Author Topic: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel  (Read 3909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sloga

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 830
The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« on: July 20, 2006, 12:24:14 AM »
has anyone read this? Yes it is the same author and sequel to The Case for Christ, which was heavily criticzed by atheists. The case for a creator is basically about scientific proof of the Intellegent Design (while defunking darwin), the birth of the universe, DNA etc...using physics, chemistry, cosmology and other scientific/mathematical methods the author puts together a very good case. It also shows how false evidence recogznied by neo-darwinists continues to be put into textbooks, despites the faults. The author himself was an atheist for a large part of his life.

I am currently about halfway done (its only 100 or so pages) and I am very impressed. It's really unexplainable how well the author has compressed and simplified all that complicated science talk. I find it a very good read for those who want to believe in His existance, but under all this science age, feel that science and God cannot mix. This book pretty much clears up any questions about "how" and "what". Good read.
Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

Offline doubleaccount

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2006, 08:51:29 AM »
has anyone read this? Yes it is the same author and sequel to The Case for Christ, which was heavily criticzed by atheists. The case for a creator is basically about scientific proof of the Intellegent Design (while defunking darwin), the birth of the universe, DNA etc...using physics, chemistry, cosmology and other scientific/mathematical methods the author puts together a very good case. It also shows how false evidence recogznied by neo-darwinists continues to be put into textbooks, despites the faults. The author himself was an atheist for a large part of his life.

I am currently about halfway done (its only 100 or so pages) and I am very impressed. It's really unexplainable how well the author has compressed and simplified all that complicated science talk. I find it a very good read for those who want to believe in His existance, but under all this science age, feel that science and God cannot mix. This book pretty much clears up any questions about "how" and "what". Good read.

The atheists have found cause to criticize Strobel for this book, too: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html
« Last Edit: July 20, 2006, 08:51:56 AM by KATHXOYMENOC »

Offline DavidH

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 531
    • Signature Landscape Designs
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2006, 09:54:11 PM »
Fools always find reason to criticize the Truth that there is a God (Ps. 13:1).

Offline GiC

  • Resident Atheist
  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,490
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2006, 10:58:25 PM »
has anyone read this? Yes it is the same author and sequel to The Case for Christ, which was heavily criticzed by atheists. The case for a creator is basically about scientific proof of the Intellegent Design (while defunking darwin), the birth of the universe, DNA etc...using physics, chemistry, cosmology and other scientific/mathematical methods the author puts together a very good case. It also shows how false evidence recogznied by neo-darwinists continues to be put into textbooks, despites the faults. The author himself was an atheist for a large part of his life.

So it's sci-fi?
"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Offline Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,761
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2006, 03:26:18 PM »
Quote
So it's sci-fi?

Ahh, but can something be sci-fi if you don't know it's fi? Or would it then just be pseudo-sci? In any event, one reviewer of the book pointed out that on the back cover it was classified as "Christian Living/Spiritual Growth". Hmm... 8)
"My doubt in Christ is not like that of a child; it was forged in a furnace of faith." - Dostoevsky

Offline GiC

  • Resident Atheist
  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,490
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2006, 04:14:30 PM »
Ahh, but can something be sci-fi if you don't know it's fi? Or would it then just be pseudo-sci? In any event, one reviewer of the book pointed out that on the back cover it was classified as "Christian Living/Spiritual Growth". Hmm... 8)

I guess that's the difference between sci-fi and pseudo-sci...in the latter the the sci-fi author actually takes his story seriously. So if this guy had written the book, but not published it, and it was later published by someone who simply found the story entertaining, would it then be pseudo-sci or sci-fi? Hmmm... ;D
"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2006, 06:08:37 PM »
speculative fantasy maybe?    ;D  Alternate history?

And not agreeing with something or pointing out errors does not make a person a "fool".  It could be that Lee Strobel *has* made some mistakes.  (I haven't read the critique yet).

Ebor

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2006, 04:18:57 AM »
I believe that "Intelligent" Design is only useful in pointing out the many flaws of Darwinism, but not that ID advocates have developed a demonstrable theory of their own. Darwin on Trial and Darwin's Black Box are good criticisms of the current scientific establishment, but that doesn't mean that ID should be taught in public schools any time soon.

Peace.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline FHL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2006, 08:58:32 AM »
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.
"Let us love one another first, then in an atmosphere of love we can discuss theological matters." - H.H. Pope Shenouda III

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,783
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2006, 11:19:31 AM »
I believe that "Intelligent" Design is only useful in pointing out the many flaws of Darwinism, but not that ID advocates have developed a demonstrable theory of their own. Darwin on Trial and Darwin's Black Box are good criticisms of the current scientific establishment, but that doesn't mean that ID should be taught in public schools any time soon.

Peace.
I taught middle school science and I strongly believe that ID should be taught in School. Aside from the ontological proofs for the existence of God, I think it is rather clear that universe appears to be designed and that such a design suggests a designer. To ignore this is intellectual dishonesty.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,783
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2006, 11:22:27 AM »
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.
I have read the Case for Faith too and I think you misunderstand its purpose. The "Case for Faith" was not written to prove the existence of God. Rather, it was written to help remove some of the stumbling blocks to faith in God. The "Case for Christ" on the other hand WAS written to prove that Christ rose from the dead and is who he claimed to be. The "Case for a Creator" is written to give evidence for the existence of God.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2006, 07:13:30 PM »
I taught middle school science and I strongly believe that ID should be taught in School. Aside from the ontological proofs for the existence of God, I think it is rather clear that universe appears to be designed and that such a design suggests a designer. To ignore this is intellectual dishonesty.

