The Clumsy Works of Nature

Charles Darwin, along with Alfred Russel Wallace, was a co-discoverer of "natural selection." The modern definition of natural selection is "A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations."

This "natural selection" can be seen throughout creation, as different plants adapt to soil conditions or to climate, or animals adapt because of predators or because of selective interbreeding.

However, every animal that adapts, always stays within its own kind. Cats don’t bred and become another kind of animal. No animal is transformed into another "kind." This is often referred to as "micro evolution"--a small change that happens within a species or within a certain "kind" of animal. Birds remain birds, animals remain animals, and plants remain plants.

Darwin was anguished over what he saw in natural selection. He spoke of it as "the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horridly cruel works of nature." It is a cruel work of nature when a painful disease kills the weakest of children (three of Darwin’s children died before they reached adulthood), or a weak and innocent deer is devoured by a stronger and vicious predator.

The Book of Genesis speaks of this terrible state of nature as being a "fallen" creation that is filled with disease, death and decay. The Book of Romans also addresses the "cruel works" of fallen nature by calling it "the bondage of corruption" and saying that "the whole creation groans and travails in pain together."

However, those who reject the Genesis account of the Fall end up in an ocean without a rudder. They are blown about by the many winds of speculation. After addressing the truth of micro-evolution, Darwin makes the speculation that perhaps (like plants and animals) mankind also adapted, over a great deal of time, and natural selection took him from primitive primate to human.

The problem with his theory is that nowhere in the entire creation do we see natural selection taking one species and change it into another species. Neither is there evidence of any species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record. Every animal brings forth after its own kind, just as it is stated in the Genesis account.

Not only was Darwin’s leap of speculation completely unscientific, there were other serious difficulties. Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection, declared that natural selection could not account for humanity's intellectual and moral abilities. Why then was such unscientific conjecture so embraced by so many?

When, On Origin of Species was first published, English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley said that it was a "veritable Whitworth gun in the armory of liberalism," and though he wasn’t convinced about natural selection, he proceeded to position himself as "Darwin's bulldog." Think of it. Even though Huxley didn’t believe the theory, he backed it and said that it was massive weapon that promised freedom. Freedom from what? The Theory of Evolution promised mankind liberty from any ultimate moral responsibility to God. Evolution got rid of sin, the Fall, and most of all, man’s accountability to his Maker.

According to Douglas Futuyma, professor of evolutionary biology at the State University of New York, "Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) concept of natural selection made this 'argument from design' completely superfluous . . . it provided a purely natural explanation for order and the appearance of design." In other words, evolution paved the way for atheism.

As one commentator said, "Darwinism is also ferociously savage -- the weeds die out, the fittest survive, there is no moral universe because all is pre-programmed and we have no free choice." The die-hard Darwinist believes that there is no moral universe. Such is the tragic delusion of the Theory of evolution.

If Everybody had a Notion, Across the USA

An Atheist wrote and said, "What do Darwin's personal views on race have to do with our modern understanding of evolution? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, Ray. Even a fool knows this." Indeed, Darwin’s racism has nothing to do with the credibility of the theory of evolution. It should stand or fall on its own merits. However, the theory itself teaches that all men are not created equal. Darwinian evolution doesn’t say that human beings are made in the image of God and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It rather states that they are mere animals, some closer to apes than others. It opens wide the door to racism.

An article entitled "Americans still linking blacks to apes" on scienceblog.com, presented the findings of research done by psychologists at Stanford, Pennsylvania State University and the University of California-Berkeley. Co-author of the study, Jennifer Eberhardt, said, "It's a legacy of our past that the endpoint of evolution is a white man . . . I don't think it's intentional, but when people learn about human evolution, they walk away with a notion that people of African descent are closer to apes than people of European descent." I wonder where they get that notion from?

How to Stir up a Hornet's Nest

It's interesting that a number of Atheists have agreed with me in my belief that Darwin was a racist. They said, "I feel no compelling need to justify Charles Darwin's racism," and, "And why do you assume that Darwin's racism was shaped by his belief in evolution? The man lived at a time when Blacks in many western nations were still owned as chattels, when creationist anthropologists freely speculated that the different races were separately created species (a view Darwin undertook to refute). The idea of races arranged on a ladder from 'lowest' to 'highest' (generally with one's own subgroup on top) was a commonplace among creationists of his day." And, "Of course Darwin was racist, he lived in a society in which racism was the norm . . ."

However, after much research, I do concede that you won’t find anything in Darwin’s writings that would indicate that he in any way felt blacks were to be treated as inferior or that his views of them were due to their skin color. He just thought that they were closer to gorillas than whites. Imagine if you said that on prime time TV. You would stir up a hornets' nest. Then imagine trying to justify your belief by saying that you despise slavery and that you think Black people are intelligent and friendly. You could also add that your convictions that they are closer to gorillas than whites has nothing to do with skin color.

