Evidence Of Purpose: Scientists Discover The Creator

---

Not all Creationists are idiots—neither are all idiots Creationists. Overall, I found this book quite enjoyable, and I highly recommend it. Jan 19, John Martindale rated it really liked it Shelves: Hardcore naturalist might as well not even read this book though, it only interviews the people they already ridicule, they will think the whole book is irrational, utter b.

Their presuppositions and perspective will automatically discredit every argument Strobel makes. To them it is not science if it points to a creator. For they are perfectly comfortable coming to naturalistic conclusions, and making naturalistic speculations, theories and guesses, and naturalism is a philosophical world-view, a set of presuppositions that color all they see.

They do not realize they are using science to promote their own philosophical worldview, all the while crying bloody murder the moment scientist claim science points to a Theist worldview. The fact is both sides have tons of evidence, and the judgment of whether the evidence is good or bad is fully dependent upon ones worldview. This means that evidence no matter HOW obvious, if in favor of God's existence, will be utterly stupid nonsense in the mind of naturalist, for there worldview does not allow it.

Its a matter of belief over a matter of evidence, no matter which belief you take, naturalistic or theistic, you will find butt loads of evidence supporting your view and Ph. D's back you up Dec 29, Lorraine Schratz rated it it was amazing. This is a fabulous, easy-to-read book for those who doubt God's existence based on science, as well as those who believe. Strobel concisely reviews the scientific evidence for evolution, the Big Bang and cellular biology, and shows how the evidence points to Intelligent Design as a basis for life on Earth.

Additional references are provided for those who want to do more research on their own. Apr 21, Hien Le rated it did not like it. It's hard to tell at times if this is supposed to be ironically tongue-in-cheek. I was hoping this would be good rebuttal to Dawkin's "The God Delusion" but this book doesn't e "It's pure a concept, an idea, without scientific proof [ I was hoping this would be good rebuttal to Dawkin's "The God Delusion" but this book doesn't even come close.

The "conversational" writing style is as condescending as a late night infomercial. There's straw-men aplenty and every chapter is essentially re-iterating the same argument: Sep 05, Brett Tompkins rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Anyone searching for logical and verifyible arguements for the existence of God. This book used logic and deductive reasoning to make a strong case for intelligent design vs. Not being one to put all my stock into one point of view, I also read a book on evolution. They both have very valid points, and I don't deny evolution's principle of survival of the fittest, and how over time it can actually cause organisms to 'evolve' to their environment, however the Case for a Creator is much more believable as far as the beginnings of life and organisms.

Don't take it fr This book used logic and deductive reasoning to make a strong case for intelligent design vs. Don't take it from me though. Read it and decide for yourself. Jul 23, Denise rated it did not like it Shelves: Poor arguments, multiple fallacies, flawed science, bogus experts. This book is a waste of time and money. Oct 17, Christopher rated it really liked it Shelves: This is a staggeringly heavy read for an author and former journalist who has made so many other topics accessible to the average reader.

Like his previous books that examined the evidence for the Biblical Christ and philosophical arguments for faith, this book examines the overwhelming evidence that points away from Darwinism to Intelligent Design. Strobel still finds a great deal of evidence that points towards a Creator.

In fact, as it is stated several times over in one form or another, you would have to have more faith to believe in Darwinism than in God after reading through all of the evidence in this book. Still, I have some criticisms that keep me from giving this book five stars: First, though finding a ton of evidence, Mr. Strobel only gives a personal argument as to how all of this points to the Christian God of the Bible. Strobel, who has extensively researched these topics, has every right to make that argument, I would have preferred that argument be made by one or more of his interviewees.

Second, he didn't seem to forcefully push the skeptics point of view as he had done in his previous works. This is especially true of the chapter on astronomy where, rather than seriously push alternatives, he seems to sit back and be awed by everything. His books always stand out because he pushes back with an atheistic or Darwinian argument and forces the interviewee to defend their argument, which they usually do stupendously.

And finally, this book, unlike its predecessors, uses a ton of technical terms that can go over the average reader's head. I even found myself befuddled at times by what was being said. Of course, simpler language would have made the book longer, but I wouldn't have minded so long as it was more accessible. Still, like "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith," this is a great introductory book to the case for Intelligent Design that can be followed up by reading the suggested works that are at the end of every interview. For several years in Reno, I taught a class called "Science and the Restoration.

