Case For a Creator by Lee Strobel Chapters Three and Four

I apologize for the delay in this study. This was a difficult chapter, but once I got through it, I wrote my blog. Something happened and half of the blog was erased. I was so frustrated that I had trouble coming back to it to rewrite it. I am also doing some secondary research on some questions that arose in my mind after reading these chapters. I will clue you in on what I learn in a later blog. Now, I have to admit that these chapters nearly lost me. Since I confessed in an earlier blog that I am not a scientifically-minded person, all the terms and jargon were hard for me to follow. I will try to boil it down for you as best I can.

The first lines of the chapter are a quote from evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr: "No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact." This chapter starts by describing how one hundred scientists from various fields and a variety of prestigious universities and scientific centers and laboratories took out an ad stating that they were skeptical of Darwinism and evolution. Why did they do this? It was in response to PBS' series titled "Evolution" and their spokesperson's claim that "all known scientific evidence supports evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world." They adamantly disagreed. I recall this series, though I had no interest in watching it. The author states that when he became an atheist, he didn't know that there were credible scientists that disagreed with evolutionary theory and had since the turn of the century. Viewers of the PBS series weren't informed of this either. There was a 151-page critique of the program written, which said that it, "failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the evidence for Darwinian evolution" and ignored "disagreements among evolutionary biologists themselves."

The interview the author conducts is with Jonathan Wells. His credentials are impressive. He studied geology at Princeton; geology, physics, and biology at Berkeley; religious studies (specializing in controversies surrounding Darwin) doctorate at Yale; molecular and cell biology (focus on vertebrate embryology and evolution) doctorate from Berkeley; post-doctorate research biologist at Berkeley; now a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. He grew up in the Presbyterian church, but had become an atheist about halfway through college.

One of the basic questions that the author asks of Mr. Wells is an accurate definition of evolution. He states that many people use it as meaning "change over time."

Jonathan Wells answers, "If that's all there was to Darwinism, then there wouldn't be any controversy, because we all agree there has been biological change over time. Others define evolution as just being 'descent with modification.' But again, everyone agrees that all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. This occurs in the ordinary course of biological reproduction.

"Darwinism claims much more than that--it's the theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago. You and I, for example, are descendents of ape-like ancestors--in fact, we share a common ancestor with fruit flies. Darwinism claims that every new species that has ever appeared can be explained by descent with modification. Neo-Darwinism claims these modifications are the result of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations."

The author then asked Mr. Wells what his examination of the icons of evolution that we discussed in chapter two resulted in. Mr. Wells said, without hesitation, that they are false or misleading. Lee Strobel said, "If these icons are cited by scientists so often because they're among the best evidence for Darwinism--"

"--And if they're either false of misleading," Mr. Wells interrupted, "then what does that tell us about evolutionary theory? That's the point. The question I'm raising is whether all of this is really science--or is it actually a kind of mythology?"

Now, back to the icons....

The first one was the Miller Experiment. For the Miller Experiment, Stanley Miller used hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor to simulate the early earth's atmosphere and lightning to create amino acids. Not long after his experiment, scientists began to believe that that was not what the atmosphere was made up of and with proof against it, considered his experiment defunct. For one, they said that the hydrogen would have been too light and would have escaped into space. They have no way of knowing for sure, but they now believe that it was made up of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. So, if you repeat the experiment using the correct atmospheric gases, you do not end up with amino acids. You end up with formaldehyde and cyanide! As Mr. Wells so eloquently put it, "...to suggest that formaldehyde and cyanide give you the right substrate for the origin of life, well, it's just a joke. Do you know what you get? Embalming fluid!"

Even supposing you could get amino acids, it's still a long way from a living cell. "You would have to get the right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule--and that would still be a long way from a living cell. Then you'd need dozens of protein molecules, again in the right sequence, to create a living cell. The odds against this are astonishing. The gap between nonliving chemicals and even the most primitive living organism is absolutely tremendous....the problem of assembling the right parts in the right way at the right time and at the right place, while keeping out the wrong material, is simply insurmountable," says Mr. Wells.

Jonathan Wells: "It's becoming clearer and clearer to me that this is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science. The attitude is that life had to have developed this way because there's no other materialistic explanation. And if you try to invoke another explanation--for instance, intelligent design--then the evolutionists claim you're not a scientist."

Walter Bradley: "I think people who believe that life emerged naturalistically need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there's an Intelligent Designer."

Gregg Easterbrook: "Science doesn't have the slightest idea how life began. No generally accepted theory exists, and the steps leading from a barren primordial world to the fragile chemistry of life seem imponderable."

Francis Crick: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

The second icon of evolution was Darwin's tree of life. This part was really hard for me to follow, so let me try to simplify and sum up as best as I can. Darwin knew that in his day, no fossil evidence of his theory of the tree of life existed. But, he believed that someday, scientists would find fossils of animals that were "missing links", so to speak, so that he could prove that this species evolved from this other one. However, in the 150 years since Darwin, this evidence has never been found. In fact, what has been discovered is exactly the opposite. It is called the Cambrian Explosion and is also referred to as "Biological Big Bang". Fossil records show that the Cambrian period began 540 million years ago. According to fossils, prior to this point, there were jellyfish, sponges, and worms. But, suddenly, all sorts of animal groups appear. This didn't happen gradually, as Darwinian evolution dictates. Instead of a tree, beginning with a single trunk and branching out, Mr. Wells says it looks more like a lawn with many blades of grass with their own beginning, not branching out of anything.

Darwin, himself, said that if the fossil records did not eventually back up his theory, it would essentially be the death of his theory.

Michael Denton wrote, "...[T]he universal experience of paleontology...[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life...what they have never yielded is any of Darwin's myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record."

The third image is that of Haeckel's embryos. Jonathan Wells denounced them as fakes. "Apparently in some cases Haeckel actually used the same woodcut to print embryos from different classes because he was so confident of his theory that he figured he didn't have to draw them separately. In other cases he doctored the drawings to make them look more similar than they really are. At any rate, his drawings misrepresent the embryos.

"He only shows a few of the seven vertebrate classes....Four are mammals, but they're all placental mammals. There are two other kinds of mammals that he didn't show, which are different....He used a salamander to represent amphibians instead of a frog, which looks very different. So he stacked the deck by picking representatives that came closest to fitting his idea.

"To me, as an embryologist, the most dramatic problem is that what Haeckel claimed is the early stage of development is nothing of the sort. It's actually the midpoint of development. If you go back to the earlier stages, the embryos look far more different from each other. But he deliberately omits the earlier stages altogether. Remember Darwin claimed that because the embryos are most similar in their early stages, this is evidence of common ancestry. He thought that the early stage showed what the common ancestor looked like--sort of like a fish....Vertebrate embryos start out looking very different in the early cell division stages. The cell divisions in a mammal, for example, are radically different from those in any of the other classes. There's no possible way you could mix them up. In fact, it's extremely different within classes. The patterns are all over the place. Then at the midpoint--which is what Haeckel claimed in his drawings was the early stage--the embryos become more similar, though nowhere near as much as Haeckel claimed. Then they become very different again."

Another similar argument about embryos, has to do with gills. The author said that he read in Life magazine and other encyclopedias that mammal and human embryos grow something like gills which is "compelling evidence of evolution."

Jonathan Wells said, "It's just an anatomical feature that grows out of the fact that this is how vertebrate embryos develop....They're not gills!"

Lewis Wolpert, a British embryologist, said that the "resemblance is only illusory."

An icon that Lee Strobel hadn't mentioned, but Mr. Wells brought up was that of "homology." Homology is similarity such as the bone structure in a bat's wings, porpoise's flippers, horse's legs, and human hands, which is argued as proof that they all share a common ancestor.

Mr. Wells says, "Frankly, it remains a mystery. If you read the literature on homology, the experts know it's a mystery. They may not give up Darwinism, but they know they haven't solved the problem. To me, if you haven't solved the problem of a mechanism, then you haven't distinguished between common descent and common design. It could be either one. The evidence isn't pointing one way or the other. I think students deserve to know that scientists haven't resolved this problem. Instead, some textbooks simply define homology as similarity due to common ancestry. So the theory becomes true by definition. What the textbook is saying is that similarity due to common ancestry is due to common ancestry. And that's circular reasoning....Similarity by itself doesn't distinguish between design and Darwinism."

As for archaeopteryx, in 1985, a paleontologist from the University of Kansas, Larry Martin, said that it is "not an ancestor of any modern birds; instead, it's a member of a totally extinct group of birds."

Pierre Lecomte du Nouy, a staunch evolutionist said, "We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."