Evolutionary scientist and author of, Darwin: The Indelible Stamp: The Evolution of an Idea, got himself into very hot water back in 2007. According to the Associated Press: "The Independent newspaper put Watson on its front page, against the words: 'Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer.'" The Sunday Times reported, "One of the world’s most respected scientists is embroiled in an extraordinary row after claiming that black people are less intelligent than white people. James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, has provoked outrage with his comments, made ahead of his arrival in Britain today."

Like Darwin, Watson's belief had nothing to nothing to do with skin color. He said that we should not discriminate on the basis of color, because "there are many people of color who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level." He just thought that white people are more intelligent than blacks. For that, he was labeled a blatant racist by many in contemporary society.

So, if I am right and Charles Darwin was a racist by today’s standards, why not simply accept it and move on? Why did so many resort to name-calling?

• "You are an absolute @$!*!, a $#!*, a prostitute, a whore in the name Jesus. . . You deserve the worse that a hell could provide . . . I truly despise you Ray." G.E.
• "Ray you are nothing be a deceitful snake oil salesman..."
• "I truly find you detestable."
• "You are disgusting Ray. A disgusting inhuman wretch."
• "You really are pond scum."
• "Ray, I can't state enough how much of a pitiful little rat you are. You are a coward of the highest order."
• "You should go back to your home country and convert some stupid people there.
• "No! We don't want him back!"
• "You stink."

In a debate, when your opponent falls back on childish name-calling, it reveals that he is feeling frustrated because he is losing the argument. I can understand why so many feel that way. In November, 2009, more than 100,000 university students are going to see how they have been duped by an unscientific theory. Then again, they may simply read the Introduction, write me off as a buffoon--the crazy banana guy, and be strengthened in their convictions that evolution is indeed true. Let’s see what happens.

One more thing. I have never hidden my agenda. All I want is for people to doubt evolution enough to re-examine the claims of the gospel. This is because I believe that there’s nothing more important than where you will spend eternity. I love you guys, and I will be praying for you more often. No doubt you will be "thinking" for me. Thanks.

Notes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21362732/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece

PS: An Atheist wrote and said, "What do Darwin's personal views on race have to do with our modern understanding of evolution? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, Ray. Even a fool knows this."
Indeed, Darwin’s racism has nothing to do with the credibility of the theory of evolution. It should stand or fall on its own merits. However, the theory itself teaches that all men are not created equal. Darwinian evolution doesn’t say that human beings are made in the image of God and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It rather states that they are mere animals, some closer to apes than others. It opens wide the door to racism.

My Apologies...I Was Wrong

I am often accused by Atheists of refusing to admit when I am in error, but I was certainly was wrong this time.

Last week I said that Charles Darwin wasn’t a racist, and that even if he was, his personal morality was irrelevant when it came to the theory of evolution. But after studying him closely, I have changed my mind.

Let’s look at his own words:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

While the above quote seems as nebulous as one of the prophesies of Nostradamus, close study reveals Darwin’s point. He is predicting that civilized races would replace savage races. The gap between savages and the civilized races would become wider, like the gap he saw between the white races and the ape. That means that there would no longer be a closeness, such as the one he saw between the negro and the gorilla.

He was saying that Blacks were closer to gorillas than the whites were. Who could deny that this is a blatantly racist statement, particularly when contemporary society says that just saying or even putting the "n" word in print, is racism? Yet modern admirers of Darwin try and justify his racism by saying that he loved the Negro, and that he spoke kindly of their intelligence. He wrote during his voyage on the Beagle, "I never saw anything more intelligent than the Negros, especially the Negro or Mulatto children."

After reading Life with a Black Regiment, Darwin wrote to the author to thank him "heartily for the very great pleasure" which it gave him: "I always thought well of the Negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed." He despised proponents of slavery, referring to them as "the polished savages in England," while saying of a black lieutenant that he’d never met anywhere "a more civil and obliging man."

Charles Darwin believed that the black race was closer to the gorilla than the white race, but he thought that they were friendly, well-behaved, and intelligent. His attitude was similar to that of a man who likes well-trained dogs. He thinks that they are friendly, well-behaved, and some are extremely intelligent.

His racism was blatant, indefensible, and was shaped by his belief in evolution.

Notes:
Charles Darwin, Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1871), p. 521.
Charles Darwin, Charles Darwin’s Beagle Diary (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 71, Jan. 20, 1832.
Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (London: John Murray, 1887), p. 188.
Beagle Diary, p. 122, March 12, 1832.
Charles Darwin, Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle, Vol. III (London: Henry Colburn, 1839), p. 88.

