A review of an Atheist's review of 'The case for a Creator' Lee Strobel

[vaughan ebrahim]

My reply to a review by an atheist, to whom I lent this book, and who seems typical of the implacability of today's unbeliever. I attempt to argue with him on his own ground, while at the same time, giving a biblical perspective.
It is part 1, of possibly 3 parts, in which I try to establish that what he posits is belief and not truth.
Please let me whether you think it works before I start Part 2. What is truth? and Part 3. How we can come to know it?
Vaughan

 

[Job 33:6]

Lee Strobels books are about 15-20 years behind the scientific community. I read a couple of his books a few years ago and vaguely remember them but let's see what you have.

"I consider that the sudden appearance of numerous fossilised body plans as
the major contradiction to evolutionary theory"

Yet there above you observe that the Cambrian explosion unfolded over some 40 million years. Of course not sudden at all.

"Arguing about dates, the measuring of which are themselves an argument, is
an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that complete and separate animal body plans were found together in the Cambrian period. This does not fit with evolutionary theories of random mutation and natural selection, with gradual change over an astronomical number of years"

Yes it does fit. This is how radiations of biodiversity always occur throughout Earth history. Especially if the layers of the period span over 40 million years as noted above.

"Unfortunately, fossils are found primarily in sedimentary rock, so any dating of
fossils is not the sedimentary rock in which they are found, but in rock layers
above and below them"

You seem to have forgotten about the law of inclusions and cross cutting relations. Though even further, it isn't too hard to understand that if a layer below is 50 million years old and a layer above is 30 million, that the layer in between will be 40.

"You know the process and believe it despite the imponderables like, making
assumptions about the constancy of rates of decay, the impossibility of
knowing accurate starting levels for both parent and daughter isotopes, and
the likely incidence of contamination."

What's great about contamination is that we can measure contamination with thinks like blanks, matrix spikes and duplicate samples. And that resolves all of the above concerns. Who could argue that results are innaccurate due to contamination if you have hundreds of samples yielding identical results? We also have definite crystal lattices demonstrating the original quantities of parent isotopes prior to decay. But even further, the repeatability of analytical results further demonstrates a proper understanding of the initial ratios as well.

"Wells refers to the Cladist argument, and that the fossil record that those
reptiles with most bird-like features, arrive millions of years after
Archaeopteryx. "

I would think that this were simply untrue. The article doesn't elaborate on any details. But most people are generally familiar with the fact that theropod dinosaurs predate archaeopteryx. So I'm not sure why Wells would suggest the opposite.

Much of your response document doesn't actually discuss science but rather appears to be hung up on theological and political challenges. Which is fine, but I wouldn't confuse theological arguments with scientific ones. Arguments against communist China or Marxism cannot substitute as arguments against scientific research.


My recommendation would be to learn science from scientists, not from apologetics lay-books. Regarding fossils, I'd recommend reading books by Donald Protheros or neil Shubin. Or you can always just defer to research itself such as that of Spencer Lucas.

 

[Job 33:6]

Lee Strobels books are about 15-20 years behind the scientific community. I read a couple of his books a few years ago and vaguely remember them but let's see what you have.

"I consider that the sudden appearance of numerous fossilised body plans as
the major contradiction to evolutionary theory"

Yet there above you observe that the Cambrian explosion unfolded over some 40 million years. Of course not sudden at all.

"Arguing about dates, the measuring of which are themselves an argument, is
an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that complete and separate animal body plans were found together in the Cambrian period. This does not fit with evolutionary theories of random mutation and natural selection, with gradual change over an astronomical number of years"

Yes it does fit. This is how radiations of biodiversity always occur throughout Earth history. Especially if the layers of the period span over 40 million years as noted above.

"Unfortunately, fossils are found primarily in sedimentary rock, so any dating of
fossils is not the sedimentary rock in which they are found, but in rock layers
above and below them"

You seem to have forgotten about the law of inclusions and cross cutting relations. Though even further, it isn't too hard to understand that if a layer below is 50 million years old and a layer above is 30 million, that the layer in between will be 40.

"You know the process and believe it despite the imponderables like, making
assumptions about the constancy of rates of decay, the impossibility of
knowing accurate starting levels for both parent and daughter isotopes, and
the likely incidence of contamination."

