Comments on: A review of The Case for a Creator. By Lee Strobel. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/01/17/a-review-of-the-case-for-a-creator-by-lee-strobel/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:39:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Lamar Boll http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/01/17/a-review-of-the-case-for-a-creator-by-lee-strobel/comment-page-1/#comment-158970 Lamar Boll Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:47:01 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/01/17/a-review-of-the-case-for-a-creator-by-lee-strobel/#comment-158970 Ewan, There are, as Sarfati says, problems in the overall apologetic framework as a result of an old earth view, I believe, and I am a young-earther, but that doesn't mean there isn't still valuable material there. I have the book, I've read it, and it's still useful, though it would take you partway in an overall apologetic case. Although I differ with many in the ID movement over the age of the earth and other details, I also recognize that what they are doing is opening up the discussion in a secular university setting in a way that still is helpful (if incomplete) because it cracks the door open at a fundamental level of the philosophical questions. From a Biblical perspective, the warnings Sarfati gives are relevant and need to be looked at carefully. But from a broad philosophical perspective, the ID is still useful and should not be entirely thrown out. Lamar Boll Ewan,

There are, as Sarfati says, problems in the overall apologetic framework as a result of an old earth view, I believe, and I am a young-earther, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t still valuable material there. I have the book, I’ve read it, and it’s still useful, though it would take you partway in an overall apologetic case.

Although I differ with many in the ID movement over the age of the earth and other details, I also recognize that what they are doing is opening up the discussion in a secular university setting in a way that still is helpful (if incomplete) because it cracks the door open at a fundamental level of the philosophical questions. From a Biblical perspective, the warnings Sarfati gives are relevant and need to be looked at carefully. But from a broad philosophical perspective, the ID is still useful and should not be entirely thrown out.

Lamar Boll

]]> By: Jonathan Sarfati http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/01/17/a-review-of-the-case-for-a-creator-by-lee-strobel/comment-page-1/#comment-3325 Jonathan Sarfati Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:16:40 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/01/17/a-review-of-the-case-for-a-creator-by-lee-strobel/#comment-3325 Oh yeah, the big bang is also fatally undermined because one of its key "predictions", the cosmic background radiation, fails to cast the right shadows. If the CMB really was a ‘background echo of the big bang', then today it should be coming from the edges of the universe, so galaxies should cast shadows. But the right shadows are <em>not</em> found, so the CMB is coming from nearer sources, so cannot be from the big bang at all! See <a href="http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4643/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">The Big Bang fails another test</a> by cosmologist Dr John Hartnett. Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane Oh yeah, the big bang is also fatally undermined because one of its key “predictions”, the cosmic background radiation, fails to cast the right shadows. If the CMB really was a ‘background echo of the big bang’, then today it should be coming from the edges of the universe, so galaxies should cast shadows. But the right shadows are not found, so the CMB is coming from nearer sources, so cannot be from the big bang at all! See The Big Bang fails another test by cosmologist Dr John Hartnett.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

]]> By: Jonathan Sarfati http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/01/17/a-review-of-the-case-for-a-creator-by-lee-strobel/comment-page-1/#comment-3293 Jonathan Sarfati Wed, 03 Jan 2007 08:44:33 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/01/17/a-review-of-the-case-for-a-creator-by-lee-strobel/#comment-3293 Ewan, yes, Strobel is a long-ager. Amazingly, he is blind to the contradictions in that view involving death and suffering, because he gives an apologetic possible only in a young-earth scenario -- see http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2807/#animal_suffering Also, what happens to big bang apologists like Strobel, Craig and Ross when secularists finally tire of its appeal to fudge factors like dark matter, dark energy and the inflaton field? See <a href="http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2019/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Secular scientists blast the big bang: What now for naïve apologetics?</a> Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane Ewan, yes, Strobel is a long-ager. Amazingly, he is blind to the contradictions in that view involving death and suffering, because he gives an apologetic possible only in a young-earth scenario — see www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2807/#animal_suffering

Also, what happens to big bang apologists like Strobel, Craig and Ross when secularists finally tire of its appeal to fudge factors like dark matter, dark energy and the inflaton field? See Secular scientists blast the big bang: What now for naïve apologetics?

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

]]> By: Ewan http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/01/17/a-review-of-the-case-for-a-creator-by-lee-strobel/comment-page-1/#comment-426 Ewan Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:51:52 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/01/17/a-review-of-the-case-for-a-creator-by-lee-strobel/#comment-426 Although I have not read this book, I understand that Strobel is an appoligist for "long ages". Does this come out in this book? Does he defend people like Hugh Ross and "progressive creation"? If so, it it would appear that he has failed to appreciate the influence philosophical naturalism has had on the present day paradigms of geology and cosmology. Ewan McDonald, Victoria Although I have not read this book, I understand that Strobel is an appoligist for “long ages”. Does this come out in this book? Does he defend people like Hugh Ross and “progressive creation”? If so, it it would appear that he has failed to appreciate the influence philosophical naturalism has had on the present day paradigms of geology and cosmology.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

]]>