Ben Stein’s new movie raises, and tries to answer the question, “why do so many scientists (and others) believe in Darwinian Evolution, and why does questioning that belief make people emotionally volatile?” Evidence for a Darwinian explanation of life has crumbled in recent years, during roughly the same time frame that belief in it has become so entrenched that the bare act of questioning it makes people turn red and jump up and down. Why, then, do scientists continue to believe in it despite the evidence?

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but the concept is clearly there. In the Old Testament, the concept of the Trinity is not stated quite as precisely as it is in the New Testament, but the concept of three persons with one divine essence is clearly there to see for all who examine it carefully. This concept is especially obvious in the original Hebrew. There are numerous indications of plurality of the Godhead, yet never is there more than three persons referenced in that context.

The Shroud of Turin is a cloth approximately 14 feet long by 3 ½ feet wide, and bears an image of a man who seemed to have suffered the exact violence that was done to Jesus Christ at His crucifixion. The most intense scientific investigation of the Shroud was undertaken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) in 1978. These investigators found that the Shroud is unlike any other artifact the world has ever seen.

In his recent book, Christopher Hitchens makes the bold claim that “God is not great”, and claims that “religion poisons everything”. He is a skilled creative writer, and bends all of his creative ability into a long, slanderous, and emotionally charged mischaracterization of the Bible and Christianity. His misunderstandings of the Bible and Christian doctrines would be too many to list here, but I’d like to instead address the claim that “religion poisons everything”, and see whether or not the facts support it.

In his recent book "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins asserts that God does not exist. Although Dawkins never actually makes anything resembling a cogent argument against the traditional reasons for believing in God in the book, somehow it spent some time on the bestseller list. If one is inclined to not believe in God, maybe this sort of material is attractive, but this intellectually lazy polemic is NOT logically sound, as philosopher William Lane Craig points out in the following article.