What's great about contamination is that we can measure contamination with thinks like blanks, matrix spikes and duplicate samples. And that resolves all of the above concerns. Who could argue that results are innaccurate due to contamination if you have hundreds of samples yielding identical results? We also have definite crystal lattices demonstrating the original quantities of parent isotopes prior to decay. But even further, the repeatability of analytical results further demonstrates a proper understanding of the initial ratios as well.

"Wells refers to the Cladist argument, and that the fossil record that those
reptiles with most bird-like features, arrive millions of years after
Archaeopteryx. "

I would think that this were simply untrue. The article doesn't elaborate on any details. But most people are generally familiar with the fact that theropod dinosaurs predate archaeopteryx. So I'm not sure why Wells would suggest the opposite.

Much of your response document doesn't actually discuss science but rather appears to be hung up on theological and political challenges. Which is fine, but I wouldn't confuse theological arguments with scientific ones. Arguments against communist China or Marxism cannot substitute as arguments against scientific research.


My recommendation would be to learn science from scientists, not from apologetics lay-books. Regarding fossils, I'd recommend reading books by Donald Protheros or neil Shubin. Or you can always just defer to research itself such as that of Spencer Lucas.

And actually, most people don't pay attention to this fact but in reality only about 1/3 of phyla appear in the Cambrian fossil record. So not only is the explosion spanning tens of millions of years, but it also isn't even all encompassing. Most people aren't generally familiar with precambrian microshellies that have been discovered over the past couple decades. But eventually strobel will catch up with the research.

“Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.”

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 80-81.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 60-62.

Small shelly fauna - Wikipedia

And here is a table of phyla I've made myself, all are welcome to critique it.

 

[vaughan ebrahim]

And actually, most people don't pay attention to this fact but in reality only about 1/3 of phyla appear in the Cambrian fossil record. So not only is the explosion spanning tens of millions of years, but it also isn't even all encompassing. Most people aren't generally familiar with precambrian microshellies that have been discovered over the past couple decades. But eventually strobel will catch up with the research.

“Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.”

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 80-81.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 60-62.

Small shelly fauna - Wikipedia

And here is a table of phyla I've made myself, all are welcome to critique it.

View attachment 310021

Lee Strobels books are about 15-20 years behind the scientific community. I read a couple of his books a few years ago and vaguely remember them but let's see what you have.

"I consider that the sudden appearance of numerous fossilised body plans as
the major contradiction to evolutionary theory"

Yet there above you observe that the Cambrian explosion unfolded over some 40 million years. Of course not sudden at all.

"Arguing about dates, the measuring of which are themselves an argument, is
an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that complete and separate animal body plans were found together in the Cambrian period. This does not fit with evolutionary theories of random mutation and natural selection, with gradual change over an astronomical number of years"

Yes it does fit. This is how radiations of biodiversity always occur throughout Earth history. Especially if the layers of the period span over 40 million years as noted above.

"Unfortunately, fossils are found primarily in sedimentary rock, so any dating of
fossils is not the sedimentary rock in which they are found, but in rock layers
above and below them"

You seem to have forgotten about the law of inclusions and cross cutting relations. Though even further, it isn't too hard to understand that if a layer below is 50 million years old and a layer above is 30 million, that the layer in between will be 40.

"You know the process and believe it despite the imponderables like, making
assumptions about the constancy of rates of decay, the impossibility of
knowing accurate starting levels for both parent and daughter isotopes, and
the likely incidence of contamination."

What's great about contamination is that we can measure contamination with thinks like blanks, matrix spikes and duplicate samples. And that resolves all of the above concerns. Who could argue that results are innaccurate due to contamination if you have hundreds of samples yielding identical results? We also have definite crystal lattices demonstrating the original quantities of parent isotopes prior to decay. But even further, the repeatability of analytical results further demonstrates a proper understanding of the initial ratios as well.

"Wells refers to the Cladist argument, and that the fossil record that those
reptiles with most bird-like features, arrive millions of years after
Archaeopteryx. "

I would think that this were simply untrue. The article doesn't elaborate on any details. But most people are generally familiar with the fact that theropod dinosaurs predate archaeopteryx. So I'm not sure why Wells would suggest the opposite.

