Customer Reviews

The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school from kindergarten through 8th grade. As an intelligent, inquisitive, and analytical person I hated that my teachers wouldn't provide me with any intelligent answers for any of my scientific, religious, or philosophic questions. I hated having to choose between using rational thought and having blind, mindless faith. I had great loving parents that were still married and a close family. I wasn't a bad kid, but I certainly could have used some religious guidance and insight. At war within myself, I rebelled. From the ages of 13 to 17 I guess I still considered myself a Christian, but certainly not a practicing one.

It wasn't until I was almost 18 and at the peak of my troublesome phase when my decisions had finally caught up with me. After going through some hard, life-changing times I found God again and accepted Him into my life. I found him on a personal level only. Having once had that spiritual connection with Him I could literally feel his absence all of those years. I had friends in gangs, that did and sold drugs, getting into trouble, and hanging out with all the wrong people. That crowd just accepted me in easily. It feels nice being accepted into a larger group, something bigger than yourself that you can be a part of. In the end, I realized those people are likely to turn on you just as easily as they accept you. Once I found God again, it was instantly recognizable and immediately rewarding. It's hard to explain, everyone just needs to experience it for themselves.

For the next 8 years I continued to have a relationship with God, despite the fact that my continuing education and ongoing pursuit of knowledge led me to have even more questions, and more intelligent/well thought-out questions. I could just feel the warmth of his presence in my life and I saw those around me crumble while I kept moving on to greener pastures. One day, I was walking through a Walmart and I stumbled on this book and thought, wow, I MUST buy that book..I've been looking for these answers my entire life!

I think this book does an excellent job of bringing up intelligent, rational, scientific points of view that will help (an open-minded) person find some light if they are looking for answers. I especially like that Lee does a great job of bringing up all the other arguments (on behalf of darwinists/athiests) and tries to really cut to the heart of the issues to get solid arguments. He even brings up nobel-prize winning atheists and other scientists who are quoted saying things that confirm the diagnosis (even if some don't come right out and say they are pro-intelligent design.) I can say I learned SO much about BOTH points of view that I wasn't even aware of. While also slowly strengthening my belief in God it did also satisfy my hunger to learn and my love of science.

I'm not a sheep, and I think for myself. I'm registered politically independent because I hate the idea of being persuaded one way or another and not being able to make up my own opinion, based on the facts presented, for each individual case presented to me. This is why I like Lee's style. Matter of fact, when I read this book I had no idea he was religious or any other books on the topic. I fell in love with this book and judged it based on the merits of it alone. I think even skeptics that don't go into reading this book hoping to shoot everything down will walk away with a greater appreciation for the other side. I loved the book and have recommended it to many people. I think the intelligent viewpoints, if nothing else, just make for great conversational topics of ideas with others. I've become a great conversationalist by being willing to discuss and listen to other people talking about their opinions.

I've found websites completely dedicated to pointing out every single detail in this book to dispute it. It cited scientific exerpts, articles, theories, this guy disproves this by saying this, this guy said that...to the point where you would need 3 PhD's just to even understand what that guy was talking about! It was ridiculous to the point where it was obvious the guy had so much hate and conviction because he didn't believe ONE thing Lee even remotely mentioned in his book. It's obvious when the reviews show either 4 or 5 stars or 1 star!!! Open your mind and don't be ignorant. This is a book still focused on primarily showcasing the best reasons FOR intelligent design, I still think Lee remained artistically as a writer/journalist personally unbiased most of the book. He hits the right points and arguments. Whereas I'm usually one to keep ask questions--I found myself content with the conclusions after most chapters!

There will always be people who focus their energy on bad mouthing others. Religion will be like politics, the argument will continue until the end of time with 95% of it focused on proving the other side is wrong. That's sad, because we will never grow as a humanity if we never work on how we can work together. Start will doing more listening than talking. And don't just hear-listen.

Now 5 years after I first read this book, I have now gone on to read The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith and I whole-heartedly recommend all three of these books! Each completely different, yet fascinatingly presenting different ideas and viewpoints! I'm actually re-reading them all again..I think they are ALL a must-read for every non-ignorant person! If you're looking for answers, I think you just may find it in this book.

This was a replacement for my own copy which I had given away. It arrived on time, condition as described, and was large print, for me a bonus!