Almost every one of these interviews is with a scientist who's works I read in developing my class! So I really didn't learn any new from Strobel's book, although it was a good refresher. Not all of his points match my personal theo For several years in Reno, I taught a class called "Science and the Restoration.

Yes, Intelligent Design Is Detectable by Science

Not all of his points match my personal theology the necessity of an ex-nihlo creation, and a disembodied God, for example. But the book is well worth reading. Many non-believers have criticized the book as not being objective and they are completely correct. Strobel is clearly a believer looking for scientific confirmation for his faith. On the other hand, many more books have been written by atheists looking for reasons NOT to believe.

I've read several of both.

Get A Copy

As Christ said to Moses, "…all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: Nov 23, Mike Edwards rated it did not like it Shelves: Strobel lays out three arguments in this book, all of which are problematic: 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!

In this, Strobel only demonstrates that he has never read any philosophy of science, and has no idea how scientific progress is made. Never mind that if science knew everything already, there would be no need for further scientific exploration. Nov 26, James Wallace rated it it was amazing. Excellent book, both for readers who want to know the science supporting intelligent design and for readers who are searching or doubtful about it. Explores all the disciplines via interviews with experts - physics, astronomy, biology, evolution, chemistry, more.

Fascinating without being overly-detailed in the minutia but plenty of footnotes, heavily referenced for additional drill-down. Makes the case persuasively; in fact, so persuasively that one has to wonder how scientists in any field c Excellent book, both for readers who want to know the science supporting intelligent design and for readers who are searching or doubtful about it. Makes the case persuasively; in fact, so persuasively that one has to wonder how scientists in any field can not be convinced of intelligent design.

Either those scientists are in denial or have another agenda, as Strobel shows the irony in educated scientists ignoring or trying to weave around through circular and flawed theories the overwhelming evidence for creation. It's as if those scientists have unwittingly created their own faith-based religion - one in which much greater faith is required than simply following the evidence supporting creation. Nov 26, Cynthia is currently reading it. Sep 25, Tim Chavel rated it really liked it. As most of you know Lee Strobel has written several "The Case for This one is very good. I don't necessaryly like his writing style but the information in is books are great.

It takes me a little bit longer to read his books than most books I read but it is worth it. You will get a great taste for the book from the quotes below. I trust they will either encorage you or challenge your belief.

The Evidence, [Patrick] Glynn credits the absolutely incredible fine-tuning of the cosmos as being among the key reasons why he concluded that the universe must have been the handiwork of a master designer. A universe aiming at the production of man implies a mind directing it. Though man is not at the physical center of the universe, he appears to be at the center of its purpose. The result is a universe that has just the right conditions to sustain life. The coincidences are simply too amazing to have been the result of happenstance.

Everyone came to agree that the moon cannot support life. Yet surprising discoveries in recent years have shown the opposite to be true: Scientific evidence confirms how this parched, airless satellite actually contributes in unexpected ways to creating a lush and stable environment a quarter of a million miles away on Earth. The tilt is responsible for our seasons. During the summer, in the northern hemisphere the north pole axis is pointed more toward the sun. Six months later, when the Earth is on the other side of the sun, then the south pole is more pointed toward the sun.

So in a very real way, the stability of our climate is attributable to the moon. Then our tilt could swing wildly over a large range, resulting in major temperature swings. If our tilt were more like ninety degrees, the north pole would be exposed to the sun for six months, while the south pole would be in darkness, then vice-versa. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.

Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. Harold One scientist described a singled-celled organism as a high-tech factory, complete with artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction … [and] a capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.

So what do we make of the fact that DNA stores far more information in a smaller space than the most advanced supercomputer on the planet? At this point, having considered J. I wanted to hear his affirmative case that consciousness and the souls are immaterial entities. This led Sperry to conclude materialism was false. In wisdom You made them all; the earth is full of Your creatures. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God. It only enriches it.

They are so tightly bound to each other inside the protons and neutrons that nothing can make them break out on their own. Why, then, do I believe in these invisible quarks? His existence makes sense of many aspects of our knowledge and experience: I think that very similar thought processes are involved in both cases. I do not believe that I shift in some strange intellectual way when I move from science to religion.

The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God

While it requires scrupulous attention to matters of truth, it also calls for the response of commitment to the truth discovered. Yet the distant shimmering of stars does not itself create this sense of longing; it merely exposes what is already there. They are catalysts for our spiritual insights, revealing our emptiness and compelling us to ask whether and how this void might be filled.

Might our true origins and destiny somehow lie beyond these stars? Might there not be a homeland, from which we are presently exiled and to which we secretly long to return? Might not our accumulation of discontentment and disillusionment with our present existence be a pointer to another land where our true destiny lies and which is able to make its presence felt now in this haunting way?

The Information Enigma

Suppose that this is not where we are meant to be but that a better land is at hand? We have somehow lost our way. Would not this make our present existence both strange and splendid? Strange, because it is not where our true destiny lies; splendid, because it points ahead to where that real hope might be found. But if we mistake the signpost for what is signposted, we will attach our hopes and longings to lesser goals, which cannot finally quench our thirst for meaning.

Aug 17, Sarah Grace Grzy marked it as to-read. Got about 80 pages through in about 4 months time. I'll pick this up again in the winter when I can devote more time to it. Jul 22, Amanda rated it liked it. Before I write my review, I think it's necessary to state a little about myself. Growing up in school, I had no internal conflicts with science and faith. When I got to college, my natural sciences professor with his anti-Christian attitude all but shoved me in the direction of intelligent design which, ironically, I had never heard of prior to taking his class.

I remained that way for about two years before I again accepted evolution as a valid theory. That being said, reading this book did n Before I write my review, I think it's necessary to state a little about myself. That being said, reading this book did not push me back to intelligent design. On the plus side, Lee Strobel has delightful linguistic style. Instead of being dry and boring like an encyclopedia, his writing is peppered with anecdotes and vivid word illustrations.

He also went to great lengths to find respected scientists who are experts in their fields to build his case. However, I did not feel like he built much of a case at all. Much of the first part of the book is concerned with the Big Bang theory, which apparently some atheists deny because it implies there must have been someone to create it. Not only is this not true in my experience, but that also leaves open the question, "Where did God come from?

On the other hand, I thought it was interesting to learn of Earth's astronomical privilege and the holes in evolution. However, by the time I finished reading and set the book down, I was still unsure of exactly what the author believes and what he wanted me to believe. I remain a faithful believer in God that happens also to believe in science. When I read this book I liked it because it strengthened my faith, and I didn't read any refutations of it because I was afraid that might damage my faith.

But I've learned a lot since then. Now that I actually know the arguments presented here are the same ones creationists have been presenting for decades, arguments that have been refuted over and over again, I feel that in writing this book Lee Strobel was being dishonest. He goes on an on about how he investigated this issue like a court of When I read this book I liked it because it strengthened my faith, and I didn't read any refutations of it because I was afraid that might damage my faith.

He goes on an on about how he investigated this issue like a court of law investigates a crime, but he forgot one detail: This book allowed only one side to speak and silenced the others. Lee would present an atheistic argument to the creationist he was interviewing, the creationist would use his wit and apparent knowledge to make it sound silly, and then Lee would say "Wow, that's really interesting, you guys were right all along! This problem could have been so easily fixed had Lee only interviewed a creationist AND an atheist in each field of science he talked about.

But that would have been problematic, since that method would have resulted in a book called "The Case for Atheism". There is a reason that the overwhelming majority of scientists today believe in evolution, deep time, and the Big Bang. If Lee had only given an equal amount of airtime to those scientists, the creationists' arguments would have been easily overturned. This book gives a pretty good overview of recent arguments for Intelligent Design.

Once again, Strobel turns the whole "case" into a mistrial by deciding This book gives a pretty good overview of recent arguments for Intelligent Design. Once again, Strobel turns the whole "case" into a mistrial by deciding the outcome in advance and then making sure to interview only such experts as would help steer the book toward its pre-ordained conclusions. If you're looking for a writer with a lot of journalistic integrity, Strobel is definitely not your man. However, if you're not totally put off by Strobel's blatant biases and self-congratulatory writing style, this book turns out to be a very entertaining and informative read.

From a scientific perspective, the only real problem I had with it was Strobel's willingness to take the Big Bang theory of universal origins at face value, including the requisite billions of years that such natural processes would entail. Certainly, it's entirely possible that the standard Big Bang model is accurate, but there seem to be a lot of good scientists out there who remain unconvinced.