Much of your response document doesn't actually discuss science but rather appears to be hung up on theological and political challenges. Which is fine, but I wouldn't confuse theological arguments with scientific ones. Arguments against communist China or Marxism cannot substitute as arguments against scientific research.


My recommendation would be to learn science from scientists, not from apologetics lay-books. Regarding fossils, I'd recommend reading books by Donald Protheros or neil Shubin. Or you can always just defer to research itself such as that of Spencer Lucas.

Isaiah 41.10 Thanks for your comments.
I'm not really interested in the science, and I'm not saying that Strobel's book gives a definitive answer then or now. His mission was to disprove the existence of a creator God, by interviewing those he thought might confirm his atheist views, which were formed at College. It would be reasonable to assume from the text that he was double minded by the writing stage and was open to exploring the supernatural while debunking the naturalists, through his interviews. Its interesting but not definitive in any sense.
My response was to an Atheist friend who had read the book and took the time to protest the arguments against evolution in the way some lay people do.
However, most unbelievers aren't concerned with the truth or even scientific theory and reject God because they don't want to, or think they ever have to, answer to Him.
My interest is in exploring the beliefs of those who deny the GOD of the bible, which I believe, for almost all, is not based on scientific inquiry.
Incidentally, I don't understand why you want to separate science from other areas of inquiry and hold it up as proof of anything about origins.
We are drowning in hypotheses, scientific and philosophical, none of which answer the prime reality question, which we all have to consider, about the existence or not of GOD.
Your Bio says you are a Christian and use the Nom de Plume Isaiah 41.10. "Fear not, for I am with you; Be not dismayed, for I am your God. I will uphold you with My righteous right hand" A promise to Israel to restore the nation, and I would be interested to know why you use it?
I like 1 Kings. 18 vs 21. And Elijah came to all the people, and said " How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God follow him; but if Baal, follow him."
If one believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, then Genesis to Revelation, is the truth and everything else is foolishness.
Theistic Evolution is the Oxymoron
Vaughan

 

[Job 33:6]

Isaiah 41.10 Thanks for your comments.
I'm not really interested in the science, and I'm not saying that Strobel's book gives a definitive answer then or now. His mission was to disprove the existence of a creator God, by interviewing those he thought might confirm his atheist views, which were formed at College. It would be reasonable to assume from the text that he was double minded by the writing stage and was open to exploring the supernatural while debunking the naturalists, through his interviews. Its interesting but not definitive in any sense.
My response was to an Atheist friend who had read the book and took the time to protest the arguments against evolution in the way some lay people do.
However, most unbelievers aren't concerned with the truth or even scientific theory and reject God because they don't want to, or think they ever have to, answer to Him.
My interest is in exploring the beliefs of those who deny the GOD of the bible, which I believe, for almost all, is not based on scientific inquiry.
Incidentally, I don't understand why you want to separate science from other areas of inquiry and hold it up as proof of anything about origins.
We are drowning in hypotheses, scientific and philosophical, none of which answer the prime reality question, which we all have to consider, about the existence or not of GOD.
Your Bio says you are a Christian and use the Nom de Plume Isaiah 41.10. "Fear not, for I am with you; Be not dismayed, for I am your God. I will uphold you with My righteous right hand" A promise to Israel to restore the nation, and I would be interested to know why you use it?
I like 1 Kings. 18 vs 21. And Elijah came to all the people, and said " How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God follow him; but if Baal, follow him."
If one believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, then Genesis to Revelation, is the truth and everything else is foolishness.
Theistic Evolution is the Oxymoron
Vaughan

We cannot simply argue that Genesis is truth (scientifically) then essentially just turn our eyes away from science. I think the issue is really this simple. General revelation says what it says.

It seems more worthwhile to me to investigate explanations for a metaphorical or spiritual truth of Genesis, such as those described in Paul Seely's commentary on the firmament, or such as those of the biologos foundation, rather than to subscribe to the questionable theology of groups like AiG and the like.

If people aren't actually interested in the science, then they should quit trying to claim it for their themselves, and should quit misconstruing it.