But today science is pointing in a different direction. In recent years, a diverse and impressive body of research has increasingly supported the conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed. At the same time, Darwinism has faltered in the face of concrete facts and hard reason.
Has science discovered God? At the very least, it's giving faith an immense boost as new findings emerge about the incredible complexity of our universe. Join Strobel as he re-examines the theories that once led him away from God. Through his compelling account, you'll encounter the mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, and human consciousness that present astonishing evidence in The Case for a Creator.
©2004 Lee Strobel; (P)2004 Zondervan Publishing
"This solid introduction to the most important topics in origins debates is highly accessible and packs a good argumentative punch." (Publishers Weekly)
I really enjoy creation/evolution topics. I consider "science" in the noun form as one of my hobbies, and as a Christian I find great enjoyment analyzing creationist and evolutionist arguements.
I can't really think of book to compare The Case for a Creator to; however I would be willing to say that it serves as a great transcript to the Discovery Institute's "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" and "Privileged Planet" videos.
I do not have a strong background in physics, so the discussions on astronomy and cosmology was pretty fascinating. My strength is in biology and life sciences and there were minor errors which I found distracting.
Not really - I have a great familiarity with creationist topics, so I already know what to expect.
I really enjoy apologetic reads and am quite aware of the ID movement; however I didn't know that Strobel's book was ID in disguise, which didn't disappoint or stop me from finishing the book.
Overall, I think the ID movement has been quite aggressive in trying to work their way into the classrooms, almost as 'cloaked creationism.' I have to say that my only complaint with ID is that they refuse to call it for what it is: the scientific search for God's presence within natural systems. Atheists and the like get wound up with ID for this very reason, in my opinion.
The good aspects of "Case for a Creator" was how Strobel brought in ID proponents found in various disciplines, such as astrology, biology, and cosmology. He basically interviewed the cast from the Discovery Institute's pro-ID/anti-evolution films "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" from 2002, as well as "The Privileged Planet" released in 2004.
Before moving on to the parts of the book that I had issues with, I need to preface that I have a strong background in biology. The biological features of ID are interesting to me; however I do my best to be skeptical (not in an apologetic sense, due to the negative connotations that the word carries) and seek out information from the scientific community on my own.
Now for the weaker aspects of "Case for a Creator":
1. Michael Behe. I regard Michael Behe as probably the 'black sheep' of the ID movement. He was bold enough to promote his ideas of 'irreducibly complex' biological systems; however his ideas do not stand up in the scientific community.
The best example of illustrating the scientific community is to think of medicine. Medical doctors must complete exhaustive research before publishing to the community where the research is reviewed by peers in the community. Upon peer review, the article can be submitted for corrections or amendments and then published at large in scientific journals. Behe is a highly educated individual and knows how the peer review system works. Unfortunately (for Behe), his idea of irreducible complexity has not been able to withstand peer review or publication in any scientific journal. Matter-of-fact, in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a judge ruled that irreducible complexity is not science (making it pseudoscience). I don't know if it's to save face or what, but Behe will not back down from his idea or even attempt to modify his idea that would withstand peer review and be recognized within the community.
2. Seeded questions. Some of Strobel's questions seemed a little too coincidental and planted. For example, one of Behe's most popular examples of irreducible complexity is the blood clotting mechanism. Strobel happened to have a band aid on his finger to conveniently allow Behe to illustrate his point of the clotting mechanism.
3. Minor, but critical errors. At one point when, I believe when Strobel is interviewing Stephen Meyer or it might have been Jonathan Wells, Strobel references 'ribosomal DNA' which is not used in the correct context. The point that Strobel was trying to make was the structure of phylogentic trees. Carl Woese has recognized a means to construct phylogentic trees among species using rRNA, not rDNA. This seems to be only a minor typo; however there is a big difference in functionality between rDNA and rRNA and have different definitions to a biologist.
Another error was when Behe referred to the tail of a sperm cell as 'cilia' when in-fact it is more commonly recognized as flagellum. Again, not major but enough to make a biologist cringe.
4. Case for Consciousness. In the final section, Strobel interviewed a specialist to discuss consciousness and self awareness. Part of me felt like this section wasn't really needed and as far as I can tell has never been a big part of ID. The person interviewed for consciousness went on to say that because we experience feelings and such, then it must be tied to a soul. That train of thought went on to discuss how animals have souls as well, but since they were not made in the image of God then their soul is not eternal. Once the animal dies, then their soul ends as well; however humans made in the image of God will have an eternal soul that lives on. Strobel quickly moves on, but that point did not sit well with me.
