Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel Chapters One and Two

Before we begin, I should lay out two disclaimers. First, this study was primarily geared towards moms, but women without children and even men are welcome here! No discrimination! Also, for this first study, I suppose that our title of “Bible study” is a bit of a misnomer. We are, in fact, studying a book this time. I am sure during the course of this book study, we will do some Bible study as well, but our main text at this time will be The Case For a Creator by Lee Strobel.

My 8-year-old daughter Kimberly is joining me in this study. She is a smart, inquisitive girl. She wants to be a zookeeper and loves animals, which naturally translates to an interest in science. She has been in church all of her life and prayed to begin her relationship with Jesus Christ when she was five, of her own accord and as a direct result of her own questions about faith. Recently, she began asking me questions such as how we know that God is real or how we can be sure that our God is THE God, as opposed to Buddha or other gods. I bought her a copy of Lee Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator for Kids.” I asked her if she would like to help me in this Bible study and she enthusiastically agreed.

Our study of this book begins with a controversy in West Virginia in 1974. The first chapter sets us up with a look into a news story that the author covered in his early days as a journalist. In Kanawha County, West Virginia, folks were upset at the textbooks that their children were being taught from. Violence had even erupted and parents were boycotting the schools by keeping their children at home. The author, Lee Strobel, has to come face to face with what he considers an archaic belief. He considers Christianity a “dinosaur.” He cannot understand how these people can possibly still believe these fairy tales, in the face of all the scientific evidence to the contrary. From his personal perspective, he longs to debate them, but as a journalist, he strives to remain impartial and just write the facts of the story.

He goes on, in chapter two, to describe how he came to have these beliefs, beginning in a 9th grade science class. He says, “I already liked this introductory biology class. It fit well with my logical way of looking at the world, an approach that was already tugging me toward the evidence-oriented fields of journalism and law. I was incurably curious, always after answers, constantly trying to figure out how things worked….That’s why I liked science. Here the teacher actually encouraged me to cut open a frog to find out how it functioned. Science gave me an excuse to ask all the ‘why’ questions that plagued me….To me, science represented the empirical, the trustworthy, the hard facts, the experimentally proven. I tended to dismiss everything else as being mere opinion, conjecture, superstition--and mindless faith.” He talked about watching the changes in the 60s, when ethics and morality and philosophies and social conventions were being overturned by the culture, science appeared rock-steady and unchangeable to him. With his inquisitive mind, his eagerness for answers to his “why” questions, he found that Sunday school teachers and authorities in faith matters were not open to providing answers. He felt that his classmates were mindlessly swallowing what was taught and he also was supposed to accept and regurgitate what he could not understand or find proof for.

Lee writes, “By the time I was halfway through college, my atheistic attitudes were so entrenched that I was becoming more and more impatient with people of mindless faith. I felt smugly arrogant toward them. Let them remain slaves to their wishful thinking about a heavenly home and to the straitjacket morality of their imaginary God. As for me, I would follow the conclusions of the scientists.”

As a visual person, Lee tells about the images that are seared into his mind’s eye that he learned at an early age that influenced his journey into atheism:

1. The tubes, flasks, and electrodes of the Stanley Miller Experiment, wherein the scientist, by passing electric sparks through reproduced “primitive earth atmosphere”, created a “red goo containing amino acids.”

2. Darwin’s tree of life, the only illustration in Darwin’s book “The Origin of Species,” showing the basest living things at the bottom and branching upwards into more complex living things.

3. Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of embryos, showing various animal embryos that were hardly different in any way, concluding that they must have common descent.

4. The missing link, a fossil of a half-bird, half-reptile named archaeopteryx, where theory seemed to be validated by paleontology.

Evolutionary biologist and historian William Provine or Cornell University said if Darwinism is true, then there are “five inescapable conclusions: there’s no evidence for God, there’s no life after death, there’s no absolute foundations for right and wrong, there’s no ultimate meaning for life, people don’t really have free will.” Sounds pretty bleak. No life after death and no meaning for life sounds hopeless and sad. No foundation for right and wrong would mean that we can do anything with no consequences. Who dictates what is right? What is the basis for saying something is “wrong”? That would leave a lot up to individual interpretation. And it sounds like chaos and anarchy. If we don’t have a free will, what point is there to our lives? Are we just mindless zombies, doomed to wander aimlessly until we are gone?

British atheist Bertrand Russell “wrote about how science had presented us with a world that was ‘purposeless’ and ‘void of meaning.’” “That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of the human genius are destined to extinction…that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried--all these things, of not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the cageling of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.” So, it would seem that all humankind has a choice: believe in a God that has strict rules and morals, yet have eternal life or follow science which allows you to live free of consequences, yet leaves you cold in a grave when your life is over. The problem is that even though some wish to deny it, there IS absolute truth and whether you choose to believe something or not does not change its existence. I may choose to believe that there is no car in front of me on the road, but it won’t keep me from crashing into it.

Linus Pauling was an American chemist, who won Nobel Prizes in both chemistry and peace. He said, “Science is the search for the truth.” Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin said, “The problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.” And so, our author decides to investigate what he considers the “soft issues of faith” and the “hard facts of science.” But why would he investigate? Because five years after his investigative reporting in West Virginia, his wife announced that she had become a Christian and her transformation was hard to ignore.

