Creation Science
Abby made a comment asking about Lee Strobel's book on creationism. I originally had this as a comment back to her, but I think it's worth a whole post.
Strobel's creation book, The Case for a Creator is one of two of his "Case for" books that I don't have and have not read (the other being "The Case for Christmas"). Actually, I don't think I finished the 2nd one, but I think I'll pick it back up and finish it.
Lee Strobel is a former journalist with the Chicago Tribune, and if I remember right, he was involved in bringing to light the unethical business practices of Ford involving the Pinto's exploding gas tank.
The area to which Strobel's books belong is called "apologetics", or more precisely, "Christian apologetics". Apologetics simply means a defense of one's faith. The issue of creation vs. evolution is one issue among several in the apologetics world.
That much said, since I haven't read the book myself, I cannot comment directly on it, but here's my advice for what it's worth.
There are lots of resources out there promoting creation science. Some of note are Answers in Genesis, The Creation Research Society, and The Institute for Creation Research. In my opinion, this issue is one of the most difficult ones in the apologetic arena. To scientifically defend (or debunk for that matter) creation in toto as it is revealed in the Scriptures (Genesis 1-3) takes quite a bit of proficiency in theoretical physics, cosmology, geology, anthropology, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, organic chemistry (and probably more!). Obviously, no one person can be such an expert in so many fields today. I am certainly in no position to say anything definitively on the issue as a subject matter expert, my chosen field of study being communications engineering and signal processing.
I fear that many Christians, desiring to do a good deed, have allowed their evangelistic duty to cloud their scientific observations and interpretations. That is, they have sometimes put forth "evidence" in favor for creationism which does not stand up to any kind of scientific scrutiny. When confronted by this, they will probably just chalk it up to "persecution from the world". On the other hand, many many scientists approach the table with atheistic presuppositions, by which they have excluded evidence to support creationism.
So, where does this leave us? As John or Jane churchgoer, what are we to do with the issue? Well, I'd suggest reading up on it, but taking everything (from creationists and from evoultionists) with a grain of salt. If somebody with only a theology degree starts spouting off complex scientific formulas and jargon, turn on the extra-analysis function in your brain. He is likely only parroting what he's read, and probably really doesn't understand it at all (nor does he likely understand any counter-arguments). The proper stance by a theologian or pastor would be to educate his flock on the issues, but to always uphold the authority of Scripture as paramount. The Christian should be happy to embrace creationism as a presupposition, for it is written in the very Word of God.
Now, to your actual question. Would Strobel's book be a good one for an unbeliever or for someone with doubts? Again, since I haven't read the book, I can't say for sure. Assuming that it is like I think it is, I don't think it would be necessilary bad, as I'm sure there are some good things in it. But don't think for a second that an unbeliever can take any evidence for God and analyze it with neutrality. They don't want there to be a God, because then they'd have to deal with Him and with their sin against Him. This is the real issue. When someone says "I don't believe in God", what they're really saying is "I don't want to believe in God". For an unbeliever to become a believer is a change that God Himself makes inside their heart, not one that they make within their own heart by some supposed "objective analysis of the evidence."
The bottom line is this: no apologetic endeavor (including putting a book into someone's hand, which I've done on many occasions) should ever be more than a couple of feet away from an evangelistic endeavor. That is, share the gospel of Jesus Christ, "for it (the gospel, not creation science) is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Romans 1:16)."
P.S.
One thing that makes me real skeptical of believing scientific theories as proven fact is the volatility of science. What is accepted scientific fact today might not be accepted that way tomorrow. Just think of how many times somebody has made a new discovery and all of a sudden "this changes everything we thought we knew about this subject." Who knows what will be the status of Darwinian evolution in 100 years? It might be thought of as as laughable as the flat earth theory, and perhaps some different atheistic theory will have taken its place.
Strobel's creation book, The Case for a Creator is one of two of his "Case for" books that I don't have and have not read (the other being "The Case for Christmas"). Actually, I don't think I finished the 2nd one, but I think I'll pick it back up and finish it.
Lee Strobel is a former journalist with the Chicago Tribune, and if I remember right, he was involved in bringing to light the unethical business practices of Ford involving the Pinto's exploding gas tank.
The area to which Strobel's books belong is called "apologetics", or more precisely, "Christian apologetics". Apologetics simply means a defense of one's faith. The issue of creation vs. evolution is one issue among several in the apologetics world.
That much said, since I haven't read the book myself, I cannot comment directly on it, but here's my advice for what it's worth.
There are lots of resources out there promoting creation science. Some of note are Answers in Genesis, The Creation Research Society, and The Institute for Creation Research. In my opinion, this issue is one of the most difficult ones in the apologetic arena. To scientifically defend (or debunk for that matter) creation in toto as it is revealed in the Scriptures (Genesis 1-3) takes quite a bit of proficiency in theoretical physics, cosmology, geology, anthropology, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, organic chemistry (and probably more!). Obviously, no one person can be such an expert in so many fields today. I am certainly in no position to say anything definitively on the issue as a subject matter expert, my chosen field of study being communications engineering and signal processing.
I fear that many Christians, desiring to do a good deed, have allowed their evangelistic duty to cloud their scientific observations and interpretations. That is, they have sometimes put forth "evidence" in favor for creationism which does not stand up to any kind of scientific scrutiny. When confronted by this, they will probably just chalk it up to "persecution from the world". On the other hand, many many scientists approach the table with atheistic presuppositions, by which they have excluded evidence to support creationism.
So, where does this leave us? As John or Jane churchgoer, what are we to do with the issue? Well, I'd suggest reading up on it, but taking everything (from creationists and from evoultionists) with a grain of salt. If somebody with only a theology degree starts spouting off complex scientific formulas and jargon, turn on the extra-analysis function in your brain. He is likely only parroting what he's read, and probably really doesn't understand it at all (nor does he likely understand any counter-arguments). The proper stance by a theologian or pastor would be to educate his flock on the issues, but to always uphold the authority of Scripture as paramount. The Christian should be happy to embrace creationism as a presupposition, for it is written in the very Word of God.
Now, to your actual question. Would Strobel's book be a good one for an unbeliever or for someone with doubts? Again, since I haven't read the book, I can't say for sure. Assuming that it is like I think it is, I don't think it would be necessilary bad, as I'm sure there are some good things in it. But don't think for a second that an unbeliever can take any evidence for God and analyze it with neutrality. They don't want there to be a God, because then they'd have to deal with Him and with their sin against Him. This is the real issue. When someone says "I don't believe in God", what they're really saying is "I don't want to believe in God". For an unbeliever to become a believer is a change that God Himself makes inside their heart, not one that they make within their own heart by some supposed "objective analysis of the evidence."
The bottom line is this: no apologetic endeavor (including putting a book into someone's hand, which I've done on many occasions) should ever be more than a couple of feet away from an evangelistic endeavor. That is, share the gospel of Jesus Christ, "for it (the gospel, not creation science) is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Romans 1:16)."
P.S.
One thing that makes me real skeptical of believing scientific theories as proven fact is the volatility of science. What is accepted scientific fact today might not be accepted that way tomorrow. Just think of how many times somebody has made a new discovery and all of a sudden "this changes everything we thought we knew about this subject." Who knows what will be the status of Darwinian evolution in 100 years? It might be thought of as as laughable as the flat earth theory, and perhaps some different atheistic theory will have taken its place.
posted by jigawatt at 7:12:00 PM
1 comments