5. Geologic Time. The ID platform tends to stretch across Young to Old Earth Creationist, so for I guess for this reason Strobel chose not to address geologic time. I think this is an interesting debate, even among creationists, so I was a little disappointed he did not go into geology. He did reference millions/billions of years when discussing fossils and cosmology & astrology, but he steered away from the issue of time itself.
6. Archaeopteryx. In his interview with Jonathan Wells, Strobel has him go into details regarding the Acrchaeopteryx. My primary issue with Wells is that he described the ancient transitional fossil as a "bird with modern feathers." It is widely accepted by people who dedicate their lives to understanding birds and reptiles that if anything Archaeopteryx is more reptile than bird. I think it's dangerous for Wells to call Archaeopteryx a reptile because of the features shared between both classes. The heavy/solid bone structure, body plan, teeth, etc all point to it being more reptile in nature than birds. Even today these fossils are hotly debated; however I'm not convinced that Archaeopteryx is a bird with modern feathers.
Altogether, "Case for a Creator" was a good summary for ID and as the title suggests it was "for" a Creator and not "against." I think it's important for people to know both sides of any story, so I would be careful before using ID arguments to go and pick a fight with an atheist.
Pros: great summary of the ID movement capturing everything from the tiniest atoms within a cell to the most distant stars of the universe.
Cons: did not need the chapter on consciousness and I wish ID would drop the irreducible complexity argument.
Bottom line: good read for anyone interested in Creationism/Evolution topics. Maybe one day we'll all be friends and realize that in most cases perspective and understanding can be governed by personal belief.
There is growing dissent to the standard naturalistic view of the beginnings of the universe. Einstein's theory of general relativity has led to general belief in the big bang theory. This results in the earth having a beginning.
The author uses his standard practice of speaking with various experts in various fields whose research leads them to believe that our world could only have come into existence as a result of an intelligent designer.
The interviews give the listener basic information and the ability to look further into those interviewed for more information in a particular discipline.
This book is the result of the author's thorough investigation of evolution and the alternatives. It also chronicles his journey from atheism to becoming a born again Christian. By interviewing a number of leading scientists, he exposes the impossibilities of evolution as taught in public schools and universities. He uncovers the cover up attempts of evolutionary science. Listen to this book with an open mind. It is packed with information and evidence.
I had high hopes for this book but overall it was a disappointment.
My title says it all for me.
I feel the book could be summed up by this quote towards the end of this book "If I was to embrace Darwinism and its underlying premise, I would have to believe nothing produces everything, that non-life produces life, that randomness produces fine tuning, that chaos produces information, that non-consciousness produces consciousness & that non-reason produces reason" And for him that would take way more of a leap of faith then to believe in a creator.
Hardcore naturalist might as well not even read this book though, it only interviews the people they already ridicule, they will think the whole book is irrational, utter b.s propaganda & that Strobel should not be allowed to breed. There presuppositions and perspective will blot out every argument Strobel makes. They will claim none of it is science, yada yada, but they will fail to realize they have a double standard. For they are perfectly comfortable coming to naturalistic conclusions, and making naturalistic speculations and guesses, and naturalism is a philosophical world-view, a set of presuppositions that color all they see. They do not realize they are using science to promote their own philosophical worldview, all the while crying bloody murder the moment scientist claim science points to a Theist worldview. The fact is both sides have tons of evidence, and the judgment of whether the evidence is good or bad is fully dependent upon ones worldview. This means that evidence no matter HOW obvious, if in favor of God's existence, will be utterly stupid nonsense in the mind of naturalist, for there worldview does not allow it. PERIOD. The theist are guilty of bias too of course, We both are to a point like "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up" Both sides can ALWAYS explain way the other side, ALWAYS. Its a matter of belief over a matter of evidence, no matter which belief you take, naturalistic or theistic, you will find butt loads of evidence supporting your view and Ph.D's back you up
The reading was energetic and easy to follow. The book is broken down in methodical sections. The summary at the end brought it all together to remind me of great points I listened to early on.
from someone who already Believe In Christ This Book showed me evidence of things that I already knew that was true but was so well documented it appears to be unrefutable thank you
Lee Strobel does a fantastic job in bringing together elements in a complex and controversial topic, backed by reason and fact.
Report Inappropriate Content