The next question is how he would investigate. “You can’t put an omnipotent deity in a test tube,” said Eugenie Scott from the National Center for Science Education. “My approach would be to cross-examine authorities in various scientific disciplines about the most current findings in their fields. In selecting these experts, I sought doctorate level professors who have unquestioned expertise, are able to communicate in accessible language, and who refuse to limit themselves only to the politically correct world of naturalism or materialism. After all, it wouldn’t make sense to rule out any hypothesis at the outset. I wanted the freedom to pursue all possibilities. I would stand in the shoes of the skeptic, reading all sides of each topic and posing the toughest objections that have been raised. More importantly, I would ask the experts the kind of questions that personally plagued me when I was an atheist. In fact, perhaps these are the very same issues that have proven to be sticking points in your own spiritual journey. Maybe you too have wondered whether belief in a supernatural God is consistent with what science has uncovered about the natural world.” From a legal and journalistic perspective, Lee Strobel was heading in the right direction to learn the truth.

Some of the questions that he wanted answered were:

* Are science and faith compatible? Am I right to think that a science-minded person must reject religious beliefs? Or is there a different way to view the relationship between the spiritual and the scientific?
* Does the latest scientific evidence tend to point toward or away from God?
* Are the teachings about evolution that spurred me to atheism all those years ago still valid in the light of the most recent discoveries in science?

The reason that Lee was looking for up-to-date scientific data, rather than trusting the science of Charles Darwin or other “fathers” of scientific discovery can be summed up by the National Academy of Sciences: “All scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence becomes available.”

And what about his question about whether science and faith are mutually exclusive? My high school science teacher believed that God created the “Big Bang.” He subscribed to the theory that God “got the ball rolling”, so to speak, and that evolution went from there. Many people believe this way. However, Lee Strobel quotes many in his book who cannot fathom science and faith coexisting:

Lee Strobel: “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 scenes.”

William Provine (Cornell University): “A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through the laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism.”

Stephen C. Meyer (Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute): “Many evolutionary biologists admit that science cannot categorically exclude the possibility that some kind of deity still might exist. Nor can they deny the possibility of a divine designer who so masks his creative activity in apparently natural processes as to escape scientific detection. Yet for most scientific materialists such an undetectable entity hardly seems worthy of consideration.”

Nancy Pearcey (science and faith author): “If we admit God into the process, Darwin argued, then God would ensure that only ‘the right variations occurred…and natural selection would be superfluous.’”

Stephen C. Meyer: “To say that God guides an inherently unguided natural process, or that God designed a natural mechanism as a substitute for his design, is clearly contradictory.”

Time Magazine: “Charles Darwin didn’t want to murder God, as he once put it. But he did.”

“When an attorney asked the outspoken Provine whether there is ‘an intellectually honest Christian evolutionist position…or do we simply have to check our brains at the church house door,’ Provine’s answer was straightforward: ‘You indeed have to check your brains.’ Apparently to him, the term ‘Christian evolutionist’ is oxymoronic.”

They don’t even leave any room for fence-straddlers as Richard Dawkins from Oxford said, “The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from an agnostic position and towards atheism.”

As I wrap up these first two chapters, I feel somewhat dreary. We see all the atheistic positions and evidence. That position seems depressingly empty and void. But, don't lose hope yet because we have merely set the stage to seek the truth. Those of us that believe that the world was created by God, don’t necessarily need proof. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) But what about those who are seeking truth? What about those that are compelled by the same evidence and images that Lee Strobel was? Does faith prove anything to those with doubts or opposite beliefs? Our study here probes truth and facts to see if our faith stacks up.

Our questions for this week:

Case for a Creator chapters 1 and 2

Name: Are you willing for me to share your answers here on this blog, as it may apply to the study and help clarify questions and answers for others?YesNoYes, but anonymously Have you ever met someone who was as hostile toward Christianity as the author was? What are the various factors that may be driving that person's skepticism? Is there any part of the author's attitude that you can personally relate to? How so? What's your current viewpoint concerning Christianity? How would you rank its credibility on a scale of one to ten, with one being none and ten being absolute? Specifically, what are your opinions based on? Have your attitudes changed over the years? If so, how? What prompted those changes? Do you believe that Christianity is being eclipsed or enhanced by modern science? Why? On what do you base your answer? William Provine, professor or history and biological sciences at Cornell University, listed five implications if Darwinism is true: there's no evidence for God, there's no life after death, there's no absolute foundations for right and wrong, there's no ultimate meaning for life, people don't really have free will. Why do you think he's right or wrong? Which one of these implications concerns you the most and why? Can you recall when you first were exposed to Darwin's theory of evolution? What was the setting? What was your reaction at the time? Have your attitudes toward Darwinism changed since then? Why or why not? To what degree do you consider yourself to be open-minded on the issue? Were any of the images of evolution described in the chapter and shown here instrumental in shaping your opinions? How so? The author said that his belief in Darwinism was pivotal in his decision to become an atheist. In what way has your opinion about evolution affected your spiritual outlook? How do you respond to Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin's opinion that science should be seen as the only begetter of truth? Is that a scientific or philosophical statement? How much confidence do you put in science? What do you believe are the limits of science? What ways are there to know about something apart from the scientific method? What preconceptions or prejudices might inhibit your investigation of the scientific evidence for a Creator? What can you do to set them aside and keep an open mind? What do you hope this investigation of the case for a Creator will personally accomplish for you?

Next week, we will follow up this lesson with a wrap-up. I will share answers submitted by those who are participating in this study, along with thoughts of my own. Stay tuned!…