The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, part 4

It's been a while since I posted on The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. (Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.) Strobel is really presenting a case for Intelligent Design (ID). The most thorough criticism of the book (almost entirely negative) is here.

I agree with some of the criticism. Strobel is making a case, not examining the evidence in an unbiased manner. The most glaring evidence of that is that he interviews a number of experts (he's a journalist by training) all of them ID advocates. Surprise! They think ID is the explanation for how the universe began, and how life began.

This is my position on ID, quoted from my post of September 26, 2005: "Lest there be any doubt, I believe that there is an omnipotent God, and that He was directly involved in the origin of the universe, of living things, and of humans, and that at least some attributes of the way things are were designed by God. If that makes me an IDer, then I am one." Most IDers, including, I am confident, Strobel, would go further, and say two things I am not so sure of. The first is that ID is subject to scientific proof. The second is that it should be taught in public school science classes.

(I also refer you to a series of posts, entitled "I believe in evolution. So do you!." The first is here, the second here, and the third here. In this series, I ask that "evolution" be defined carefully. I indicate that some meanings of what is called evolution should be uncontroversial, and that some meanings are not scientific at all, and should be considered as philosophical or theological, and that the most important content of Genesis 1:1 is Who created, not when, how, or why.)

The middle part of the book consists of interviews on cosmology, physics and astronomy. Here, if anything, the case for design is stronger than it is for the existence of life. One of the experts that Strobel calls for an interview is Robin Collins. Among other things, Strobel quotes Collins as mentioning Martin Rees, interviewed about his book Why is There Life, in Discover Magazine (hardly a bastion of ID doctrine) who said that "The universe is unlikely. Very unlikely. Deeply, shockingly unlikely." (emphasis in original) Rees, an astronomer, says that there are six fundamental constants with values that allow for life to exist as we know it. If their values were just a little different, we wouldn't be here to write and read this.

But, of course, that's the rub. I think the universe was designed. Strobel certainly does. But, to me, the seeming unlikelihood of us being here, or, to put it another way, does not prove design. For one thing, you could postulate that, if the constants Rees mentions were somewhat different, there would be different kinds of beings considering such cosmic questions. Perhaps beings not based on Carbon, for example. Perhaps beings tolerant of much more heat than we can take, or of extreme cold, or high or low gravity. They, too, might see the properties of their universe as pointing toward design.

My late father probably produced billions of sperm during his lifetime. All of them were probably different genetically. I am here because one particular sperm fertilized an egg from my mother. There were the many kinds of eggs my mother could have produced, and the small chance of my parents, who were from different states, meeting and falling in love. If someone could have sensibly asked the question, say in 1920, before my parents met: "what is the probability that a person with the genetic qualities of Martin LaBar will exist?" the answer would have been extremely small. Yet here I am. I'm trying to say that we must be very careful of arguments from probability. Belief in God as creator comes by faith (Hebrews 11:3).

Even is we can't scientifically prove God's activity, we who believe should rejoice in God's ability and choice to design the universe as he did.

Thanks for reading.

The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, part 3

I continue commenting on Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator, mostly commenting on ideas in the order Strobel has presented them. In summary, the book is a defense of the idea of Intelligent Design (ID). Strobel is not a young-earth creationist. He interprets most scientific evidence in the way most scientists do, with the origin of the variety of living things being a stand-0ut exception.

Much of the book is based on interviews with believers in Intelligent Design. (Strobel's background is journalism, not science)

His second interview is with philosopher Stephen C. Meyer. Meyer, and Strobel, are strongly opposed to the notion that science has ruled out Divine action, and is the only source of truth. According to Strobel, Meyer told him that

. . . to say that science is the only begetter of truth is self-contradicting, because that statement in itself cannot be tested by the scientific method. It's a self-defeating philosophical assumption. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. p. 88.

I agree with this statement whole-heartedly. I suspect that many scientists simply accept that "science is the only begetter of truth" as if it were the truth, without having really thought about it. However, even if science isn't the only begetter of truth, that doesn't mean that Meyer (or I) are correct in our views.

Meyer discusses the late Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages, in which Gould, a paleontologist who was a great teacher and prolific writer on science and its history, writing for intelligent laypersons, not scientists, introduced the idea of non-overlapping magisteria, or NOMA, in which Gould allowed that religious belief had its place, but that it didn't overlap with science at all. Meyer says that what Gould was really doing was to marginalize religion. Ian G. Barbour, in his When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? says that there are four possibilities for the interaction between science and religion, namely conflict, independence, dialogue and interaction. Gould was a believer in independence. I am a believer in integration -- according to Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19, God is revealed in nature. Hence science can tell us part of the truth about the way things are. So can the Bible. The revelation of God, through both scripture and science, would not conflict if we understood them both properly.

Meyer claims that naturalism, pantheism, or dualism are not satisfactory explanations for the way things are.

In general, I agree with Meyer, as presented by Strobel. However, Meyer himself, according to Strobel, says that "You can't absolutely prove -- or disprove -- the existence of God." (p. 100) Again, I agree, based on Hebrews 11:3. If Meyer is correct, Strobel isn't going to be able to prove his Case for a Creator. He can make a case, and that is what he has tried to do in this book.

