Selected Comments on Chapter
4 of Mr. Lee Strobel's "The Case For a
'Where Science Meets Faith'
Page 75: "the essential problem is that biblical religion makes
very specific claims about facts. It makes claims about the universe
having a beginning, ..."
For sure. This is where we run into conflict between what science has found out about reality and what the Bible says about reality. I also disagree with Stephen Gould's Noma. A few examples of conflict between Science and the Bible. Click.
Page 77: "I would start with the new Cosmology -- the Big Bang theory
and its accompanying underpinning in General Relativity. These two theories now
point to a definite beginning of the universe."
Mr. Strobel accepts the Big Bang as fact. If he accepts this and other recent developments in Cosmology then he must accept the fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate and will last forever, expanding forever. Does that jibe with the Bible's viewpoint?
Modern Science consists of the Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory. At the moment the two theories predict events with extreme accuracy but at the moment they cannot be reconciled. Physicists are working on a larger theory that will reconcile the two. This theory will be able to explain the cause of the Big Bang and the Fine Tuning that our universe has. No supernatural needed.
Physics points to explanations of the time before the Big Bang and Fine tuning of our Universe. Physics and astronomy point to a physical reality that is eternal. One source to check is the Scientific American, May, 2003 issue -- Parallel Universes by Max Tegmark.
See Max Tegmark's article 'Parallel Universes'. Click
If the Big Bang is valid then how come the Bible didn't predict it -- the Genesis account is not the Big Bang account -- far from it!
We would also have to believe the Earth is flat if we depended on the Bible. Click.
How can the supernatural even exist? Logically, it has to be part of the Natural. Click.
Page 79: "But how could you ever build such a system by a Darwinian
process of natural selection acting on random variations?"
What is the basis of evolution anyway? Is Evolution a certainty? YES! Click.
Page 79: "The problem with irreducibly complex systems is that they
perform no function until all parts are there and working together in close
coordination with one another."
The critique of Mr. Michael Behe's book "Darwin's B;ack Box" applies to this coment as well as to all the comments from page79 on . Click.
Page 80: Human consciousness: Mr. Meyer drastically limits the possibilities of nature.
Page 84: "A study in 1966 showed that sixty percent of scientists either
disbelieved or were doubtful about God ..."
More recent stats show it is greater than this. Click.
Page 85: "I don't think it's right to invoke a self-serving rule that
says only naturalistic explanations can be considered in
How would ID improve on this to actually gain knowledge of processes in the world if they explanations are usually an appeal to the supernatural, so ending the discussion and research. Science only progresses when it is naturalistic. Click.
Also the rewards of naturalistic science is great compared to ID. Click.
Page 85: "... Scientists should be allowed to follow the evidence
wherever it leads -- even if it leads to a conclusion that makes people
Agreed. In the last 150 years experiments on the supernatural resulted in no evidence for it. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable.
Page 86: The Eye. There are faults with the mammal eye compared to a
similar eye in the Octopi group that has the nerves connected to the back of the
retina -- mammal eyes suffer from detached retinas whereas Octopi do not.
Page 88: Continuing with the eye, etc. "So there are inevitable tradeoffs and compromises. ... The real issue is how well the overall laptop functions."
This is a good description of evolution that results in such compromises. If God is believed to be all-powerful, then it follows that God should be able to build a perfect organ with all parts perfect. An all-powerful supernatural God is not restricted to Natural laws! Or else this God is not all-powerful.
Page 88: Mr. Meyer says the Christian God is perfect but nature isn't -- in nature there is decay and deterioration because of evil (as a noun) entered the world.
Now Mr. Meyer is mixing ethics with Physics as being the same! It is not! Also he quotes Romans of the Bible so obviously Christian belief is necessary here in direct contradiction when earlier he said anyone.
There are other arguments than ethics and science against Bible belief such as God belief and suffering. Click.
Page 90: "I see this not only in cosmology and physics and biology, but
also in the historical revelation of the Bible, principally in the revelation of
Jesus Christ himself. He is so compelling! Einstein though so,
This is a mis-quotation -- Einstein did not say anything like this.. Here is what Einstein said about this:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Stephen Meyer presents some interesting science but his main thrust is to twist it around so that it somehow bolsters the truth about Christianity.
To bad he is wasting his time fighting the truth when he could do useful science.
Back to A critical Review of "The Case For a Creator" by Lee Strobel: