Lee Strobel

[Angelwarrioress]

What primary literature does Strobel cite in support of his scientific claims?

He was an atheist who was a journalist for The Chicago Tribune, his wife was also an atheist, she got saved, he got really teed off. He did years of research interviewing the top scientists,archeologist's ,etc in the world so he could write a report to discredit Christianity, because he hated it so much, and ended up finding more evidence for than against.

 

[TeddyKGB]

He was an atheist who was a journalist for The Chicago Tribune, his wife was also an atheist, she got saved, he got really teed off. He did years of research interviewing the top scientists,archeologist's ,etc in the world so he could write a report to discredit Christianity, because he hated it so much, and ended up finding more evidence for than against.

I don't need you to give me an Amazon.com summary of one of his books. I have read two of them; I know what he claims.

I also know that, in The Case for a Creator, he interviews people who are nominally scientists, but who have an ideological opposition to evolutionary science. They say things that read like DaVinci Code dialog, punctuated by pithy sheep-food like, "Only an intelligent creator could have done this!!!"

I further know that even scientists can support wholly false positions given sufficient emotional motivation. What I want to know now is which peer-reviewed journal articles support Strobel's and/or his interviewees' claims.

 

[Angelwarrioress]

I don't need you to give me an Amazon.com summary of one of his books. I have read two of them; I know what he claims.

I also know that, in The Case for a Creator, he interviews people who are nominally scientists, but who have an ideological opposition to evolutionary science. They say things that read like DaVinci Code dialog, punctuated by pithy sheep-food like, "Only an intelligent creator could have done this!!!"

I further know that even scientists can support wholly false positions given sufficient emotional motivation. What I want to know now is which peer-reviewed journal articles support Strobel's and/or his interviewees' claims.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/finnish-peer-reviewed-article-thats-pro-id/

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3281

http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

 

[Baggins]

From the very beginning Case for the Creator is obviously deeply dishonest.

One of his primary claims is that the people he interviewed were experts in their fields and supported both sides of the debate.

That claim is hogwash.

these are the people he interviewed for his book:

Lee Stobel has a Masters in Law and a Journalism degree.
The following people are interviewed:
Chapter 3: Jonathan Wells: has a doctorate in molecular and cell biology, 1994, also a doctorate in religious studies. He is a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

On evolution, obviously couldn't get Gould or Meyr on the phone.

Chapter 4 and 9: Stephen C. Meyer: Cambridge educated philosopher of science. He is the director of the Center of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.

On science and faith which probably does no something about and DNA which is is obviously not qualified to call himself an expert.

Chapter 5: William Lane Craig: Doctorate in theology. Fellow of the Discovery Institute

And apparently a world expert in Cosmology despite having no qualifications in it.

Chapter 6: Robin Collins: Philosopher with Physics background. Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

At least he has a physics background but he is hardly an world reknowned expert in physics.

Chapter 7: Guillermo Gonzalez: Astronomer. Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

Has qualifications in relevant field.

Jay Wesley Richards: Philosophy and Theology. Vice President of the Discovery Institute.

Doesn't have qualifications in relevant field, perhaps he cribbed from Gonzalez.

Chapter 8: Michael Behe: Doctorate in Biochemistry. Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

relevant qualifications and world reknowned for making himself a laughing stock at the Dover trial.

Chapter 10: J. P. Moreland: doctorate in Philosophy and masters in theology. Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

I suppose some could say his qualifications are relevant to talk about conciousness, I wouldn't.

from

http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Lee Strobel/a_critical_review_of The Case For a Creator.htm

There is no balance there in fact they all belong to the same Institute, and they are not all world reknowned experts in their fields.

So if Strobel would lie about something so fundamental why would you treat anything else he has to say with unquestioning belief?

The guy is a huckster out to make a living from rubes, which he appears to have done quite succesfully.

 

[Elduran]

Well , if you could give me a real response instead of whining, I would honor you with a dignified response.

Another non-answer to my comments about Strobel. Well done.

For the record, neither of these paragraphs are me "whining":

Actually from what I can remember of his works, he interviewed only people who already agreed that creation was right and evolution was wrong. He certainly didn't interview "the top scientists,archeologist's, and many others who are the cream of the crop in their respective fields" and then come to conclusions based on the evidence.

Also, if I recall correctly, his books were published a very long time after he became a creationist and contained quotes from after that time, so it's unlikely that he ever did this legendary investigation with any intent to prove evolution correct.

And both totally undermine Strobel's credibility when you also take into account the fact that he never received an advanced education in science at all. In short, he cherry-picked the information and sources he would look at, then came to a conclusion based on biased evidence. And that's what you see written in his "Case for..." books. Pure intellectual dishonesty on his part.

 

[Elduran]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/finnish-peer-reviewed-article-thats-pro-id/

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3281

http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

None of which are peer reviewed. Dembski's own department at the university he works at have actually issued a statement saying that they do not agree with any of the so-called science he is currently espousing, and it is probably the case that only his tenure is protecting him from unemployment at this stage (not that it would matter, I imagine he can make more than enough money from people willing to buy into his bunk)

The other interesting thing about Dembski is that a few people have gone over to UD from here to try and have a discussion with him. Whenever they ask questions he doesn't like, he deletes their post and bans them from the forum. Nice way to answer your critics, no?