This Was Predictable:
"captain howdy said... Ray lectures us--His racism was blatant, indefensible, and was shaped by his belief in evolution. Here's what your own 'holy' book says about slavery:

Leviticus 25:44-46 (New International Version): 44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Exodus 21:20-21 (New International Version): 20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

You say racism is indefensible. Is slavery indefensible too? If not, why not? If it is, why do you concentrate on Darwin's alleged racism but mysteriously fall silent about your own religion's support and outright endorsement of the filthy practice of slavery? You're a complete hypocrite, Ray."

My reply: "Captain...I find it interesting that you didn't try and justify Darwin's racism--because you can't. Instead, you resort to name-calling, and pointing at another issue--slavery. The problem is, you look at the issue through the colored glasses of cruel American slavery. You think of whips and chains, because our history shapes the word that way for you. In the Bible, the word "slave" and the word "servant" are interchangable. Replace the word "slave" with the word "servant" and it will bring things into perspective for you. By the way; I am fully aware that sinful men justified American slavery from these and other Bible verses. All that does, is confirm that the human heart truly is wicked (including mine). Thanks for your thoughts."

The Origin of Species Giveaway

This thing is exploding:

Kirk on TMZ:
http://www.tmz.com/tmztv/?mediaKey=5447e57e-1199-4c05-a941-3788b2c62e84&isShareURL=true

Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/kirk-camerons-origin-of-s_n_294349.html

People Magazine: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20307814,00.html

One youtube clip mocking the giveaway has been up for a week and has had more than half a million views (with just on 10,000 comments): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHN3JtyUXg

Our own clip has had more than 190,000 views.

I think that the liberal media need to stand back for a moment, take deep breath and think about what they are saying.

There have been more than 140 reprints of The Origin of Species, with most of them having Introductions or Forewords. Some were even critical of the theory of evolution. Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., in his Introduction to Origin of Species in 1956 said that it was "right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."

He added, "But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science."

I haven’t attacked Darwin, but simply looked objectively at his belief and asked if it’s scientific, and then left it up to the reader to make up his own mind. If I am the buffoon I'm said to be, this Introduction will confirm it in the eyes of 100,000 young people. If not, then you have a right to be concerned.

In his own 1859 Introduction, Charles Darwin said, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

"Sorry Elizabeth." Richard Gunther (cartoonist)

39 Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, 40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord."

Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit." Do you know what that means? It's when God so fills you, your "cup" runs over. That comes when you surrender completely to God, and the fruit of that will be that you speak with a loud voice. Do you know what happened when the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost? They spoke with a loud voice. They couldn’t but speak that which they had seen and heard. God had given everlasting life to those who sat in the shadow of death, and so they had to speak. See Acts 2 for details.

Mary was blessed among women. She had miraculously conceived a child, and yet she was a virgin. The Catholic church maintains that Mary then ascended into the heavens, and they believe that she is still a virgin. However, the Bible says that she had at least five other children: "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" (Matthew 13:55). "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children." (Matthew 27:56). So you and I have a decision to make as to who is right. Do we accept the traditions of the Roman church, or do we put our trust in the Word of the Living God?

It was this clash between the Word of God and the word of men that sparked the whole Protestant Reformation, and the result was that it brought salvation to millions. But this clash is nothing new. The religious leaders at the time of Christ also preferred their own traditions to the Word of God. See Matthew 15:6

NOTE: Sorry for any misunderstanding. Richard didn't write the above. He merely apologized for the cartoon.

History is Quickly Forgotten

Ray, I hope that you've censured Kirk for the lies that he was telling in the video advertising this giveaway. You know, the ones about not being able to pray or read a bible in school, etc. Lying for Jesus is still lying." KiwiInOz

There was a time in the United Sates when public schools opened in prayer every day. These were the words kids recited along with the Pledge of Allegiance: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." I believe that the liberty to pray and read the Bible in schools was given by God as an unalienable right:

"... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [a right that is 'not to be taken away'], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776.

However, after one atheist complained that it was unconstitutional for her son to pray in school, in 1963 the Supreme Court ruled eight to one in favor of abolishing school prayer and Bible reading in the public schools.

They did this by creating something called "a wall of separation between church and state" (a phrase not found in the Constitution). However, up until that time the only "wall" was the wall that was put there by the framers of the Bill of Rights (ten amendments to the Constitution) to keep the Government from stripping America of its God-given liberties:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" First Amendment, U.S. Constitution (italics added).

Tragically, in 1995, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist who had prayer banned in schools was murdered by another atheist. Police found her body in 2001. It had been cut up with a saw. In 1980, her son was baptized as a Christian and went on to become a Baptist preacher.

How to Read the Bible and Stay in the Dark

Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" 35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible." 38 Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

As with Zacharias the angel used the word "shall" a number of times. That which was impossible would come to pass. This miracle would take place. The miracle child would be a male. His name would be "Jesus." He would be great, the Son of the Highest, and He would inherit the throne of His ancestor King David. He would reign over the House of Jacob, and His Kingdom would be everlasting. It would be eternal. Forever.

