From high school he was an atheist (moment of conversion was when he learned of Stanley Miller's experiment showing that organic compounds can be created by fairly simple physical processes from inorganic substances). But then he married, and five years later his wife became a Christian. He was skeptical, but eventually saw how it transformed her into a good person. He wondered how that could be, and started the path towards his own conversion. I, in turn, wonder if he hadn't already made up his mind at that time?
Everyone he interviews in the movie are creationists (if I write that fast it often comes out as 'cretinist'), so there his journey looking for evidence already looks very biased - something that he makes a point out of not being.
Anyhow, I could go on, but no need. Paul Doland has already dismantled the book for us: The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God (2004). Funny title, by the way. Sounds like he only investigates the scientific evidence that points toward god. Says right there in the title! And that is indeed what he proceeds to do. Doland details:
Prior to the interview on cosmology, Strobel says that he wants to find "hard facts":Doland's rebuttal is very thorough. It goes on like this. If you read Strobel's book or watch the movie, and think he might have a point, I urge you to take a look at the rebuttal before you convert.I wasn't interested in unsupported conjecture or armchair musings by pipe-puffing theorists. I wanted the hard facts of mathematics, the cold data of cosmology, and only the most reasonable inferences that could be drawn from them (p. 95).And in order to obtain the "hard facts of mathematics" and the "cold data of cosmology," Strobel interviewed Dr. Craig, who doesn't even have an undergraduate degree in mathematics or cosmology! Dr. Craig's credentials are purely in theology and philosophy. While Dr. Craig is indeed qualified to publish on related topics, such as the philosophy of science, he is not among the first people one should approach with questions about mathematics and cosmology--unless one already has an underlying agenda.
I just watched Strobel's DVD last night. I am a Christian so I'm not going to say I'm unbiased. My belief is already grounded in other things besides my personal opinion that Darwin's theory of Evolution is flawed or, if nothing else, incomplete. I have not read the rebuttal you refer to but began my search today to see what the other side of the argument is. That's how I found your page. Its easy to read or watch something and be pretty convinced if it is well structured and thoughtfully put together. Every story and argument has two sides (I'm married, that's how I know). I didn't want to be gullible and just follow something blindly that sounds convincing. However, I am not interested in listening to someone take hits at Strobel's character or agenda to belittle the facts and reasoning he brought to the table. Of course he had an agenda when he made the film. Everyone has an agenda, including Doland and, of course, you. What needs to be thoroughly examined is why he has that agenda. The reasoning behind it. The critic's response to what was stated. I don't care about Strobel's character or his agenda or when he was converted. He states his agenda pretty obviously in the title. Its not supposed to be a unbiased view of all scientific theories of how we came to be here. Its specifically The Case for the Creator. When this film was made he had already researched all the avenues of what science offered about the Beginning and decided on his belief. His only objective in the film was to offer proof of why he chose to believe what he then came to believe. It is meant to be biased. If he was trying to look at both sides of the issue during the making of the film/book he would have indeed needed to even out the Christian scientists with evolutionists. But he had already heard what they had to say, and decided against there theories. He showed where the flaws were in Darwin's evolution and responded to them with his own theory.
ReplyDeleteHe showed where the flaws were in Darwin's evolution and responded to them with his own theory.
ReplyDeleteDid you not read my post? Strobel interviewed only creationists.
He failed to make "only the most reasonable inferences".
And no, we don't all have an agenda. That is, we do not all seek evidence only to confirm our hypothesis. Proper scientists seek evidence to test a hypothesis, and will keep that evidence whether it confirms or rejects the hypothesis.
Strobel failed to make a proper test with his choice of interviewees and bias toward the evidence, and you know it (and that's me being nice).
