2004, Antony Flew was widely considered the world's most influential atheistic philosopher, author and debater. In December of 2004 news came out that Flew had abandoned his atheism and now believed that God must exist. What changed his mind?

Antony Flew said: "Yes, I now think it does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together." [Antony Flew, There Is A God, How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 2007, p. 75]

The title of Antony Flew's newest book? There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Antony Flew is not alone in abandoning atheism and naturalistic explanations for the complexity of life.

Hundreds of Ph.D. scientists, from prestigious institutions like:

• U.C. Berkeley

• U.C.L.A.

• Cambridge University

• Yale

• Princeton

• Stanford

• M.I.T.

• Harvard

• and The Smithsonian

are expressing their skepticism of Darwinism. These scientists are even signing their names to a statement expressing their doubts regarding Darwinism. You can see the statement, their names, and the institutions they are from, at: www.DissentFromDarwin.org

The next time a professor makes your son or daughter feel like a fool for believing in God, you might go to this webstie and print ou the long list of all these Ph.D. scientists and give it to him and assure him that he is standing in good company when he expresses his doubts regarding Darwinism. You might also remind him or her that many of the most brilliant scientists to have ever lived, men like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, and Albert Einstein, all believed in God's existence.

If arrowheads, canoes and simple messages in the sand point to an intelligent designer, even more we are justified in believing that the complexity in living organisms points to an intelligent designer.

The fourth reason you can be confident that God exists is…

4. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

The Bible is a book unlike any other book. It is a compilation of 66 different books written by more than 40 different authors, over a period of 1,500 years, on three different continents, in three different languages.

Over and over the authors of the Bible claim to be recording events and writing words that they said they were inspired to write by God Himself (2 Tim. 3:16).

And of course, the Bible reveals to us very plainly

• God exists

• what He is like

• and what His will is for our lives

SKEPTIC: "Charlie, this doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible is true."

Right. But, the Bible doesn't just make these claims. It demonstrates itself, unlike any other ancient religious writing, to be divinely inspired and historically reliable with…

• Hundreds of fulfilled prophecies

• Its amazing internal harmony

• Its amazing scientific accuracy and foresight

• More than 25,000 archaeological discoveries

• Etc.

(Click here to read more about this particular evidence. I also have done an hour long DVD on this topic: Amazing Evidence for the Trustworthiness of the Bible).

The fifth reason you can be confident God exists is…

5. CHRIST

Many who doubt the existence of God have reassured themselves with the thought, "If God wanted us to believe in Him, He would appear to us." Well, we have to be careful when we talk about wanting God to appear to us. If He were to do that in all His glory, while we were in our sinful fallen condition, the Bible says we would not live through the experience (Ex. 33:20, 1 Tim. 6:15-16, John 1:18) . But what if God was to veil His glory and appear to mankind in the form of a man, someone mankind could really relate with? What kind of a man would God be?

Someone wisely pointed out that, "We would expect Him to be sinless; we would expect him to be holy; we would expect His words to be the greatest words ever spoken; we would expect Him to exert a profound power over human personality; we would expect Him to perform supernatural doings; and we would expect Him to manifest the love of God." [John MacArthur summarizing a teaching by Bernard Ramm.]

Hmmm. Has anyone ever come on the world's scene, who claimed to be God and who met all of those criteria? Ahh, of all the human beings who have ever lived, Jesus Christ alone met these criteria. When someone says, "If God wanted us to believe in Him, He would appear to us," I like to tell them that is what God has already done.

The Bible tells us that Jesus was God in human flesh (Isaiah 9:6, Colossians 2:9, John 20:28) and Jesus Himself made that clear in verses like John 5:18 and John 8:58.

And Jesus didn't just claim to be God. Anybody can do that. Lee Boyd Malvo, the Washington D.C. sniper, claimed to be God. David Koresh, down in Waco, Texas, claimed to be God. So anyone can make the claim and Jesus knew that. So what did Jesus do? He went around proving that He was God by doing things that only God can do.

• He opened the eyes of the blind

• He healed the lame

• He raised the dead

• He walked on water

• He lived a sinless life

• He rose from the grave three days after He was put to death

• And He ascended into heaven visibly right before His disciples' eyes

These are just a few of the miracles that the disciples recorded for us in the New Testament that help substantiate Jesus' claims to deity.

