The Case for a Creator

29 January 2007

Lee Strobel has made another accessible and fascinating introductory apologetics book in The Case for a Creator. By interviewing leading Christian scholars, including William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and Michael Behe, Strobel lays a solid foundation for belief in a Creator of the universe.

Due to the nature of the material, this book is more technical than The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith. Nevertheless, Strobel makes the book enjoyable and easy to read with his excellent writing style.

This book covers a large scope of issues, mostly dealing with scientific evidence for the existence of God. Craig gives a great defense of the Cosmological Argument while Robin Collins provides an excellent defense of the Teleological Argument (also known as the Design Argument)- including a brilliant refutation of the so-called “multi-verse” theory. Stephen Meyer demonstrates that the origin of life is strong evidence for a Creator, and J.P. Moreland shows that philosophical reasoning and scientific studies support the idea of a soul, which is inconsistent with the materialist philosophy espoused by almost all atheists.

As with all the other books in the “Case” series, Strobel offers some excellent recommended further reading at the end of each chapter for those who wish to pursue the issues further.

The only problem I had with the book was that I felt it focused too much on the issue of evolution. In many cases it seemed that Strobel was equating “Darwinism” and atheism- concepts which are certainly not interchangeable. By implying that evolution implies atheism, Strobel puts an unnecessary stumbling block in front of any person who believes that there is strong evidence for evolutionary theory, yet who could still be convinced on the basis of other evidence that God exists. I think it is unwise to spread the notion that Christianity and evolution are directly incompatible.

Despite this flaw, The Case for a Creator is an excellent resource and a recommended read for everyone.




——————————————————————————————————————

  1. I find the comment “By implying that evolution implies atheism, Strobel puts an unnecessary stumbling block in front of any person who believes that there is strong evidence for evolutionary theory, yet who could still be convinced on the basis of other evidence that God exists” intriguing. I’d love to see the author of this review reconcile the Theory of Evolution with the account of creation in the book of Genesis. They are absolutely incompatible.


    Terry    Feb 5, 04:37 PM    #
  2. “Absolutely incompatible” is a signpost for intellectual rigidty. Genesis is a description of evolution….without the partial and inflexible dogma of the post-modernist.


    Doug Blackley    Feb 8, 02:49 AM    #
  3. @terry – Early Church writings by leaders, apologists, and theologians give us a great glimpse into the Creation debate. Even in the infant centuries of the Church, the issue was not cut and dry. Many of these orthodox writers thought that the “Days of Creation” might be different than the days we’re used to (for instance, lasting a thousand “our” years or even much longer). Some believed the Creation account was a literal, historical record of the creation of the universe. And some believed that the entire Genesis account was a metaphor, using symbols to describe the Creation and Fall; consult Origen’s works, “The Fundamental Doctrines,” “Homilies on Genesis,” and “Against Celsus,” written in the 3rd century, and Augustine’s works “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” and “The City of God,” written in the early 5th century.

    If only Evangelicals, who so often appeal to Augustine’s proto-Calvinist standpoints, would open their mind to Augustine’s thoughts regarding the Genesis account!


    Stan Patton    Feb 12, 12:50 PM    #
  4. Bah! What an a hole for saying evolution requires atheism. I was interested in this book before that.


    Kalen Walkington    Feb 27, 05:19 PM    #
  5. “If only Evangelicals, who so often appeal to Augustine’s proto-Calvinist standpoints, would open their mind to Augustine’s thoughts regarding the Genesis account!” Hear hear! There is a lot of energy wasted driving unnecessary wedges between Scripture and Science…


    LfN    Feb 28, 11:42 AM    #
  6. While there is room for debate regarding a delayed creation of the universe as a whole through the notion that the “days” in the Genesis account may represent a time period other than 24 hours, there is no biblical reconciliation of evolution. If there was no “first” Adam, there’s no need for the second Adam.


    Protus Mose    Apr 16, 05:28 PM    #
  7. You have to realise that the evangelical worldview is not the only one that defends the existence of God and creation against Darwinism. It is just one way of looking at things. Christianity holds a much broader spectrum of views and ideas about this topic. If the evangelicals would stop viewing themselves as the only bastion of light against a tide of disbelief, a lot of things would become clearer and it would be easier to communicate things. Thats my opinion.


    — Ondrej, European ally    May 4, 03:47 PM    #
  8. @Stan – early Church leaders are also responsible for the dying out of the use of propehecy, healing, and other spiritual gifts. Pointing to a flawed group of people as evidence only detracts from whatever point you are making. Origen, for example, is surely not someone to pattern one’s life after.

    People who argue for the compatibility of evolution and Creationism fall under the category of unscientific minds who out of fear and ignorance try to find a way to incorporate falsehood with truth in order to avoid conflict. Do some research. Listen to what some of the more informed creationist scientists have to say before you throw Genesis under the bus. “Dr. Dino” is a nationally recognized creationist who publicly debates with evolutionists and debunks their theories in front of a live audience. He has books and audio files available online. He has a very corny personality, but the concepts he speaks on have not been refuted to my knowledge.

    I have sent friends to listen to him before, and I realize that it’s easy to ignore someone who makes stupid jokes like Dr. Dino does. At the same time, he can help you to understand how the Flood is responsible for most of the errors in evolutionist judgment. If you ignore the possibility of The Flood, you must come up with some sort of substitutionary response for how things got to be the way they are. It’s worth checking out.


    DanielthePoet    Jun 20, 07:18 AM    #
  9. Not at all, Protus Mose. Do you know what the generic Hebrew word for “mankind” is? It’s “adam”. Yes, there has to be a fall for redemption to be meaningful. But does that fall have to be one man eating a fruit, or is it a parable? There likely was never an actual Good Samaritan either, after all.

    “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” Is this any less true when re replace “adam” with what the Hebrew word actually means? “For as in mankind all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” Quite true, I think.


    — Matt    Sep 29, 09:08 AM    #
  10. For excellent reading on the supposed inconsistencies between the account in genesis and evolutionary theory, check out Creation and Time by Dr. Hugh Ross


    Carlin    Aug 31, 02:50 PM    #
  Textile Help