But notice Mary’s reaction to this incredible news. At face value her reaction was similar to that of Zacharias. However, she wasn’t struck dumb for unbelief. This is because she asked in faith (see verse 45). She didn’t doubt God in the slightest. He said it would happen, so it would surely come to pass.

If you or I search through the Scriptures in a proud and skeptical spirit, we will come up with nothing but dry bones. There will be no life in them. Reading the Bible without trust is like reading a book in the dark. Faith is a light, and the life will go out of any marriage if one spouse loses faith in the other. This is the case with human relationships, and also the case with God (see Hebrews 11:6).

Those who ask in faith hear from God. He resists the proud skeptic and gives grace to the humble seeker of truth. They that seek do find. Those who knock do have the door opened for them. If you are not seeking God, you need to. You and I are a sinners and we desperately need a Savior. If you don’t believe that, that’s your problem. Unbelief. It’s a killer.

Another Lawsuit

Today someone called the ministry and told one of our customer service representatives that he was going to sue me, on behalf or Charles Darwin. Life sure is interesting...

We May Have to Shut Down Atheist Central

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucHIPag-m40&feature=related

He's at it again:

Dear Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron,

If you look into the legal definition of Hate Speech, the bumper sticker and all the other material that Living Waters Ministries has on Atheists, meets the definition of Hate Speech, and is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

You have until October 20, 2009 to remove all of it, and stick to promoting Christianity only, or I will have a U.S. District Court Judge order you to.

Patrick Greene
peewee_91762@yahoo.com

A Word Atheists Shouldn't Use

26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" 29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." 34

Mary was a virgin. When the angel spoke to her he said that she was to rejoice because she was highly favored by God. He used the words "the Lord is with you," and then she was called "blessed." There is no greater blessing than for God to be with you. Have you ever said "goodbye" to someone. No doubt you have. In doing so, you have hoped that God’s presence would be with them. The word "goodbye" is old English, and comes from four words "God be with you," and God certainly was with this young virgin because He had chosen her to give birth to the Savior.

This was a fulfillment of the famous prophecy given by Isaiah 800 years earlier in which he said "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:4). Skeptics have said that the Hebrew word for "virgin" simply means "a young maiden." However, a young maiden conceiving would not be a "sign" from God. Millions of young maidens conceive every day, but it is truly a miraculous "sign" if a virgin conceives.

There is much confusion among many unbelievers as to the identity of Jesus. They know that He was called "the Son of God," but they don’t know that Jesus of Nazareth was Almighty God, the Creator of the universe, manifested in human form. This is the clear teaching of Holy Scripture: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Timothy 3:16).

The predictable atheist will then ask if Jesus then prayed to Himself in the garden of Gethsemane. The answer is "No, He didn't." When God, the upholder of the universe, became a man, He didn't cease to be Almighty God. When He filled the human body, that human body was limited to time and space, but He was still the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Creator. This is a little much for the average human brain to be able to understand, but then again, so is the marvel of the human brain.

The Origin of Species Give-away is Getting Bigger

It's now heading for 100 universities and 100,000 copies, and it will be the entire book (every jot and tittle). How wonderful that 100,000 students will get a complete copy of Origin of Species with a full color cover. The publication will have a total of 304 pages.

Thanks to advice from Atheists and others, the new Introduction will address Darwin's "racism"--and how he was truly a gentle-man who was admantly against slavery.

And it will qualify his apparant denegration of women. Besides, the moral character of Charles Darwin is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution, just as the Theory of Relativity should stand on its own merits, and not on the morality of Albert Einstein.

I will also make it clear that Hitler abused his theory, and is also irrelevant to whether or not it's true.

I want this Introduction to be fair-minded, free from prejudice against Darwin, no straw men or quote-mining. I'm sure many of you won't believe that, but it's the truth.

Don't be Like Them

21 And the people waited for Zacharias, and marveled that he lingered so long in the temple. 22 But when he came out, he could not speak to them; and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple, for he beckoned to them and remained speechless. 23 So it was, as soon as the days of his service were completed, that he departed to his own house. 24 Now after those days his wife Elizabeth conceived; and she hid herself five months, saying, 25 "Thus the Lord has dealt with me, in the days when He looked on me, to take away my reproach among people."

Those who waited outside of the temple had no idea what was going on inside. There as no way they could see in because a thick curtain separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place. This curtain, known as the "veil," was made of fine linen (a type of righteousness--see Revelation 19:8) and blue, purple and scarlet yarn (significant of royalty). The word "veil" in Hebrew means "a screen, divider or separator that hides."

What was this curtain hiding? Essentially, it was shielding sinful man from a Holy God. As we will see later on in the gospels, when Jesus died, the veil ripped from top to bottom, signifying that sinful man now had access to the immortal life of God. Whoever entered into the Holy of Holies was temporarily entering that presence of the Source of Life.