EVOLUTION NEWS

Aug 07, Jon Allen rated it did not like it Shelves: I had low expectations for this book, but it did not live up to them. Instead of exploring the complicated interplay of science and faith, it just retells the same arguments that have been circulating for centuries, e. Cosmological argument, Teleological argument, Anthropic Principle. The scientific evidence presented was one-sided and heavily skewed. It did not do a very good job of addressing the standard responses to the arguments.

See a Problem?

There was nothing particularly new or interesting presented I had low expectations for this book, but it did not live up to them. There was nothing particularly new or interesting presented. The entire work is based on false dichotomies and unfounded premises. The most annoying part of this book was the incredibly forced pseudo-dialogues that take up the majority of the book. Rather than cover the topics in depth, giving the reader insight into the views, the interviewer throws softball questions and never really delves into any subject.

These staged conversations mainly contain vague references to other scientists, Straw Man arguments and painfully stretched analogies. They affirm that natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being guided by an intelligent agent. Thus, living organisms may look designed, but on this view, that appearance is illusory and, consequently, the study of life does not render the activity of a designing intelligence detectable in the natural world.

But did Darwin explain away all evidence of apparent design in biology? Darwin attempted to explain the origin of new living forms starting from simpler pre-existing forms of life, but his theory of evolution by natural selection did not even attempt to explain the origin of life — the simplest living cell — in the first place. Yet there is now compelling evidence of intelligent design in the inner recesses of even the simplest living one-celled organisms.

In when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions — the information — for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive. Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins.

The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Shannon related the amount of information in a sequence of symbols to the im probability of the sequence and the reduction of uncertainty associated with it. But DNA base sequences do not just exhibit a mathematically measurable degree of improbability. They perform functions and produce specific effects. After the early s, further discoveries revealed that the digital information in DNA and RNA is only part of a complex information processing system — an advanced form of nanotechnology that both mirrors and exceeds our own in its complexity, design logic, and information storage density.

Where did the information in the cell come from? These questions lie at the heart of contemporary origin-of-life research. Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And, as I show in extensive detail in my book Signature in the Cell , no theory of undirected chemical evolution explains the origin of the information needed to build the first living cell.

There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And attempts to explain the origin of information as the consequence of pre-biotic natural selection acting on random changes inevitably presuppose precisely what needs explaining, namely, reams of pre-existing genetic information. The information in DNA also defies explanation by reference to the laws of chemistry. Saying otherwise is like saying a newspaper headline might arise from the chemical attraction between ink and paper.

Clearly something more is at work. Yet, the scientists who infer intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes — chance, laws, or their combination — have failed to explain the origin of the information and information processing systems in cells. Instead, we think intelligent design is detectable in living systems because we know from experience that systems possessing large amounts of such information invariably arise from intelligent causes.

The information on a computer screen can be traced back to a user or programmer. The information in a newspaper ultimately came from a writer — from a mind. This connection between information and prior intelligence enables us to detect or infer intelligent activity even from unobservable sources in the distant past. Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions.

Radio astronomers have not found any such signal from distant star systems; but closer to home, molecular biologists have discovered information in the cell, suggesting — by the same logic that underwrites the SETI program and ordinary scientific reasoning about other informational artifacts — an intelligent source. DNA functions like a software program and contains specified information just as software does. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that specified information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal — always arises from an intelligent source.

His work reinforces the conclusion that the specified information present in DNA points to a designing mind. Dembski shows that rational agents often detect the prior activity of other designing minds by the character of the effects they leave behind. Archaeologists assume that rational agents produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. Cryptographers distinguish between random signals and those carrying encoded messages, the latter indicating an intelligent source.

Recognizing the activity of intelligent agents constitutes a common and fully rational mode of inference. More importantly, Dembski explicates criteria by which rational agents recognize or detect the effects of other rational agents, and distinguish them from the effects of natural causes. The first two sequences are complex because both defy reduction to a simple rule.

• Le secret de Gatehouse Cottage (Harlequin Azur) (French Edition)
• A Most Rebellious Debutante
• Slavery During the Revolutionary War
• Gypsys Life
• Vendetta al tramonto (Italian Edition)
• DQ Series: Vipassana Dharma