Case closed...or opened?

Don't hesitate to purchase this book. Strobel's questions & answers, interviews and overall approach is top shelf. The concepts/ideas dealt with in this book are a great index and introduction to many of the established sciences, pointing towards identifying a transcendent creator as the causal agent for humanity. What could be more applicable to your life than coming to know who God is? If you have struggled with faith issues based on evolution, cosmology, biology, chemistry, philosophy, etc...this book is worth the read. I can think of no greater crime to the "self" than to not explore the information that is available to us today in favor of a personal transcendent creator. Reading this book is a great start on a journey towards learning who we are and how God has finely crafted our universe for the benefit of humanity.

46 people found this helpful

Very Thorough, Very Broad, Well Written & Read

I was very impressed with the breadth of this book regarding the evidences for a creator. Having read many science-related books on topics covered by Stroebel, I was surprised at how many points (and even obscure and esoteric ones at that) the author addressed, such as superstring theory, modern inflationary models of the universe, alternate parallel universes, etc....

I enjoyed the topical approach to the book - having separate chapters deal with biochemistry, astophysics, physics, biology, chemistry, etc... This kept things from becoming too fragmented & disorganized.

The interview format of the book also worked well. I appreciated how the author pointed out the fact that many naturalists (agnostic and/or athiest) have trouble reconciling many of the matters addressed in this book. I have come across some of the same references myself (such as Francis Crick's inability to believe that DNA was a result of mere random chance rather than intervention).

While I give the book 5 stars without hesitation, I perceived 2 weaknesses. First, Stroebel interviews no "hostile" experts. In his defense, he does quote them frequently and raises their objections with all of the interviewees in the book. Second, I felt that the chapter on consciousness was not up to par with the other chapters in the book. It may be due to the more subjective nature of the topic, but I wasn't as impressed with this chapter.

However, these minor points do not detract from what is a fantastic book! I'd recommend this book to two distinct groups of people: (1) Those who are Christians, but find themselves uneasy based on the perception that science has undermined all that they believe and (2) Those who are not Christians, but want to take an honest look at whether or not belief in a creator has any logical or scientific merit.

This is not an exhaustive work, in terms of depth, but cover a tremendous scope of topics. It also provides many sources for further study.

30 people found this helpful

A book that all Atheists should read

As a lifelong academic of both science and engineering I have always seen things in a particular way. When I look at my watch, I believe there to be a watch maker. Likewise, as I have grown to understand the unbelievably complex method by which our world has been constructed, it undoubtably seems that the complexity of the design points to a designer. Also I find it hard to believe it only coincidence that mankind has the ability to comprehend the vast greatness of space and time, but it is hard for me to imagine what type of supernatural being it would require to make it. These realizations, along with many others, are pointed out in great fashion in "The Case for a Creator" I Highly recommend it.

25 people found this helpful

Excellent Summary of Apologetics

Here is a book by one of my favorite authors who does his customary, excellent job presenting the facts in support of the Biblical account of creation. He does not fall into the trap of "young Earth" creationism, but acknowledges that God cared enough to create a world that was perfect for human life, even though it took Him billions of years to prepare stars with just the right materials to sustain carbon-based life forms (i.e. all the living creatures including us). There are books that treat this subject in more depth, but Lee Strobel's style of presentation makes it accessible even to the open-minded agnostic. I would highly recommend it.

22 people found this helpful

I'll use this one for some time...

I certinly did not read this book as a skeptic, however I believe that Strobel will get some people to rethink their position on Intelligent Design by using his secular objections to ID.

Personally, this book further deepened my relationship with Christ. I thank God that he wonderfully made this world and this book showed in greater detail just how special his creation is.

I will say that I was a young earth creationist prior to this book, however I'm reconsidering that position based on the science of ID. 1st stop, Genesis...

Way to go (again) Lee...

16 people found this helpful

Strobel does it again!!

A very complete study of the Creation controversy. He with the help of many different experts in various fields will help you understand why the account of Creation in the Bible is the ONLY explanation that makes any sense. It will also help you to be able to defend the Faith. A little more technical than "The Case For Christ", but still excellent and not hard to follow. I think Lee does an outstanding job of making the other people speaking in the book come to life. Who knows their accents better than the one who interviewed them. Great work!!

10 people found this helpful

Complicated but interesting

There is a great deal of substance to this book. You will not remember everything but you will come away believing that there is solid support for a creator.

9 people found this helpful

Alternate title: The Case for Intelligent Design

What did you love best about The Case for a Creator?

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.

What other book might you compare The Case for a Creator to and why?

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.

Which scene was your favorite?

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.

Was there a moment in the book that particularly moved you?

Not really - I have a great familiarity with creationist topics, so I already know what to expect.

Any additional comments?

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.

7 people found this helpful

Why authors should not read their own books

While parts of the book were interesting and let me understand Darwin's theory and other topics in a new light it was impossible to listen for more than 20 minutes at a time. The author likes to yell and rant about a particular conclusion rather than letting the argument or prior conclusion rest on it's own merits. If you're looking for a balanced coverage of the issues this book will leave you lacking. If you want a book that supports your belief in God or designer of the universe without any rebuttal this is a great book. The only experts he interviews are those who support his conclusions. There seem to be a heavy slant toward a Christian god and the book doesn't touch on which religious doctrines' god created everything. That is understandable as I understand that sorting out which god to pick would be outside the scope of this book.

6 people found this helpful

Excellent

Excellent book. Very long and can get very technical. Would still recommend for anybody who is on a religous journey.

5 people found this helpful