Mike Edwards's Reviews > The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God

The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Nov 23, 2011

did not like it
bookshelves: religion

Strobel lays out three arguments in this book, all of which are problematic:

1) Creationism and Evolution are two completely distinct ideas, completely at odds with each other, there is no viable middle ground between the two, and no viable alternatives. His proof of this largely boils down to "both religious creationists and atheist scientists have asserted this to be true, therefore it must be true!"

2) Evolution is "just a theory", not all evolutionary biologists can agree on even some of the most basic tenets of it, and therefore it is an inherently flawed theory. In this, Strobel only demonstrates that he has never read any philosophy of science, and has no idea how scientific progress is made.

3) There are plenty of natural phenomenon that science cannot adequately explain, therefore a higher power must exist. Never mind that if science knew everything already, there would be no need for further scientific exploration.
4 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Case for a Creator.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

01/24/2017 marked as: read

Comments (showing 1-1 of 1) (1 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Samuel Ronicker Did you even read the book? The text NEVER claims that evolution is just a theory, it only attacks evolution on its own terms, showing that evolution cannot account for many of the things we see today.

The book doesn't really make any truth claims at all, it only speaks to evidence that many overlook, from science that seems to indicated that there is a Creator. Your #3 is implying a god of the gaps argument, which the text clearly doesn't follow. God of the gaps is an argument from ignorance, we don't know therefore it must be god. However, this text lays out several theories and then asks the reader to select the one that has the best explanatory power. No where in the text is science defamed or dismissed in any way. No one is trying to claim that science does or doesn't know everything. The only critique of science was that it has become too naturalistic. Science shouldn't be about the search for a naturalistic answer, it should be about the search for answers.

back to top