You may have heard of other fossil discoveries recently. An evolutionary biologist, Alan Feduccia said, "There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard there is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found."

And on to human evolution.... If you haven't heard of Java man, he is thought to be the link between apes and humans. Hank Hanegraaff wrote, "What is not so well known is that Java man consists of nothing more than a skullcap, a femur (thigh bone), three teeth, and a great deal of imagination."

Lee Strobel writes, "[Eugene] Dubois' shoddy excavation would have disqualified the fossil from consideration by today's standards. Or that the femur apparently didn't really belong with the skullcap. Or that the skullcap, according to prominent Cambridge University anatomist Sir Arthur Keith, was distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity well within the range of humans living today. Or that a 342-page scientific report from a fact-finding expedition of nineteen evolutionists demolished Dubois' claims and concluded that Java man played no part in human evolution."

It is said that the only evidence that has been found for human evolution can fit into one small box. This was likened to trying to "reconstruct the plot of War and Peace by using just thirteen random pages from the book."

Mr. Wells quoted a science writer, Henry Gee, "...[T]he conventional picture of human evolution is 'a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.'"

Jonathan Wells goes on to say, "Darwinists assume the story of human life is an evolutionary one, and then they plug the fossils into a preexisting narrative where they seem to fit. The narrative can take several forms depending on one's biases....Darwinism is merely materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, and people are recognizing it for what it is."

The author, Lee Strobel, went on to say that there is just no scientific data to back it up.

Mr. Wells sums it up succintly: "As scientists, it's not our job to make the data fit a theory that just isn't there."

So, here's the natural question: if these icons of evolution have been debunked, either by being proved by modern science as having been mistaken or outdated or by being exposed as out-and-out fraud, why are they still prominently featured in textbooks today? The author wanted to know this too.

For example, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings were exposed in the 1860s, yet they are still in textbooks. Lee Strobel said he saw those drawings in his science books in the 60s and 70s and they were instrumental in influencing him to follow after atheism. He wanted to know why no one had told him that the drawings were fakes!

A few years ago, an article exposed this treachery and Stephen Jay Gould from Harvard said that it was nothing new and that he had known about it for 20 years. He called it "the academic equivalent of murder," for these textbooks to continually churn out outdated and untrue material.

Scientists often explain it away by saying that although the drawings are false, they illustrate a concept that is basically true. But, we learned here that it is not. Many of these textbooks literally say that the early embryos are nearly identical, but we know that they are vastly different in their early stages and that it is only at their mid-development that they are most similar. The textbooks are teaching absolute falseness.

As parents, I think we should be aware of what is being taught to our children. I'm not saying that all children should be in Christian schools or home-schooled. That just isn't possible for all of us. But, we should be our children's primary teachers, no matter what type of school they are in and we should know that these things are most likely in their textbooks and that they will be taught to them. We must equip them with the truth. Not just a mindless following, as some accuse Christians, but of the true scientific facts that are too often skewed and misrepresented in order to further agendas and possibly stall while they desperately try to find some proof that hasn't materialized in the last 150 years.

Wow, that chapter took some doing and I have literally been writing this blog entry for three days. For those that are more scientifically minded, you may have found my analysis of this chapter quite basic. If that is the case, I encourage you to read it for yourself. They do delve deeper into scientific jargon and processes. My job was to try to understand and boil it down for those, like me, who aren't necessarily savants at science.

The Big Bang was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it. Science had taken us to the First Event, but it can't take us further to the First Cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time, and energy pointed to the need for some kind of transcendence.

That passage takes us to chapter four and states the assessment of Allan Rex Sandage, one of the greatest cosmologists in the world, who was the protégé of Edwin Hubble himself, and has received many prestigious accolades. He said, "It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence."

Lee Strobel interviewed Stephen C. Meyer for this chapter of the book. His credentials include degrees in physics and geology, a master's in history and philosophy of science from Cambridge (his focus being on "the history of molecular biology, the history of physics, and evolutionary theory"), and a doctorate at Cambridge including an exciting dissertation analyzing "the scientific and methodological issues in origin-of-life biology".

Remember the quote from chapter two from Richard Lewontin about science being the only begetter of the truth? The author quotes a couple of other scientists who said virtually the same thing. But, Mr. Meyer does not agree. For one, he says we know certain things by introspection which cannot be proved by science. Secondly, we know some things through history which cannot be tested in a scientific manner.

But what about the relationship between Christianity and science? Mr. Meyer has something to say about that, as well: "...[S]cientific evidence actually supports theistic belief. In fact, across a wide range of the sciences, evidence has come to light in the last fifty years which, taken together, provides a robust case for theism. Only theism can provide an intellectually satisfying causal explanation for all of this evidence."

So, what is the new evidence that he is speaking of? "The fact that most scientists now believe that energy, matter, space, and time had a beginning is profoundly antimaterialistic. You can invoke neither time nor space nor matter nor energy nor the laws of nature to explain the origin of the universe. General relativity points to the need for a cause that transcends those domains. And theism affirms the existence of such an entity--namely, God." Creatio ex nihilo, or creation out of nothing, provides the answer to the cause that transcends the laws of nature.

The next evidence is that of "anthropic fine-tuning." This is a set of numerical values of fundamental laws of physics that could have been set at anything, yet are somehow set in an mathematically unbelievable way to allow life to exist on this planet. "Take the expansion rate of the universe, " Mr Meyer said, "which is fine-tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is, if it were changed by one part in either direction--a little faster, a little slower--we could not have a universe that would be capable of supporting life." When you add those figures to the astronomical figures of the other laws of physics, can you honestly believe that this all happened by random chance?

If you pick up a book or look at a painting or use a computer program, did it just happen randomly? Did information just randomly land on a page or did information just come by chance to computer software? No, someone intelligent created it and inserted information. DNA is proof of an intelligent designer as well. DNA contains information that is written on every cell in every living creature. Richard Dawkins said, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." How did the information get there? DNA information is no more a random chance than is a novel or a computer program.

Meyer went on to his next example: "Then there's the evidence for design in molecular machines that defy explanation by Darwinian natural selection. These integrative, complex systems in biological organisms--which microbiologist Michael Behe calls 'irreducibly complex'--include signal transduction circuits, sophisticated motors, and all kinds of biological circuitry....The problem with irreducibly complex systems is that they perform no function until all the parts are present and working together in close coordination with one another. So natural selection cannot help you build such systems; it can only preserve them once they've been built. And it's virtually impossible for evolution to take such a huge leap by mere chance to create the whole system at once."

Human consciousness is another mystery that supports theism. "...we are more than just matter....We have the capacity for self-reflection, for representational art, for language, for creativity. Science can't account for this kind of consciousness merely from the interaction of physical matter in the brain."

Stephen Meyer's view is succinct: "Maybe the world looks designed because it really is designed."

But, Lee Strobel had a question. If this evidence is so compelling, why don't more scientist believe in intelligent design? Mr. Meyer gave several reasons why, in his opinion, more scientist do not believe in a Creator. First, it takes time for theories and discoveries to "percolate" and a lot of the research is fairly new. Second, scientists in one field may be unaware of discoveries made in another field. Third, the "materialistic worldview" has held sway in the scientific community for a long time. Many are hesitant to admit their theistic beliefs for fear of ostracism. Lastly, many scientists will only consider naturalistic explanations as scientific and therefore and wearing blinders, so to speak.

What would Meyer like to see change in the scientific community? "Let the evidence speak for itself....I don't think it's right to invoke a self-serving rule that says only naturalistic explanations can be considered by 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. Scientists should be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads--even if it leads to a conclusion that makes some people uncomfortable."

Meyer's parting words: "I look at the stars in the night sky or reflect on the structure and information-bearing properties of the DNA molecule, and these are occasions for me to worship the Creator who brought them into existence. I think of the wry smile that might be on the lips of God as in the last few years all sorts of evidence for the reliability of the Bible and for his creation of the universe and life have come to light. I believe he has caused them to be unveiled in his providence and that he delights when we discover his fingerprints in the vastness of the universe, in the dusty relics of paleontology, and in the complexity of the cell."