Lee Strobel has done an excellent job in writing this highly readible book which lays out the arguments for creation vis a vis the evolutionary/naturalistic doctrine which is now commonly taught in our schools and universities. Lee, a former atheist who was trained in law and journalism, interviews experts from a variety of scientific and theological backgrounds to present his case. In many instances, he plays the Devil's Advocate role in his interviews to make his subjects react as they would to hostile criticisms that would come from secular media and education critics. The author's journalism background shows in a writing style that the layman or technical person can easily navigate.

This was my first apologetic work I explored. It really impacted me in a positive way and motivated me to study science (which I avoided in college like the plague). I am writing this review months after reading it and after months of reading and seeing documentaries on science, I think the strongest argument against this book was stated by a "four horsemen", Hitchens or Dawkins, who stated: [paraphrased] that we should not assume more than has been determined by science.

What validates this book for me after months gone by, is reading/watching scientist-to include the "four horsemen" apply science to philosophy about life. For whatever reason, they can't get me to accept their arguments, I just don't have enough faith to believe as they do. On the other hand, Strobel's book had that "aha" moment with each chapter--again, I can't explain why Strobel and not a "four horsemen" but that is where I sit.

I can't argue science and I don't try (I'm a liberal arts major) but Strobel's style makes science understandable and provides enough references to follow-up on for those who are science minded and still searching for God.

I really liked this book. I have to say that I was a little confused about the fact that, Strobel stated in the book that he wrote Case for Christ and Case for Faith before this book and yet this book seemed to be presented in such a way that held Strobel as still a skeptic. I haven't read the other books but I would assume if you have made a case for Christ and Faith, that you are no longer a skeptic.

However, putting that aside I think the book covered a very good range of scientific areas and presented a lot of good information from the Intelligent Design corner. Of course there are rebuttals out there from the evolutionists side that are not all mentioned in the book but I did take the time to go look for debates on youtube from some of the subjects of the interviews in the book. Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer for instance have debates on youtube. I find that evolutionists cannot EFFECTIVELY discredit these men and their evidence for design. They resort to the typical tactics of skeptics and sometimes get absolutely ridiculous in their claims.

This book gives a good overview with a good amount of details to back up creation claims. I'm not sure it's enough to convince skeptics out there but it's enough hopefully to make them look further into what they believe.

This is a staggeringly heavy read for an author and former journalist who has made so many other topics accessible to the average reader. Like his previous books that examined the evidence for the Biblical Christ and philosophical arguments for faith, this book examines the overwhelming evidence that points away from Darwinism to Intelligent Design. Though I was familiar with some of the evidence having read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and seen some Intelligent Design documentaries, Mr. Strobel still finds a great deal of evidence that points towards a Creator. In fact, as it is stated several times over in one form or another, you would have to have more faith to believe in Darwinism than in God after reading through all of the evidence in this book. Still, I have some criticisms that keep me from giving this book five stars: First, though finding a ton of evidence, Mr. Strobel only gives a personal argument as to how all of this points to the Christian God of the Bible. While Mr. Strobel, who has extensively researched these topics, has every right to make that argument, I would have preferred that argument be made by one or more of his interviewees. Second, he didn't seem to forcefully push the skeptics point of view as he had done in his previous works. This is especially true of the chapter on astronomy where, rather than seriously push alternatives, he seems to sit back and be awed by everything. His books always stand out because he pushes back with an atheistic (or Darwinian ) argument and forces the interviewee to defend their argument, which they usually do stupendously. And finally, this book, unlike its predecessors, uses a ton of technical terms that can go over the average reader's head. I even found myself befuddled at times by what was being said. Of course, simpler language would have made the book longer, but I wouldn't have minded so long as it was more accessible. Still, like "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith," this is a great introductory book to the case for Intelligent Design that can be followed up by reading the suggested works that are at the end of every interview.

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. Their presuppositions and perspective will automatically discredit every argument Strobel makes. To them it is not science if it points to a creator. but they will fail to realize they have a double standard. For they are perfectly comfortable coming to naturalistic conclusions, and making naturalistic speculations, theories 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 [...]loads of evidence supporting your view and Ph.D's back you up

A Case for a Creator is about Lee Stroble's, search for the evidence that points towards ID (intelligent design.). If you ask me, the evidence was strong and conclusive. You'll have to forgive my vague- ness, I read the book a while ago. It gives good evidence and unless you're totally locked into not accepting the idea of ID, you'll probably enjoy it.