When Zacharias came out, he had been struck speechless because of his unbelief. It was fitting punishment. Those who don’t believe have nothing to say. The reason I’m not speechless, is simply because I believe God’s Word with all of my heart. I am fully persuaded that there is such a place as Hell, and I have therefore dedicated my life to warning those around me that if they want to keep their lives, they must obey the Gospel.

It was only those who believed that the Titanic was sinking that got into the lifeboats. Had they not believed, they would have stayed on board and gone down with the ship. The atheist says that he believes that he has no beliefs, but he his own mouth betrays him. He has strong convictions (beliefs) that this great ship isn’t going sink. So he stays with his beliefs. Water laps around his neck and he says all is well. Death has him marked, and he refuses to even put up a fight. Don't be like them. God has provided a lifeboat for those who believe, repent and trust the Savior.

Unbelief for Dummies

18 And Zacharias said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is well advanced in years." 19 And the angel answered and said to him, "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings. 20 But behold, you will be mute and not able to speak until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words which will be fulfilled in their own time."

In this passage of the Bible we see what’s behind atheism. It is what the Bible calls the sin of "unbelief." An atheist is someone who has no belief in God or in any gods. So what's wrong with that? Can they help it if they doubt?

Imagine a father tells his beloved son that he was going to buy him a bike for Christmas. The father carefully explains that it would be a red bike, with gears, high tech wheels, and that it would be extremely light-weight. He explains to the boy that it’s completely paid for and says that he will get it as a gift first thing on Christmas morning. What would you think if the son says, "How do I know this will happen?" Such a question would be an insult to his father's integrity. It means that he doesn’t trust his own father.

Even the most sinful of us is offended when a person doesn’t believe something we tell them. When we don’t believe someone it means that we think that they are a liar. They are devious, and they are therefore not worth trusting.

However, this insult is greatly magnified if we don’t believe something God says. He is without sin. He is absolutely trustworthy, and He is even incapable of lying (the Bible says that it is "impossible" for God to lie). This is why "unbelief" is a great sin. It grossly insults the integrity of a holy God, and this is why Gabriel is greatly offended.

When Zacharias insulted him with his unbelief, he stated that he was Gabriel "who stands in the presence of God." This was a five star general among the angelic hosts. Sinners cannot stand in the presence of God, but this perfectly sinless angel did, and so he struck Zacharias dumb for being so dumb.

Never insult God with your unbelief. The Scriptures say "He that believes not God has made Him a liar." and "Let none of you depart from the Living God through an evil heart of unbelief." Those who don't believe are like Zacharias, after the angel struck him.

Extra Terrestrial Beings

13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

I was speaking with two men in their mid 20’s on a plane recently, as we flew from Los Angeles to Atlanta, Georgia. Mike and Jeff were tech guys who installed computer programs in the homes of the rich, so that they could control an entire home at the touch of a button. Amazingly, they could program the music, the AC, and other appliances in someone’s home back in Los Angeles, from a laptop 20,000 feet in the air as we flew over Texas.

Both of them believed in the theory of evolution, and didn’t believe that there was life after death. They did, however, believe that there was life on other planets, "somewhere in the universe." They were right in their beliefs. There are extra terrestrial beings. One of them appeared to Zacharias as he prayed in the temple, and rightfully, the experience terrified him. In other places in Scripture we are told when these incredibly powerful "celestial" beings manifest themselves to brave Roman soldiers, they fainted like women and lay on the ground as dead men.

Gabriel told Zacharias that he had been heard by God. He would grant them both a child in their old age. Notice in the text the absolute surety of this taking place. I have used the old KJV to make this important point. In the KJV the word "shall" or "shalt" are used at least eight times.

One of the greatest joys of being a Christian is the absolute knowledge that there are certain things that are "sure." There will be a Day of ultimate justice. There is life after death that you and I can tap into, in this life. There is a Heaven and there is a Hell. These things are for sure. But take the life’s philosophy of the faithless atheist. For him, nothing is sure. He doesn’t know what created everything. He doesn’t know why he’s alive, nor does he know what happens after death. He lives without assurance. His feet are firmly planted in mid air.

Gabriel told Zacharias that he was going to have a son, that his name would be John, and that many would rejoice at his birth. He wouldn’t drink strong drink, he would be filled with the Holy Spirit, and that God would greatly use him to prepare the way for the Messiah. This "John" would have the ministry of turning the "disobedient to the wisdom of the just." The "just" are those who have been justified by God. They are the "blessed" ones who have had their sins forgiven (see Psalm 32:1). These people are those God has separated for Himself, and they live life by a wisdom that’s not of this world. The Apostle Paul speaks of the world’s and God’s amazing wisdom in 1 Corinthians chapters 1 and 2.