SKEPTIC: "Hold on here a second Charlie! That doesn't mean that what the disciples said about Him was actually true. Perhaps they were making up this whole story about Jesus' resurrection."

I find it hard to believe that these men were lying. Think back to the times you have lied. People lie to get out of trouble. But the things the disciples went around saying about Jesus got them in trouble. Lots of trouble.

Historians such as Flavius Josephus, Eusebius and others, record for us that Jesus' disciples went to their graves, one-by-one, suffering and dying painful deaths, for their on-going belief and preaching that Jesus was Lord and was risen from the dead. We are told that...

• Matthew was slain with a halberd (similar to an axe) in Ethiopia

• Mark died in Alexandria, in Northern Egypt, after having been cruelly dragged through the streets of that city

• Luke was hung upon an olive tree in Greece

• James was beheaded in Jerusalem

• Philip was hung up against a pillar in the city of Heiropolis and stoned to death

• Bartholomew was flayed alive

• Jude was shot to death with arrows

• Andrew was bound to a cross, and left to die

• Barnabas was stoned to death

• Paul, after a variety of floggings, tortures and persecutions, was beheaded in Rome

• Thomas was run through the body with a lance in southeast India

• Peter was crucified (just as Jesus told him he would be in John 21) in Rome, upside down

Were these men lying?

I find it hard to believe that men, willing to die these kind of slow, painful deaths, were "making up a story" about Jesus. People may be willing to die for something that they think or hope is true (e.g., Kamikaze pilots, Muslim terrorists), but nobody willingly dies for something they know is a lie.

Jesus' disciples sealed their testimonies with their own blood, claiming all the way to the end that the long-awaited Savior and God of the world had lived among them, that He had become a sacrifice for sin, and that He had risen from the dead.

That, to me, is compelling evidence that these men were telling the truth about Jesus.

So, we have the evidence of,

1. The Cosmos

2. The Conditions for Life

3. The Complexity of Life

4. The Canon of Scripture

5. The Christ

This kind of evidence should bring great joy to your heart. All of this is a reminder that there is a God in Heaven! If you have placed your faith in Jesus Christ, you haven't followed after some cleverly devised tales. Your faith isn't grounded in wishful thinking. Your faith is grounded in the truth. There is good evidence that the God of the Bible is actually there. What good news this is!

You are not part of some gigantic cosmic accident! You are not just some conglomeration of cells walking around without meaning on a random planet all alone in the universe. You're not the result of millions of years of evolution. No. You are one of God's creations. He formed you in your mother's womb. The Bible says that you are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) and that God has a purpose for your life. Do you know that? Do you know that God loves you? He desires to have a close, intimate, personal relationship with each one of you.

Do you have that kind of a relationship with God? You can.

Two thousand years ago Jesus died on that cruel wooden Roman cross to take the punishment for your sins so that you could be forgiven, saved from the coming judgment of God, and come to experience the greatest relationship you'll ever know: knowing God personally, not only in this life but throughout eternity. If you'll acknowledge your sinfulness to God, turn away from your sinful way of living, and place your trust in Jesus Christ, you can be forgiven and reconciled to God today.

No. The story traces back to Lady Hope. In a publication 33 years after Darwin's death Lady Hope claimed that Darwin was reading the Bible, that he made some non-committal statements, and that he had asked her to speak to his servants about Jesus. Lady Hope did not claim that Darwin became a Christian, nor did she say he denied evolution. This conversation, if it happened, was during a visit than half a year before Darwin's death.

All of Darwin's writings up until the end, including those after the claimed conversation, are all supportive of Evolution and being agnostic. When stories arose about Darwin converting or denying evolution, Darwin's wife and all of his children denounced it as a fabrication. One of the tensions between Darwin and his wife was her deep faith and his agnosticism. If the stories of conversion and recantation were true then his wife certainly would not have denied it.

Historians consider this to be an urban legend. Even the Creationist organisation answersingenesis says: Lady Hope's story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution.

No, Charles Darwin was British. He was born on 12th February 1809 in Shrewsbury England.

For more information see the answer to the Related Question shown below.