*EDIT*

WOW, I just saw that the first link in the forum linked by you in your post actually shows a news report of an American school defending its right to teach Intelligent Design... Of course, what you probably don't realise is that this was a major turning point for the ID movement. It was at the Dover trial where they were once and for all laughed out of the public schools system in the USA for being as scientific as astrology and the ether theory for transmission of light. Behe was made a fool of in the witness stand and shown to either be lying or ignorant of modern investigation into so-called irreducibly complex structures, Dembski chickened out of being questioned and decided to run away to his little forum where no-one is allowed to disagree with him, and most of the rest of the creation/ID side were found to be lying or uneducated on the basics of science that should be required for anyone discussing or promoting an alternative to science.

Pure comedy gold!

 

[cwalla5]

Question: How exactly could one actually go about proving a supernatural influence? You would have to first believe that the supernatural exists, right?

If God, as an invisible entity, came and put a big hole in the ground, similar to the grand canyon, how would you prove that it was God and not erosion and such..it would depend on what you believed at first..If you believed in God you would find a way to say it was God, if you believed in science, you would say it was erosion.

I don't know why people who don't believe in God love to argue about it so much, all this energy arguing about something you don't believe...seems kind of pointless..and this is a "christianforum" website..why would you waste all your scientific data on silly christians?

e.g. The Case for Faith and The Case Against Faith, they both cancel each other out, so all that is left is what you started with before either side was presented, what you believe...

 

[cwalla5]

It seems that science, or the level of scientific knowledge or evidence, some of you are referring to is unattainable or vague to 99% of the world. Is it reasonable to think that something so relevant to life and the world can only be possessed by those chosen few? and if this is so, that means that they can just make stuff up, which does occur...

Science is falliable, so why should Stroble have to base everything he says on science? In every area of science there are exceptions, so how can you put 100% faith into something that is not 100% true? Yes, science can give you a general idea of how things work, but unexplanatory events occur all of the time..and what do scientists say to that..they disregard that data and record whatever supports their hypothesis

No one knows everything, so how can you say you base what you believe on fact? you don't know all of the facts!! At best you can say..I think this is how it works, or it seems to work like this..no one can say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, based on how ever many peer reviewed articles, how something works or came into being.

But I can believe whatever I want, belief is not based on fact so it cannot be proven or disproved; although it can be supported by scientific evidence

Unlike science, the BIBLE can be understood by everyone if translated into their language if they have a desire to understand it..which makes it a more of substance because it is subject to the criticism of a great number of people (how's that for peer-review?)scientific theories are subject to only a few, and these few could be wrong in some way but not many people would know because its not accessible to critique by many people,..all great minds are not locked up in a lab somewhere

 

[Tenka]

Unlike science, the BIBLE can be understood by everyone if translated into their language if they have a desire to understand it

This myth that science is some inaccessible black hole of mystery only inhabited by a handful of people pervades Christian thinking.
Why is that?
Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people study and research biology. Geological and cosmological data is available to anyone with the time. Everyone can do science and their results can be clearly communicated.
The Bible is made of documents written a long time ago and we can't discuss with any of the authors what they meant.
You say the Bible is understandable where science isn't? When reading about star formation I have never had to consider what 'rape' meant in the cultural context of the document.
I don't have to take into consideration that my chemistry textbook was written in a time when slavery and the selling of one's children was acceptable.
I don't have to explain away the fact that the word 'atom' originally meant 'indivisible' when we now know an atom is actually not, we simply say we have new data which overrides the old theory although the same term is retained.

You say that

it (the Bible) is subject to the criticism of a great number of people (how's that for peer-review?)

But it isn't. The Bible claims to be of divine inspiration and it is impossible to critique any god.
It is simply subject to infinite interpretation, which is why we get Lutherans, Catholics and Westboro Baptist all reading from the same page, all having different agendas.

 

[thaumaturgy]

It seems that science, or the level of scientific knowledge or evidence, some of you are referring to is unattainable or vague to 99% of the world. Is it reasonable to think that something so relevant to life and the world can only be possessed by those chosen few?

Not to be disrespectful here, but science is as understandable as any other specific field. Let's assume you are a government regulator. I would say your bizarre realm is beyond comprehension to me.

Indeed science is there for those who want to learn it.

Science is falliable, so why should Stroble have to base everything he says on science? In every area of science there are exceptions, so how can you put 100% faith into something that is not 100% true?

And of course you are revealing nothing that all scientists don't already know FULL WELL.

The only people who claim 100% accuracy and knowledge are those least likely to understand said accuracy and knowledge...the religious. Religion is the only area of life where someone can, without any data claim absolute knowledge.

Unlike science, the BIBLE can be understood by everyone

And that is why the entire world is Christian, right? Did I miss anything there? It is so abundantly clear that only the fool would fail to comprehend it.

Oh, yeah, and the occasional bizarre disconnect like Judas dying in two different ways or countless other contradictions in the Bible. It's all crystal clear! That's why it reads so well.

Sorry, but if the Bible were a peer reviewed document that was intended for comprehension to even the most simple it would have to be decreed an abysmal failure.

It would have been sent back to the authors for major and massive revision.

IF you think the Bible is more clear than science then that only says something about YOU. It says it makes sense to YOU somehow. You have universalized your own personal experience and are drawing unsupported conclusions from it.

which makes it a more of substance because it is subject to the criticism of a great number of people (how's that for peer-review?)scientific theories are subject to only a few, and these few could be wrong in some way but not many people would know because its not accessible to critique by many people,..all great minds are not locked up in a lab somewhere

You are aware that great minds have been working for nearly 2000 years to "understand" the Bible, right? That it has taken 2000 years of nearly constant effort and "exegesis" to make a comprehensible "whole" from the Scriptures. And yet we end up with more and more different "sects" each passing decade. Heresies that must be violently extirpated to protect the faith.

Sounds like you might have a flaw in your reasoning here.