Why not, instead, place a disclaimer in science textbooks that the conclusions of science are tentative, and that students should aproach the question of origins with an open mind? Evem this idea has been struck down by the courts, but it's at least more sensible than teaching Intelligent Design. ID is more a political movement than it is a scientific research program.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2006, 07:13:54 PM by Matthew777 »
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,783
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2006, 07:52:10 PM »
Why not, instead, place a disclaimer in science textbooks that the conclusions of science are tentative, and that students should aproach the question of origins with an open mind? Evem this idea has been struck down by the courts, but it's at least more sensible than teaching Intelligent Design. ID is more a political movement than it is a scientific research program.
No, ID is the logical conclusion of data gathered through observation. That IS what science is about.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2006, 08:14:42 PM »
What positive evidence have ID advocates given for their claims?
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline GiC

  • Resident Atheist
  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,490
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2006, 12:05:48 AM »
An ID class is a great idea, we can stick it right in between our Star Trek and Star Wars classes; I guess you have to give people one boring and worthless class, teaches patience.
"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2006, 04:32:17 PM »
This book is by an Orthodox Christian scientist on the theory of evolution:

Quote
Beauty and Unity in Creation: The Evolution of Life
by Gayle E Woloschak

Format: Soft Bound

Description:
With insight into science and scientific approaches, Beauty and Unity in Creation brings the beauty of nature in focus, putting an Orthodox perspective on scientific exploration. As the author relates scientific facts into meaning, she cultivates a correct attitude toward scientific knowledge: we are reminded that any real truth abides in the Truth. While exploring the subject of evolution from an Orthodox perspective, this book actually locates the place of man in the universe and defines man's relationship with the rest of the living world.
http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=BEAU367

Peace.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,783
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2006, 05:35:59 PM »
No, ID is the logical conclusion of data gathered through observation. That IS what science is about.
Read Darwin's Black Box
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Panagiotis

  • Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 406
  • Advocating Liberty Since 1973
    • The Two-Cent Philosopher
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2006, 05:37:33 PM »
Quote
An ID class is a great idea, we can stick it right in between our Star Trek and Star Wars classes; I guess you have to give people one boring and worthless class, teaches patience.
To Yoda-ize your post, GiC:
Great idea, ID class is! between the Star Trek and Star Wars classes, inbetween we stick it- One boring and worthless class we must give them you guess. Patience, it teaches them, yes!

Blessings,
Panagiotis

"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,783
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2006, 09:53:38 PM »
Do you think that ID and evolution are incompatible? If you do, that is simply not the case.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline GiC

  • Resident Atheist
  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,490
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2006, 10:46:38 PM »
To Yoda-ize your post, GiC:
Great idea, ID class is! between the Star Trek and Star Wars classes, inbetween we stick it- One boring and worthless class we must give them you guess. Patience, it teaches them, yes!

Blessings,
Panagiotis

LOL...I see you are excelling at the new ID curriculum. ;)
"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2006, 01:33:55 AM »
This is my "now famous" (or infamous) article on Intelligent Design:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=7497.0

ID is more a right-wing political movement than a scientific research program:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Wedge_document

I've even seen Jonathan Wells lecture and then talked with him face to face. While speaking, he intentionally misquoted Charles Darwin to make the impression that Darwin was against the possibility of design. But when you look at the quote in context, it's obvious that Darwin meant the exact opposite:

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, Charles Darwin"
(Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)


When I called Wells on his error, he claimed that he hadn't recently read the full letter and didn't really know what Darwin meant. When I then asked him concerning his involvement with the Unification church, he stopped me right there and told me that he'd only discuss the matter in private. The other ID advocates, in all honesty, are no different from Wells. Just think, when Michael Behe actually came before a court to defend the "theory" of Intelligent Design, he admitted that the "theory" itself uses such a broad definition of the term "theory" that even astrology would be included as science:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behe#Dover_testimony

Peace.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2006, 01:45:57 AM by Matthew777 »
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline Panagiotis

  • Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 406
  • Advocating Liberty Since 1973
    • The Two-Cent Philosopher
Re: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2006, 01:50:50 AM »
LOL...I see you are excelling at the new ID curriculum. ;)
*drools
Yes, yes I have excelled at it.
*slumps in seat
*passes out

Blessings,
Panagiotis

"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,204
  • Distressed about my country
Re: The Can of Corn by Lee Stringbean
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2006, 03:06:30 AM »
Oh good.......thanks so much, M777, for reviving yet another thread concerning evolution.  We're all in your debt.   ::)
Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: The Can of Corn by Lee Stringbean
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2006, 03:34:21 AM »
Oh good.......thanks so much, M777, for reviving yet another thread concerning evolution.  We're all in your debt.   ::)

The Case for a Creator is nothing more than a propaganda piece for an inherently political movement. That's all I have to say about that.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,252
  • Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!
Re: The Can of Corn by Lee Stringbean
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2006, 11:56:03 AM »
Oh good.......thanks so much, M777, for reviving yet another thread concerning evolution.  We're all in your debt.   ::)

I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing....
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline BoredMeeting

  • Loving the Life of a Council Member
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 722
Re: The Can of Corn by Lee Stringbean
« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2006, 12:18:02 PM »
I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing...
I think they should bill him for each word posted.