Meyer has his critics. Jacobsen is one. As he says, quoting Strobel, Meyer says, "I don't think it's right to invoke a self-serving rule that says only naturalistic explanations can be considered in science. Let's have a new period in the history of science where we have methodological rules that actually foster the unfettered seeking of truth."

Jacobsen then says:
I hear this type of argument raised by laypeople quite often. I concede that at first blush, it sounds reasonable. Shouldn't all possibilities be considered when seeking the truth? Yet there is a very simple and legitimate reason why the miraculous or supernatural, even if it exists, cannot be part of scientific investigation: The only tools a scientist has to work with are naturalistic. We have no tool to measure or quantify the miraculous. The bedrock of science is to be able to make testable predictions that can be verified by independent observers. Supernatural explanations rarely provide testable hypotheses. This is not merely a naturalistic bias as Strobel and Meyer would argue; it is simply a statement of fact. - "Another Case not Made: Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator" Paul Jacobsen.

I agree with Jacobsen on that, and, as indicated above, believe that I have scriptural evidence to back this up.

So, by his own arguments, Meyer has shown that Strobel's case can not absolutely be made. In spite of this, Strobel, apparently not accepting this, plans to go on.

On p. 108, Strobel puts forth his plan for going on. He asks "Would the case for a creator hold up when it was scrutinized more carefully and when I could cross-examine experts with all of the questions that plagued me?" This is after interviewing Wells and Meyer. He resolved, he says, to "put experts in cosmology, physics, astronomy, microbiology, biological information, and consciousness to the test and see whether the case is as strong as Meyer claimed." (p. 109) As Jacobsen put it, Strobel's experts are only going to be IDers. There are many scientists who have vigorously attacked ID. Strobel seldom so much as mentions them, let alone questions them about their arguments, or gives them a chance to present them. Also, his experts are not complete. He might well have planned to interview an expert in hominid fossils, but did not.

The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, part 2

I am continuing a series on Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator. My comments, for the first few posts, anyway, will take the same order as Strobel's book. Much of that book is interviews with various persons who believe in Intelligent Design (ID).

Strobel's first interview is with Jonathan Wells (beginning p. 38). He consistently lists not just the interviewee, but his degrees (they are all male), which indicates that Strobel is on the defensive here. He is trying to establish the credibility of his witnesses by their credentials. Jonathan Wells is the author of Icons of Evolution, in which he claims that there are images, or icons, which have been shown to the public, including students, for a long time. Wells says they have been mis-represented, or oversold, as proofs of evolution. The four considered in Strobel's interview are:
1) The Miller-Urey experiment, in which a mixture of simple gases was electrified, resulting in some simple organic compounds, including amino acids, and sugars. Wells, and Strobel, argue that the mixture of gases used was not representative of conditions on the early earth, and that, even if such experiments could be made realistic, they would not show how self-replicating molecules (DNA) could have arisen.
2) Darwin's tree of life. Wells and Strobel argue that there was a Cambrian explosion, wherein many new types of organisms arose in a (geologically) short time, which argues against the tree of life idea.
3) Haeckel's embryos. Haeckel purported to show great similarity between the embryos of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, in sketches that have often been used in biology books, thus providing evidence for common descent. Wells and Strobel argue that the pictures that have been presented to the public were made so as to exaggerate the similarity.
4) Archaeopteryx, the missing link. Archaeopteryx was a fossil with characteristics of both birds and reptiles, including both teeth and feathers. Wells and Strobel argue that it was not a link between these two classes of vertebrates.

Wells has more to say in his own book, but my post is about Strobel's.

There are a number of reviewers who take pot-shots at Wells, or his book. To read some, just do a Google search on "Jonathan Wells Icons of Evolution." Most of the returns will be attacks (which doesn't, by itself, mean, of course, that Wells is wrong!). Paul Jacobsen, in "Another Case not Made," criticizes Strobel's entire book in considerable detail. A lot of his criticisms are about Wells, or Strobel's presentation of Wells.

Jacobsen concentrates on Archaeopteryx. He points out that, even though the public has often been told that Archaeopteryx was a missing link, it really wasn't, and sound paleontology doesn't claim that it was. I'm not a paleontologist, but I think that there is considerable justice in what Jacobsen says about this matter. Probably Wells has done a service, if he dispelled that notion, although I doubt Jacobsen would credit him for that.

Jacobsen also says that Wells misunderstands or misrepresents the significance of the Cambrian explosion. Jacobsen wrote that "many readers probably got the idea that the life forms that lived during the Cambrian Explosion were roughly the same as today--but nothing could be further from the truth." More seriously for Wells' position, Jacobsen says that "Wells argues against the idea that transitional life forms ever existed at all. This makes his bringing up the Cambrian Explosion all the more ironic. If the Cambrian Explosion was anything at all, it was a period of transitional life forms! Wells argues that there are no transitional life forms. Yet the Cambrian Explosion was nothing but transitional life forms!" (Emphasis in original) Jacobsen's view, as I understand the situation, is correct.