Study Questions for chapters 3 and 4

On a scale of one to ten, with one representing total disbelief and ten representing complete agreement, what was your personal opinion about Darwinism prior to reading the interview with Jonathan Wells? Did the number change after reading the interview? How so? Which one of Jonathan Wells' disclosures was the most surprising to you and why? Consider each of the icons of evolution that Wells discussed. Do you now think it provides reliable support for Darwinism and why? If you were a juror and and the icons were presented to you as evidence, would you have reasonable doubt? In Wells' opinion, the evidence for Darwinism 'is not only grossly inadequate, it's systematically distorted,' and that in twenty or thirty years 'people will look back in amazement and say, How could anyone have believed this?' In your opinion, what would need to happen before most people would reach that conclusion? How likely do you believe it is that this will occur? Stephen Meyer lists six ways in which modern science supports belief in God. Which one of these areas is most intriguing to you? Which, if any, caused the most skepticism? If Meyer is correct concerning these six categories of evidence, how strong is the case for a Creator? How well do you believe Meyer responded to the objections to intelligent design theory? Which of his answers were the most convincing and why? Every scientist has a motive, Meyer said, 'but motives are irrelevant to assessing the validity of scientific theories.' Why do you agree or disagree with him? Meyer said that he once resonated with Nietzsche's question: Why should God rule and I serve? 'Why should a condition of my happiness be submission to the will of God?' Meyer asked. 'I sensed I couldn't be happy without him, I knew my bad lifestyle only brought misery. So I ended up literally shaking my fist at God in a wheat field in Washington State.' Have you ever figuratively shaken your fist at God? What circumstances prompted that reaction? What has happened since then to resolve this issue? How might your current view of God--positive or negative--affect the way you assess the scientific evidence for his existence?

Wrap up of chapters 1 & 2 of The Case for a Creator

I apologize for taking so long to post this follow-up. I should be posting

chapters 3 & 4 today. However, I've had a long, hard week with some medical
problems and to top it off, I am writing this from the courthouse steps. I was
summoned to jury duty but was just granted a postponement for the aforementioned
medical reasons. Now I am waiting for my husband to pick me up.  See?  Even I
have to seize the odd opportunities to do Bible study.

I received no replies to the first questionnaire. My mother-in-law tells me she
tried but it would not submit for her. If you also had this problem, would you
please post a reply to this post so that I can investigate further?  If you have
not yet signed up for email notifications, you can do yo at the right of the
screen.  Or, contact me or post a reply with your email address and I can
manually add you to an email notification list, so you won't miss a study.  As
there were no submissions, I suppose that you will have to put up with only my
own thoughts on these chapters.

The first question referred to whether we had ever run into anyone as volatile
and skeptical towards Christianity as the author. Yes, I have met people like
this. I think what motivates them is varied. Sometimes I think they are like the
author and want facts, not theory.  I think they want something that they can
see and feel and prove.  Sometimes I think it is a case where they have had a
bad experience with a church or a "Christian" and they judge it all to be as
fake and hypocritical. Sometimes I think people are honestly misled. It's the
same as what we Christians are accused of: blindly swallowing what we are fed.
They hear how old and archaic the Bible is or how this or that person or thing
disproves this or that or contradicts this or that and they just fall in without
ever really seeking out the truth for themselves. I always find it funny when
Christians are accused of being close-minded when the very people who say this
don't seem to be open to exploring Christianity as a serious viable option.

The next question asked if there was any part of the author's attitude that we
can personally relate to.  I confess the only real part I can relate to is that
I am often frustrated with what I perceive as ignorance. But then I have to stop
and think that I must also be frustrating someone more intelligent than I!

My attitude towards Christianity has changed considerably over the years.  You
may find that odd since I was raised in church, but it is true!  When I was in
junior high, I learned that I could talk to God as a friend, that He wasn't just
off in some corner of the universe, too busy to be bothered with my puny life. 
That changed my whole outlook on God.  Another major spiritual event was when my
dad died.  I had known people that had died, but never anyone that close to me
before.  For the first time, I was confronted with the question, "Do I really
believe what I say I believe?  Do I really believe that my dad still exists
somewhere else?"  I had to search my heart and soul and ask a lot of hard,
uncomfortable questions that I thought I had already figured out.  But, in the
end, my faith was stronger and I KNOW that I know that I know that I will see my
dad again in heaven!  On the scale the author gave, I would say Christianity is
rated a 10 on my credibility scale.  That's because I have seen God prove
Himself to me over and over again.  Time and space and my memory would fail me
to list all of the examples, but allow me to relay one.  In a very dark time in
my life, I was staying at my mother's house with my three children.  My
then-husband had kicked us out.  We had no money and I would not be receiving a
paycheck for a week and a half.  Even when I did get it, it would be small and
had to be used for necessities.  I ran out of conditioner and foundation
makeup.  Not a big deal.  In the grand scheme of things, the least of my
worries.  So, I would have blotchy skin and tangled hair?  Considering I was
homeless, broke, had no car, and was heading for divorce court, who really
cared?  The next thing I knew, there was a knock at my mom's door.  On the
porch, there were some women from a church that I used to attend and they were
inviting people to a charity event.  Before they left, they handed me a bag. 
When I opened it, I found cosmetics, including foundation makeup in my shade,
and a bottle of conditioner.  It was as though God was saying, "I am concerned
with your details and if I can take care of your details, what do you think I
will do for your needs?"  And that's just what He did.  After all the things
that I have seen Him do for me, you cannot convince me that there is no God.  I
know better.

