I know this is an old post, but since Matt777 brought it up again, I must say that I have read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith", and it wasn't very strong. With every proof he presented on proving God's existance I immediatly came up with a good arguement against it. He also tended to end his arguements early and incomplete, ending with "So I guess it turns out the the proof really is on God's side!" all while I'm thinking that its a good thing I'm a Christian before reading this, becuase it certainly didn't convince me. There certainly are good answers to atheist objections, but I don't think the ones Lee Strobel presents are extremely valid. And if a believing Christian such as myself doesn't find it convincing, how is it to stand up against the scrutiny of athiests intent on disproving God?
He also spends alot of time argueing about things that don't matter.
Take for example this: He spends a good amount trying to refute the evidence for the scientific "Origin of life" theory, all while not realizing that it doesn't make a difference in the arguement, at all. If he is successful, it does not automatically mean there is a God, it could be easily said science has not yet discovered the reason yet. If he is unsuccessful, the "Origin of life" theory proves nothing, becuase it did not leave behind any fingerprints, so it's nothing but a possibility. If I am in Texas today and in New York two weeks later, one could most likely come up with good evidence that I could have flown to NY. That doesn't mean I didn't drive or take the bus though. If I leave a cup of water out in hot weather and find it empty two hours later, I could definatly come up with scientific evidence proving that it could have evaporated. But this does not rule out the possibility of someone drinking it.
In short, why spend time argueing against this theory when either way it really proves nothing about how life started? What he could have said instead could have been a simple sentence: if the origin of life theory is proved to be a truthfully possible way for life to start, so what?
I tend to notice this alot with western theistic literature. One of the reasons I think athiesm is truimphing in the west is due to the fact that almost all atheistic arguements have preconcieved false conditions that they have tricked the theists into believing as true, so when the theists rebuttal, they have to deal with these non-existant rules and obstacles they mistakenly believe to be of importance. Another reason is almost all these books are from a Protestant perspective, which, in no offense, isn't a very logically grounded faith to begin with.