Book Overview: Part I

The following is an overview of The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. I call it an overview rather than a review because I’m not so much stating what I think of it as I am putting it into my own words. Before continuing further I want the reader to be aware that while I am condensing and paraphrasing the key points raised by Mr. Strobel, I do not share all of his views. For example, although Mr. Strobel does not come right out and say it, when reading his book it becomes obvious he does not take the Genesis account of 6-days as literal and he does not accept the biblical plain text interpretation of a “young earth” with human history extending back a mere 6000 years. In spite of this and other less significant differences of opinion, the book made numerous excellent points which should aide anyone in defending faith in the Divine Creator.

How has Evolution come to be assumed as fact?

There are several simple forms of evidence offered as proof of evolution. The evidence can be very compelling. Evolution, once taught as theory, is today taught as fact in most public schools in the United States and much of the rest of the Western world. Once these proofs are properly presented to confirm the assumed fact of evolution, the student is then led to trust evolution to be at the basis of all other areas of science. In a society where children are taught evolution as a fact, it should not be surprising most higher education and professional organizations dismiss dissenters out of hand. With most of today’s adult population accepting evolution, there are too few people with the conviction to stand against it. Also, the scientific community is highly prejudiced and tries to mute any from within their own ranks who would oppose the naturalist culture.

What is the most popular evidence for Evolution?

Proof 1: We can create life from non-life in a lab. In 1953 Stanley Miller, with the help of Harold Urey, reproduced an artificial atmosphere to simulate early earth conditions, put the right soup components into that atmosphere, then applied electricity. The result was the spontaneous organization of organic molecules.

Proof 2: Darwin’s sketch of the “tree of life” proves a similarity of kinds. From common ancestry animal life sprung up and branched out in many directions resulting in a multitude of kinds. The tree idea is reinforced with associated sketches showing similarity of kinds along any given branch. This is done by showing various kinds of primates, for example, arranged by size and body structure. It can likewise be shown with similar fish, frogs, or even snakes.

Proof 3: Embryos look alike. German biologist Ernst Haeckel produced drawings of embryos of various dissimilar animals appearing very similar at their earliest stage of development. Since life forms start out looking very similar, they must in fact be very similar.

Proof 4: The missing links have been and are being found. To evolutionary paleontologists, perhaps the most important find appearing to fill the missing gap between bird and reptile is archaeopteryx, first discovered in a German quarry. The fossils of this creature show wings, feathers, and the wishbone of a bird, but with a lizard-like tail and claws on its wings. Along the same lines are other missing links such as Java Man, archeoraptor, and bambiraptor.

Refuting the Miller experiment

Since this experiment was of a scientific nature, it is perhaps the easiest to refute. The experiment was based on bad science and the results were presented as bad science. The basis of the experiment was the premise that the atmosphere of the early earth was somewhat different. The atmosphere assumed for the experiment was made up of methane and ammonia. Scientists almost universally agree that earth’s atmosphere, no matter how far back in time, could never have been primarily methane and ammonia. Even if it were, the resulting spontaneous molecules generated by passing an electric charge through the atmosphere were not the building blocks of life. To say the molecules were organic does not imply life or even the building blocks of life. Rather, it implies carbon-based chemicals. The organic chemicals created were actually cyanide and formaldehyde. These chemicals not only are not building blocks of life, they are deadly to life, as is the atmosphere they come from. Miller literally created embalming fluid.

Refuting the tree of life sketch

There are many ways to tear apart this evidence, but to use evolutionary science against itself, there are a handful of important considerations. Darwin’s theory presupposes the slow increase of organic order. Paleontologists have determined that rather than a slow increase in diversity of complex creatures, the Cambrian explosion requires a nearly simultaneous appearance of huge numbers of diverse animals about 540 million years ago. To compensate, the tree must instead become more of a bunch of bushes. The distinct gaps between kinds present a huge problem requiring links which are missing.

The science of taxonomy is branch of biological science which codifies the distinctions between kinds. It’s the branch that explains differences between species, kingdoms, genus, and so forth. The very ability to distinguish distinct gaps between kinds, both in living animals and in the fossil record, in itself, refutes the premise of evolution. Dating methods present a form of circular logic. Rocks are dated based primarily on fossil content. Certain types of fossils, called index fossils, are the primary instruments used for dating. Fossil layers, which is to say rock placement, in turn establishes relative fossil age.

Finally, look at Darwin’s own book, Origin of Species, and consider the very requirements Darwin himself puts forward for his theory to be validated. In 1859 the minutia within a living cell was unimagined. We know today there are thousands of amino acids, DNA, RNA, and all sorts of very specialized molecular structures, which are, in and of themselves, more complex than many complicated man-made machines.

Editor's Note: View Part II 

1. 

   You're other brother Darrell

   March 13, 2008 at 6:41 am

   Hey Stanley, I never thunk ya that in ya. I seent you dance in “Once Upon a Mattress,” and I had no idear you wer intalechal and stuff. Just kidding, great post!

   Reply
2. The Case for a Creator: Part II

   March 19, 2008 at 4:15 pm

   [...] Note: Lance Ponder continues his series summarizing Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for a [...]

   Reply
3. The Case for a Creator: Part III

   March 27, 2008 at 2:33 am

   [...] Part I Popular Evidence for Evolution [...]

   Reply
4. The Case For A Creator Part IV: Cosmology

   May 30, 2008 at 2:58 am

   [...] The Case for a Creator: Part I Popular Evidence for Evolution [...]

   Reply