For more on the Miller-Urey experiment, see here. The web page referenced, which is from a biology professor at the University of Southern Mississippi, seems to be part of a class of that University. It agrees with Wells that the relevance of the Miller-Urey experiment, as originally performed, has declined, because, as Wells says, the Miller-Urey gas mixture probably wasn't the same as that of the early earth. However, The web page goes on to point out that the Miller-Urey experiment has been fruitful, in that it has led to further exploration of the possibility of synthesis of molecules needed for life from simple gases.

As to Haeckel's embryo sketches, they were, indeed, misleading, and, as an important naturalist (for more on this term, see here) critic of Wells admits, Wells is basically correct about the story (the link also shows drawings). This critic goes on to point out that exaggerations by Haeckel, or others, of the similarities between various types of embryos, doesn't prove that there are no such similarities, or that the various classes of vertebrates couldn't be related by descent.

My own comment on Haeckel's drawings is that I haven't seen them in introductory biology books for many years. (They may still be found in some such books -- I haven't seen them all.) That being the case, Wells' criticism is less important than Strobel and Wells seem to think.

My judgment is that, even though some of his claims seem overblown, Wells performed a useful service in pointing out that there have been exaggerations of various kinds in attempting to show that all organisms are related by descent. Unfortunately, those trying to push naturalistic theories of origins are not the only persons who have not been careful with the truth. It's too easy to rely on soundbites, and whether the subject is politics or science, they seldom give more than a caricature of the true picture.

The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, part 1

A student gave me a copy of Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004) upon her graduation from University. I was, and am, most grateful. I promised that I would read it, and I have. I am attempting to write a series of posts on the book, and related matters. (I am also attempting to keep a promise made to my readers, if any, here.)

The book is important. It is about an important subject. Amazon ranked the hardback book about 6,000 in sales, as of October 8, 2005. The hardback ranked about 8,000. Although, as you will see if you read, I've got some problems with the book, and with Intelligent Design, the book is, in my opinion, well worth reading. It covers more than just biological origins, and presents a lot of ideas.

Strobel wrote the book, he says, because his own background told him that belief in evolution was not compatible with belief in God as creator:

I've lost count of the number of spiritual skeptics who have told me that their seeds of doubt were planted in high school or college when they studied Darwinism. When I read in 2002 about an Eagle Scout being booted from his troop for refusing to pledge reverence to God, I wasn't surprised to find out he "had been an atheist since studying evolution in the ninth grade." Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. p. 24.

Personally, however, I couldn't understand how the Darwinism I was taught left any meaningful role for God. I was told that the evolutionary process was by definition undirected -- and to me, that automatically ruled out a supernatural deity who was pulling the strings behind the scene. p. 25.

I have previously indicated, in a series of posts, that one reason for problems in this area is that both conservative Christians and advocates of naturalism do not define their terms carefully. I'm not supposing that my posts, or anybody else's, are going to change anything about this, which is too bad. Natural selection works, and there are similarities between living organisms. These facts about living things relate to evolution. Neither of them really have any bearing on whether or not there is a Creator. To read lots of stuff from "both sides," you'd think they did.

Much of Strobel's book is what you might expect from a journalist, which is his background. That is, he went out and interviewed several thinkers about origins, and reports on what he found.

Three introductory remarks on Strobel's book.
First, it is the Case for a Creator. He is arguing one side of an argument. Don't read this book expecting to get an independent, unbiased view. (Don't expect many books to do that. One that tries is Del Ratzsch's The Battle of beginnings : why neither side is winning the creation-evolution debate (Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1996))
Second, Strobel, nor any of the experts he has spoken to, and written about, are young-earth creationists. I found no statement in the entire book suggesting that these persons believe the earth is younger than several million, or billion, years. Strobel, and his experts, also seem to agree that there was a Big Bang.
Third, these persons, including Strobel, all believe in Intelligent Design (ID). So do I, depending on what you mean. To quote from my post of September 26, 2005: "Lest there be any doubt, I believe that there is an omnipotent God, and that He was directly involved in the origin of the universe, of living things, and of humans, and that at least some attributes of the way things are were designed by God. If that makes me an IDer, then I am one." I expect to make some remarks about how I think I may differ from mainstream IDers, and some of the weaknesses of the ID movement, before finishing this series, however long it may be.

The book is well indexed, and has lots of notes. Supernaturalists are often criticized for not using primary sources, or for quoting out of context. There's some of that from Strobel--he often has not used primary scientific literature very much--but I think the sheer volume of sources is a plus.

Strobel's book has been criticized at considerable length, usually negatively, by Paul Jacobsen, in his "Another Case Not Made." One of his criticisms that rings true is that Strobel presents his book as if he were a skeptic on these matters, listening carefully to more than one position, then drawing a conclusion. Jacobsen is correct--that's not what happened. Strobel didn't interview any young-earth creationists, or naturalists. He interviewed only IDers. He had already drawn his conclusion when he started writing the book.