What was about to happen to Zacharias and Elizabeth was ordained by God. The good news of the birth of John the Baptist was going to take place. But what was Zacharias’ reaction to this good news? You won’t believe what he said...

Pic. A six day old Human Embryo implanting itself onto the wall of the womb.

An Apology

My apologies for not posting for a while. I have been at our "Deeper" conference in Georgia.

I can't tell you how good it was, but will try. Ravi Zacharias was phenomenal. Who says that Christianity doesn't have great intellectuals! Imagine having all your favorite atheists at one conference: Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens at their best, with (by some miracle) a special lecture by Charles Darwin himself, back from the dead. How good would that be to boost the average atheist's faith in what he believes! But such would be dead, dry and dusty bones, compared to the tender and succulent steak we had for the last two days. That's a gross understatement.

Wish you could have been there.

Steven Spielberg Blew it

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both well advanced in years. 8 So it was, that while he was serving as priest before God in the order of his division, 9 according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. 10 And the whole multitude of the people was praying outside at the hour of incense.

(Verse 6): Here are two people that the Bible says were "righteous before" God. They were "walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord." This doesn’t mean that they were "sinless." Scripture makes it clear that there’s not a righteous man on the face of the earth (see Romans 3:10). However, God made a way for Israel to obtain righteousnesses through the Old Testament sacrificial system. Animal sacrifice provided a temporary covering for sin. Elizabeth and Zacharius were a childless couple who were well advanced in years, obviously implying that they were well beyond the child-bearing age.

Zacharius was chosen to go into the temple of God. He was about to burn incense in the Holy of Holies behind the great veil of the temple. The first temple originally housed the Ark of the Covenant. At the conclusion of the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark," Nazis looked into the Ark and were instantly killed by what seemed to be an evil spirit. The writers of the movie sure messed that up. It’s not evil that comes out of the Ark and kills sinners, it’s the perfect, holy, just and good Law of God.

If let loose upon humanity, it, like greased lightning, would instantly kill anyone who has violated its perfect precepts. It's that Law that each of us must face on Judgment Day. Those who are in Christ are free from what the Bible calls "the curse of the Law" (see Galatians 3:13).

Within the temple there was a huge 60 feet high and 4 inches thick curtain, made out of hand woven cloth that spanned the entire width of the temple. If the priest had any sin in his heart, it would instantly draw the penalty of death at the hand of God Himself (see Habakkuk 1:13).

Zacharias would no doubt have prepared himself with a sober self-examination, and with animal sacrifice, and put on the priestly clothing. He would with fear and trembling take fire from the alter and fill a golden censor and pass through the veil. He then would have begun to pray and rock the censor, scattering smoke into the room. The smoke was symbolic of the prayers of the people. It’s no wonder everyone outside was in prayer...

Pics. Movie poster. Indiana Jones and Sallah lift the Ark of the Covenant, in "Raider's of the Lost Ark."

The Catholic Church and Peter

5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

(Verse 5): Notice that Luke names Herod and gives his jurisdiction. He names Zacharias, gives his wife’s name, her ancestry, and his division in the priesthood. This is so that the skeptic need not take this on face value. If he desires, he can search the historical record and see when the person named, lived and died.

Herod, also known as Herod I or Herod the Great (born 74 BC, died 4 BC in Jericho), was a Roman client king of Israel. He is often confused with his son Herod Antipas, also of the Herodian dynasty, who was ruler of Galilee (4 BC - 39 AD) during the time of John the Baptist and Jesus. The location of Herod's tomb is documented by Roman historian Flavius Josephus, who writes, "And the body was carried two hundred furlongs, to Herodium, where he had given order to be buried." So there is no question of whether or not he existed.

The Bible is consistent with its details from beginning to end. Read the Book of Numbers or Ezekiel if you want the fine points (I am very skeptical when any atheist says to me, "I have read the whole Bible, and so I know what it’s about." That means he spent hours wading through the mass of genealogies, and chapter after chapter reading the measurements of the temple).

Zacharius was married. Aren’t priests supposed to be celibate? According to the Roman Catholic church, New Testament priests shouldn’t be married, but this is contrary to the Bible. Peter was married. During His earthly ministry, Jesus came to Peter's house and healed "his wife's mother" (Matthew 8:14- 5; Mark 1:30-31). Now there’s a clue he was married.

In Corinthians 9:5, Paul asked, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Cephas was another name for Peter. In this verse it speaks of him as having a wife who traveled with him. There’s another clue that he was married. So don’t take what anyone tells you as being gospel. Check it out and see if it is according to the Scriptures (see Acts 17:11).

Pic. 1. Bronze coin of Herod the Great. Minted in Samaria.
Pic. 2. The Herodium: the burial-place of Herod.

My New Writing Companion

This is Sam. He is an Intelligently Designed Bichon Frise.