The next question asked if Christianity is being eclipsed or enhanced by modern
science.  I am probably not the person to answer that.  I have never been
inclined toward science, which makes my study of this book a little puzzling, I
must admit.  I am a right-brainer and therefore am not drawn toward math or
sciences, but towards language arts and creative pursuits.  So, really, I have
no opinion whatsoever on the correlation between science and Christianity.

This next question was quite disturbing to me.  It related to the quote from
William Provine about the five implications if Darwinism is correct.  I think he
is right.  If evolution is true, then where does a God fit into that and it
makes Genesis a lie.  And if Genesis is a lie, how can you trust anything else
that the Bible says?  Truthfully all the implications were disturbing to me.  If
there is no God, there is no hope, no order, no love, everything I know is gone
from my world.  No life after death is a hopeless, meaningless prospect.  It
means funerals are the absolute end, it means are lives are pointless, it means
there is nothing but darkness after this life.  If there is no God, how can you
make a foundation for right and wrong?  Who's version of right and wrong do we
adopt?  Why would your right and wrong be any more valid than mine?  This sounds
like total anarchy.  I touched on this before when I said if there is no life
after death, there is no meaning to life.  If we all are creations of a cosmic
accident, then what is our purpose?  There is none.  We are here by random.  We
are just a jumble of random cells, no more special than a plant, a rock, an
animal.  I had a harder time following his implication that people don't have a
free will.  Maybe that is a throwback to "survival of the fittest".  However, if
we don't have a freewill, that is a disturbing thought, to think that we have no
choices, that we are just mindless, numb apes or robots, wandering this earth
until we die, making no impact on it whatsoever.  All are disturbing, but I
think the one that disturbs me the most is the idea that there is no God.  The
others hinge on that truth.  If there is a God, then there is life after death,
there is a foundation for right and wrong, we have a purpose and free will, and
there IS meaning to life.

The next question that was asked was about how you were first exposed to
Darwin's theories.  I think the first time that I remember being exposed to them
was in high school science class (as I attended a public high school).  I
remember scoffing at it.  I did my assignments and tests as expected, but given
any opportunity, I voiced my opposition.  I don't recall seeing any of the
images that were vital to the author's beliefs in evolution, but I'm sure they
must have been in a textbook I studied.  I'm guessing that they didn't make that
big of an impression on me.

The next two questions were probably the hardest for me to answer.  I am not
sure what to say in response to the quote about science being the only begetter
of the truth.  I believe that God and His Word are the only begetters of the
truth, but I am not quite sure how to qualify that statement or if I even need
to.  For someone that doesn't come from a background of faith, what WOULD be the
begetter of the truth?  I do know that God's Word says that even nature itself
shows God, so wouldn't that speak to science itself proving God's existence? 
Guess we will see as we continue this study.  I don't know how much confidence I
place in science or what its limits are.  I believe God can break the natural
laws that He created when and if He wants to.

Well, I hope that these first two chapters have whet your appetite for this
book.  I look forward to hearing from you for chapters 3 and 4!

Sent from my iPhone

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!…

Ladies, Start Your Engines...

First, I apologize for letting nearly a month go by before posting anything about our upcoming Bible study. I had my gallbladder surgery about a week and a half ago and that has kept me on a short leash.

I have decided that for our first study, it will be a two-part study. This will be a study on faith. For the first part, we will be reading Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator" and discussing that. I will post the first discussion and questions about it in about two weeks, giving you time to acquire the book and to read. You may purchase the book (ebay, Amazon, and www.cbd.com are good choices [I found copies for $4-5, including shipping--just make sure you are not getting the students' or kids' versions]) or check it out at your local library or church library. I checked my copy out, though I think I may end up buying it as well. If you can't find a copy, I am sure you can still keep up as I will summarize what we have read before our study questions.

