Very good arguements for the existence of God ( )

I’ve read Lee’s other books, A Case for Faith and A Case for Christ, and this follows along the same vein as those. Lee interviews numerous experts in their respective fields about subjects and how the facts eventually lead to a case for a Creator. In this book we have topics about Evolution, Astronomy, The Big Bang, Biochemistry, DNA, and much more. A lot of interesting topics and as usual, Lee writes in a very accessible format and is easy and quick to read, not typical of non-fiction books I’ve read lately so I did enjoy this one greatly.

In my case, as a Christian, I already hold much of the same beliefs as Lee so I didn’t need much convincing. It was nice to see how science actually points to what I already believe. Would this book have convinced me if I was an avowed atheist? Not likely, but if I had an open mind, and was interested in seeing an opposing viewpoint, this may have been a nice first step in a journey to a new belief system. ( )

Presents evidence that the world was created and designed by a higher power, describing the findings in a variety of fields, including biology, physics, astronomy, and cosmology, that point to the existence of a greater power and higher order that pervades nature.

This a good read. The first time I read this I was a freshman in college and it was for a speech that i was writing. I didn't understand much of it at the time and it kinda seemed like it draged. But now that I've read it again for the pure pleasure of reading it, I like it a lot more. It's very well researched and well it is a very dense book, the way Lee writes it makes it very easy to understand. I like the use of visual analogies that are present throughout the book. ( )

A Journalist talks to scientists whose views support his

It's always a little tricky reviewing a book when I know that I am not neutral on the subject - I feel that I should review it partly in its own terms, to give other readers some idea of how they might like it. I debated for a long time between whether to give it 3 or 4 stars. I read a great deal on evolution, but I do not claim to have the breadth of scientific knowledge to judge the science in all cases. Strobel particularly aims this book at people who found that science undermined their religious faith. (This is not my situation.)

On the side of 4 stars: The title makes it very clear that the author has a particular agenda, and since I claim to be in favor of freedom of speech, I am all for people honestly expressing and supporting their views, even if an annoying number of them disagree with me. I think that it is valuable to have this point of view expressed, even if the reader is only planning to knock it down. It is unfair to complain that his treatment is not balanced - he is pretty up front about the fact that this is a book of advocacy (but see the next paragraph.) Strobel also has the honesty to spell out what he means by Intelligent Design, unlike many ID supportors, like Phillip Johnson. (I like Johnson less every time I think about him.) In the desire to avoid religious connotations, Intelligent Design is usually left so vague as to be almost vacuous. I was gripped by some of the chapters, whether by the science or by Strobel's tale of his 1974 reportage on a debate over teaching that is presented. The chapters are somewhat uneven, Behe chooses to be annoyingly obtuse about some of the objections that have been raised to his reasoning, e.g., Kenneth Miller's comments on his mousetrap metaphor. I have to suppose that he has no real answer. Strobel has helpfully appended a list of further reading to each chapter.

Knocking it down to 3 stars. There is a whiff of the weasel hanging over this. I have no objection to Strobel acting as an honest advocate; I only object to his trying to dupe us into thinking he's really entering into this in the open-minded spirit of inquiry. "Investigates" is used somewhat loosely in the subtitle as it stands - my review title is a suggestion for a somewhat more accurate subtitle. I take, with a grain of salt, his statement: I would stand in the shoes of the skeptic ... posing the toughest objections that had been raised." I think that should be, "I would feed them straight lines to make sure that they covered the topics/objections that I had in mind." Strobel also uses the "demon word" Darwinism a bit broadly. Naturalism or materialism is a property of science generally, not just Darwinism, therefore the belief that the Universe arose through naturalistic mechanisms is probably believed by most Darwinists, but it's a bit doubtful that it can properly be considered a particular tenet of Darwinism per se. This raises some interesting issues about the science that Strobel et al. accept and the science that they don't. If it could be proven that Prokaryotes were created by an Intelligent Designer, but from that point all other life forms developed through Darwinian evolution, one could still argue that Darwinism is basically correct.

On to the proofs. Fascinating as some of the science is, the evidence for Creation or Intelligent Design is not really scientific, it is what I personally call Unaided Logic. This is, for the most part, what classical philosophy does - arguments that are logical but which cannot or are not tested against reality. There have been numerous charming hypotheses that have gone aground on the shoals of testing. In Chapter 7, Gonzalez and Richard argue that there is a long list of factors that had to be just right in order for life to exist. While it may be true that if only one of them varied, life on Earth would be impossible, it could still be true that if, say, five of them varied together, different but still life-supporting conditions would prevail; we have way too little data. (I have little patience with anyone who claims that there definitely is/is not life on other planets or produces unsupportable equations demonstrating the likelihood.) It is true that on a number of issues, Strobel's opponents don't have scientific answers, but neither do his experts. Maybe we just don't know. I am not impressed by elimination arguments, i.e., "If I knock down other theories, you have to believe mine." We are still generally left with "In my opinion, this is the most reasonable explanation" posing as "This is an unbiased scientific fact." I am unimpressed with the kalam argument, a more sophisticated version of the Unmoved Mover argument, since I could just as well state as my premise that we don't know of any things in our experience which do not come into being, and we should therefore assume that there is nothing outside of our experience that does. I use Unaided Logic at times and while it may be reasonable, rational, logical and useful, I don't kid myself that it is scientific.

Soap box: I want to thank Zondervan or Strobel, whoever is responsible for the format of the notes. The running title is Chapter X: [Chapter title] and each section of notes is topped by the same title. Makes it very easy to match up the citations with the quotes. ( )