Circular Reasoning

When I arrived with my team to preach the gospel at Huntington Beach recently, we noticed 4-5 atheists were standing with 4-5 signs, which said that they had found contentment in life, and were good people. The signs then said, "Ask me why." One of the atheists (Bruce) had kindly taken me to lunch a year or so earlier. He and another member of the group (Jordan) heckled me, and then went back to stand beside their signs.

Someone asked me why they would bother to go to such trouble when they didn’t believe that God existed. As I watched Bruce share his worldview with four pretty females, it was no mystery. That didn’t worry me. What did concern me was that he had a Bible in his hand that had so many paper markers sticking out of its pages, it looked like a spring cabbage. Those markers were Bruce’s "evidence" as to why there was no God. He was like a dying man who nit-picked a doctor’s prescription, that provided a cure to his otherwise terminal disease.

However, thanks to Bruce and his Bible, I was inspired during the following night to begin a comprehensive atheist Bible study on the Gospel of Luke. Why Luke? Because that’s what I had been reading and thinking of how atheists should read this wonderful book.

So, we are going to give Luke an autopsy and dissect every verse, scrutinize it, find out its meaning, and leave the conclusion to the skeptic who has dared to set aside his prejudices and look solely at the evidence, wherever it may lead him. My hope is that, as with each of the four gospels, it will lead you to the cross. Feel free to join me. Get your scalpel ready. Here goes:

The Gospel of Luke

Chapter One

1 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed. (Luke 1:1-4).

Many times I have heard skeptics say that the Bible was written by men. They are right. It was written by men, however, it says of itself that it was given by "inspiration" of God (see 2 Timothy 3:16). And, no, it’s not "circular reasoning" for the Bible to disclose the Author; every book does exactly the same thing.

God was the author, and men were simply the "pens" He used to communicate His Word to humanity. Does it live up to this claim? After searching the Scriptures daily for almost 40 years, I am persuaded beyond doubt that it does.

Luke was also the (Ghost-writing) author of the Book of Acts. As a doctor, his narrative is methodical, and very meticulous. The book was written around 60 years after Christ (1).

It begins, as does the Book of Acts, by addressing a man named "Theophilus." It would seem that this "most excellent Theophilus" was a Roman official, and not merely a friend or associate of Luke. Yet nothing is known about him from other historical evidence. Perhaps he was simply a Roman officer who expressed an interest in Christianity, and who better to write to him than a man who said that he "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first"? So the question comes down to, do we trust Doctor Luke? Should we unquestioningly swallow everything he prescribes in this letter? Of course not. More than 200,000 people die each year because they trusted the medical profession(2). Honest skepticism is healthy.

The reason why Luke wrote to Theophilus "an orderly account," was that he "may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." In a world of uncertainty, Luke was hoping to give him the certainty of a solid rock upon which he could build--an "anchor of the soul" upon which he could trust.

(1). See www.harvardhouse.com/Luke_date-written.htm
(2). "An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php

Why the Contempt?

PLEASE NOTE: After an experience I had with an atheist yesterday at Huntington Beach, this will be the end of Atheist Central, as we have known it. Details tomorrow.

Honeybee (a Christian) said, "They are very brave about mocking Him while all is well with them. I doubt that they will find it so easy to mock Him as they lay on their death beds." Noble (an Atheist) replied, "Nobody's mocking non-existent Jesus! We're mocking you!"

Let’s get one thing very clear. Noble doesn’t even know this Christian to whom he is addressing himself. He is not mocking Honeybee at all, but what Honeybee believes. He is contemptuous of her because she is a believer in Jesus. A criminal may show disdain for a police officer, but his disdain isn’t for the individual but for that for which he stands. He hates the law and he therefore despises anyone who represents that law.

Look at what Jesus said about His followers and the world's scorn: "He that hears you hears me; and he that despises you despises me; and he that despises me despises Him that sent me" (Luke 10:16).

So what’s at the root of the world's mockery? Romans 8:7 tells us (here is the old King James Version): "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

Here now is the Amplified Version (which brings out the meaning of the original Greek in which it was written): "[That is] because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot."

So the root cause of the atheist’s contempt for the Christian is exactly the same as the criminal’s contempt for the police officer. He rebels against God's Law. Yet he must face that wrath-filled Law on the Day of Judgment. What a terrifying Day that will be...when the long arm of that holy Law reaches right into his sinful heart: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation...? (Hebrews 2:3).

An Open Question

Does anyone know anything about Bichon Frise dogs?

Gentle Jesus. Sure.

I have noticed that if I use a little sarcasm, or a Christian says something that reveals a little impatience, atheists are quick to say, "Would Jesus say that?"

This is probably the result of the popular and often abused "What Would Jesus do?" philosophy. Rather than ask the question what would Jesus do? it is much wiser and safer to ask the question "What did Jesus do?" Instead of ending up with some anemic conviction-less image of the Savior, you can see Him with all His wonderful character.