Here is our study plan (syllabus, ha ha):

Week 1: read chapters 1 & 2, online discussion
Week 2: discussion follow-up post/wrap-up
Week 3: read chapters 3 & 4, online discussion
Week 4: discussion follow-up post/wrap-up
Week 5: read chapters 5 & 6, online discussion
Week 6: discussion follow-up post/wrap-up
Week 7: read chapters 7 & 8, online discussion
Week 8: discussion follow-up post/wrap-up
Week 9: read chapters 9 & 10, online discussion
Week 10: discussion follow-up post/wrap-up
Week 11: read chapter 11, online discussion
Week 12: discussion and book follow-up post/wrap-up

If you are checking out your book from a library, you may see 12 weeks as impossible. Our library, I believe, will allow you to renew your checkout twice. So, check with your library to see how long you may keep your book. Or, feel free to read ahead and keep notes in a notebook. Most of the study questions I will ask will be from the "Deliberations: Questions for Reflection of Group Study" near the end of the book, so there shouldn't be many surprises for you.

You may have guessed that the second part of this study will be on Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Christ." Please feel free to invite friends to participate in our study. You may even consider inviting any atheist or agnostic friends to participate. Lee Strobel was an atheist and when his wife became a Christian, he set out to prove her wrong. He came from a legal and reporter viewpoint and was, therefore, interested only in provable facts. It think this study will help solidify our faith as well as provide answers to someone who may have questions or doubts.

In future studies, I have received suggestions of women of the Bible, the book of James, tough Bible questions, Bible culture/customs, healing, etc. So, we have a great pot to pick from for a future study. I hope that you will stay with us and have a blessed time learning with us and asking questions and finding answers! I pray that God will bless our study together. I am excited to begin!

An Idea is Born...

I have a problem. I want to have Bible study with my girlfriends, yet LIFE always gets in the way. Even though I am a stay-at-home-mom, and all my children are now in school, I still have plenty to do. There is an endless "to-do" list, errands to run, chores to complete, field trips and special events to attend. Oh, and there's a husband who demands attention. Can't forget about him! Even if I could get MY life in order, it's nearly impossible to align my schedule with everyone else's schedules. Some friends work. Some can't find a babysitter. Some have ever-changing schedules. There is always something to prevent us from studying together, from learning what God's Word has to say to us, from praying for each other, from fellowshipping with other sisters in Christ.

So, what's the solution to the problem? I wasn't sure. A friend suggested I start a Bible study, but since time seems to be a major problem, how do we work around that? The lightbulb came on! When I was in college, I had written an online Bible study! Wouldn't that be a solution to our time deficiency? Anyone joining the Bible study could read passages at their leisure, when they have time and answer discussion questions via an email form (like the one below). Whether you are studying in the middle of the night or first thing in the morning or only on Tuesdays, it won't matter!

So, here's my idea! I blog (I LOVE to blog!) about a topic and post questions. You read the passage and submit your answers. We can chat, via email (or FB, etc.) about your answers. Then I follow-up with another blog, containing my answers to the questions as well as sharing awesome points made by the awesome women who submitted their email form! Bible study TOGETHER, yet without the time-crunch!

Also, as for prayer needs, those who would like prayer can post a comment to the blog post and voilà, there will be our prayer list! I'm excited! Are you excited? Then, let's get started!

Some ideas for Bible studies could be topical, such as Women of the Bible (which we have been working on in a Bible study I have been attending), Spiritual Gifts (including a spiritual gifts test), or Names of God; expository, where we study specific passages or books of the Bible (such as the book of Romans); a book study, where we read a book together (whether you buy the book or check it out from your local library) and discuss it (i.e., The Case for Christ or The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel); hymn study, where we look at the stories and words of hymns. Another idea I have long wanted to do is a study of hard Bible questions. I have a long list of questions that I would love answered and I am sure that I am not the only one with tough questions.

Below, I have asked some basic questions to get an idea of how to proceed. After I get some feedback, I will post our first study! Welcome!

By the way, if you would like to receive these blog posts to your email, you can submit your email address to the right. You will still need to log in to submit your question and answer form, but it's a great way to be notified of new posts!

Bible Study 101

Name? Are you interested in joining an online Bible study? How often would you like to see a new Bible study topic? What topics would you be interested in studying? Can you commit to completing reading assignments and study questions each lesson? What is your level of Biblical knowledge?