An entirely misplaced argument. Although he gives lip service to the contrary, the entire book is based on the premise that there is a fundamental disagreement between science and a belief in God. I've never met a credible scientist (regardless of discipline) that doesn't get to a point in their exploration where they say that beyond that is a mystery. For them to halt their exploration at that point would be to waste the intellectual capacity they were given. Furthermore, continuing to explore doesn't mean they're denying the existance of God. Similarly, those who are solid in their belief in God should have no discomfort with mankind using the intelligence we were given to explore and understand the universe around us as best we can. There is no fundamental conflict. Those who think there is are insecure in their beliefs. The book is also intellectually dishonest. He starts off making out that he's a jounalist objectively investigating a news item that leads him to an unbiased exploration of this question. However, it leaks out in several places in the book that he was really writing this to support his previously established position. I felt lied to. All in all, reading this was an entire waste of time that I will never get back.

I read the book since many christian apologists had mentioned him as a good author whom they often cite. Luckily, now I know the best arguments for "I.D." and it is still unconvincing.

A few thoughts,

1. There are plenty of transitional fossils.

2. The Miller experiment updated to our present understanding of the early earth's atmosphere actually showed more amino acids created than the original.

3. Just because the original 1859 Darwin tree could have been wrong doesn't disprove his theory. The tree has been updated with new discoveries and is just fine.

4. The big bang was rejected by theists for a long time and now finally, some now accept it happened. It is just a matter of time before evolution is accepted and twisted to somehow match the bible. Or preferably people finally look at science without trying to prove an endpoint before evidence is gathered.

5. The IDers accept the big bang 13.5 billion years ago, but reject evolution through natural selection. What was God doing for the past 13.4999 billion years of the universe before he decided to create humans, twiddling his infinity holy thumbs?

6. Evolution was not created to destroy faith, or to promote selfish, godless materialism. The theory is so widespread today because it is true.

7. Irreducibly complexity is an argumentum ad ignorantiam at best. The examples stated have all been shown to be possible by natural selection. Blood clotting in some fish and whales have fewer proteins than other creatures and still work fine, for example. The flagellum argument was disproven in the mid 90's, I guess Behe hasn't got the memo yet.

8. This book has an incorrect subtitle. This approach is not journalistic or scientific.

9. The universe was not fine tuned for life, life adapted to the conditions that the universe had already. Life adopted to physics, not vice versa.

10. Even though life as on the earth is probably rare, doesn't mean that they are not possible elsewhere, given that there are trillion and trillions of planets.

11. Life doesn't have to be carbon based. The idea that it does is commonly called "carbon chauvinism". Just because the earth's life forms are carbon based doesn't mean it is the only way to life. Silicone can be used too.

12. Just because the universe was not created for humans does not mean that life is purposeless and void of meaning. Making your own purpose is much more interesting than following what someone else wants you to live for anyway.

13. Christians did think that the earth was the center of the universe, Copernicus' law did deflate egos. Stating a metaphysical idea of earth being promoted to the heavens after Copernicus is not scientific at all. It is dark aged nonsense.

14. Saying that scientists are apart of a conspiracy to promote the idea of a godless universe is absolutely ridiculous. It should be given the same clout as moon landing deniers, holocaust deniers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists (if even that much clout). Also, this does not say much about the IDers who promote creationism for the sole purpose of proving that we need a god to explain the universes' existence.

15. "ID" is seen in the scientific community as pseudo-science, on the lines of science fiction's worst moments, except funnier.

16. Most of the people Strobel interviewed did not have their doctoral work in the fields that they talked about. Most were theologians, which isn't really a proper academic field anyway.

17. Some of the interviewees said that this science has shown that the Judeo-christian god is the one who created the universe. I wonder about the other gods who are also said to have created the universe. Couldn't they all have done it just as well as Yahweh?

18. I actually felt physically sick while trying to read this book, and sincerely hope that people will actually read a real science book instead of reading this frustratingly ignorant and nonscientific nonsense.

Well my twin babies are crying. Got to go, I could go on though...


If you want to be fair as I have attempted to do, and hear the other side of the argument, check out "why evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne, Bill Brysons "A short history of nearly everything" (which Strobel mentions) or Stephen Hawkins new book "The Grand Design." All are easy to read for the layman and interesting.