If you sincerely dislike religious hypocrisy, you are going to love this. So make sure you are sitting down as you read how Jesus was politically incorrect, insensitive, and utterly fearless:

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.' Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.'

Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.'

"Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? (Matthew 23:19-31)

A Question for Atheists

We are starting a daily blog-talk radio program soon, and we are considering having a regular "Atheist Friday," where Atheists call in and chat.

How many of you would have the courage step out from the anonymity of the Internet, and actually say something on radio?

A Question About the Program:
"Andy Duchemin said...Would this radio show be live? Obviously you wouldn't appreciate people using 'foul' language on your show so it it'd have to be delayed to weed out the saboteurs. I ask because you are a master of editing. I've watched your Way of the Master show and I've never seen you stumped. Not that you actually win every argument you have, I just don't think you air the ones you lose. No one likes to be made to look a fool, especially with your own show."

Andy...it will be LIVE, and I am hosting along with my friend Tony Miano. Obviously you've never watched The Way of the Master episode called "When Things go Wrong." I get humiliated, spat on, chased, and made to look foolish.

Thank you for your kind repsonse.

"Indisputable" Evidence for Evolution

"If you're looking for real proof of evolution, go to http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php/ Let's see you refute THAT...I highly doubt that this will be featured as a blog entry, because I know that you will once again be unable to stand up against the indisputable evidence for evolution, and will choose to ignore this post. If you do, however, choose to feature this as a blog post, I would like to congratulate you on your courage, and happily invite you to your demise." L Hazzal

This is an in context quote from the above site giving indisputable evidence for evolution:

"One of the most important experiments in evolution is going on right now in a laboratory in Michigan State University. A dozen flasks full of E. coli are sloshing around on a gently rocking table. The bacteria in those flasks has been evolving since 1988--for over 44,000 generations. And because they've been so carefully observed all that time, they've revealed some important lessons about how evolution works. The experiment was launched by MSU biologist Richard Lenski….Based on what scientists already knew about evolution, Lenski expected that the bacteria would experience natural selection in their new environment. In each generation, some of the microbes would mutate. Most of the mutations would be harmful, killing the bacteria or making them grow more slowly. Others would be beneficial allowing them to breed faster in their new environment. They would gradually dominate the population, only to be replaced when a new mutation arose to produce an even fitter sort of microbe."

These are still bacteria. Nothing has changed. There has been no "evolution" at all. This experiment has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. If you are a believer in this stuff, please rethink where you are placing your faith. It is a tragedy beyond words when any human being rejects the gospel because he believes that evolution has irrefutable evidence. It doesn’t have any at all. All the "evidence" is as flimsy as this bacteria. Don’t take anything at face value. Question it. Probe it. And make sure you probe your own presuppositions that have been shaped by a godless worldview.

Nothing But a Corpse

"A recent discovery showed that self replicating RNA strands could come from elements found during the conditions of early Earth. Besides isn't the belief of creationists, such as yourself, that God created man (life) out of dust (non-life)? Doesn't this also mean that life was created from non-life?" BeamStalk

Man had no life until God breathed it into him. He was nothing but a corpse until the life of God entered his inanimate body: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). All living things have their source in God, Who is the eternal fountain of life.

The Gospel of John says that Jesus Christ (called "the Word") was "in the beginning with God" when life on earth began, and that "all things were made by Him" (see John 1:1-4). Then it says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (see John 1:14). If you look at the opening verses of Genesis you will see "And God said..." (Genesis 1:1-3). It was the spoken word that brought creation into being.

Then this "Word" that created all thing became flesh, and the Bible says "in Him was life" (John 1:4). This is why Jesus said strange things about His words. He said, "My words are spirit, they are life (see John 6:63, italics added). He claimed to be the very source of life itself:

"I am the way the truth and THE life" (John 14:6).
"I am the resurrection and THE life" (John 11:25).
"I have come that they might have life..." (John 10:10).
"I am the bread of Life..." (John 6:35).

The Apostle Paul said, "Christ who is our life..." (see Colossians 3:4).

Look at what the Bible says of who (or what) Jesus of Nazareth was:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show to you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested us;)" (1 John 1:1-2). See also John 5:26.

So when someone "receives Christ," they aren’t receiving some dead religion or some sort of a intellectual belief. They are actually receiving the very source of life itself. That’s why Scripture says, "He that has the Son has life" (1 John 5:12). Do you have the life of Christ within you (see Colossians 1;27), or are you still "dead in your trespasses and sins"?

"Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue. 70 million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels."

Could someone explain why anyone would believe that a 70 million-year-old fossil would contain "soft tissue"? See:

http://">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

(The blood is wet and fresh, the tendon has elasticity, and the bone is like fresh bone).

Evolutionists will believe anything but the Bible.