Do you honestly think that any evolutionist is going to be interviewed for a documentary film called "Case for the Creator?" Like I said above and you apparently missed, the film was not to document ALL of the information he found during his pursuit, it was exploring what he decided on and why he decided on it. It was meant to be one sided. It was meant only to analyse the evidence that, in his findings, supports creationism.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you do have an agenda. Whether or not you came to it by means of earnest learning and reflection or solely based on how you feel at the moment, you have an agenda. You can't honestly tell me you are still considering open-mindedly that God may exist and that you could one day believe in Him, are you? No. Because you have already made your mind up. And now, when you write your blogs, have conversations etc. your agenda is to belittle and disprove Christians. I could be wrong, but I would speculate that very little thought ever went in to actually trying to discern why Christians believe what they believe, but more in how to debunk them. You and anyone else willing to deny any influence of bias, is a fool and extremely naive to assume they themselves do not have any agenda while accusing your opponents of that very thing. So you are a scientist. My husband is a physicist. That makes neither of you immune to your own leanings, feelings, beliefs, childhood experiences and all of the other numerous things that go into how you perceive and understand the world around you. I agree that most GOOD scientist try earnestly to not just "seek evidence only to confirm there hypothesis," however who you are and where you came from will always influence certain things in the process. You are claiming that you are completely innocent of ANY influence of an agenda while merely speculating in your accusation against Strobel of the exact same thing. And solely for the sake of tearing down his character to belittle and discredit what he is actually saying. I read a number of your blog entries and I think its comical that you consider yourself to not have an agenda. When or how you got it is irrelevant. The point is, is that you have one and it doesn't exactly scream, "I'm open minded about the existence of God and willing to consider the facts that Strobel brought to the table." And that's me being nice...
It was meant only to analyse the evidence that, in his findings, supports creationism.
ReplyDeleteHadassah, you cannot make a case for something when you only include (perceived) evidence in favor.
You can't honestly tell me you are still considering open-mindedly that God may exist and that you could one day believe in Him, are you?
Oh yes, I can. Absolutely. If the evidence one day is in favor of such a hypothesis, then you can count me in. Following the evidence wherever it leads is not an agenda.
I could be wrong, but I would speculate that very little thought ever went in to actually trying to discern why Christians believe what they believe, but more in how to debunk them.
You are wrong. I have spent a lot of time doing that, thank you.
You and anyone else willing to deny any influence of bias, is a fool and extremely naive to assume they themselves do not have any agenda while accusing your opponents of that very thing.
You are conflating bias and agenda. I try to evade bias, but know it is not always possible. Having an agenda in terms of truth, on the other hand, is not at all hard to avoid. Again, all you have to do is follow the evidence.
And solely for the sake of tearing down his character to belittle and discredit what he is actually saying.
I am indeed trying to discredit what Strobel is saying, because I know at least part of it to be untrue. I am not trying to discredit the person, but only to make it clear for all to see that he has not done the job right as he purports.
The point is, is that you have one and it doesn't exactly scream, "I'm open minded about the existence of God and willing to consider the facts that Strobel brought to the table."
But, again, the facts Strobel brought to the table were cherry-picked and fallacious. And he brought them with an agenda. Again (again, again) that is not acceptable when trying to learn about nature.
And that's me being nice...
I should thank you for trying to be nice, but I do implore you to go all out. Tell me exactly what you want, and I promise not to be insulted.
So are you saying that truth can never be a part of an agenda? Like for instance the new movie Avatar had quite an agenda. Because it had an agenda do you automatically write it off as not factual? Granted that movie was fiction, but I still believe that whether you came to your bias through studying the evidence or not you gain an opinion when you decide on a conclusion. There are many Christian scientists out there; you can't possibly assume that they all just had a previous bias and any work thereafter is that of an agenda not based in truth. I could write off all the evolutionists in the same way, but that would be ridiculous and naive of me. I'm not going to say you haven't studied or truly feel you've picked apart all the evidence available and have come to a conclusion. After coming to that conclusion though your opinions are set in (even if you are willing to change them with future evidence). I've read your blog. You don't have anything good to say about Christianity, God or Christians. And that's because you have already decided in your own research and understanding that they have flaws. From what I've read, you don't have one truly open-minded blog entries about the subject. Why would you? You say its truth and that you are following the evidence. But you can't possibly think that people that come to a different conclusion don't feel the same way about their own decision, can you? Though you write them off as just having an agenda while believing yourself to be completely innocent of such a thing.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you even think you are being open minded when you write blogs like "Homeschooled children excels at critical thinking?" because you put a question mark at the end of it. That way you give the appearance of asking and not stating an opinion. But your agenda and obvious bias against Christianity or any religious message, especially one taught in a curriculum is quite clear - even calling it brainwashing. Maybe you are even willing to change your mind at some point, as you stated, but you still currently have an opinion and opinion proceeds agenda.
In the blog entry I mentioned above you do add a link to a blog written by a Christian homeschooling mother as well as one that lines up with your thinking as well. I clicked on both the links and found the one that you agreed with went directly to the blog entry. The other one was only to the woman's front blog page but not directly to a specific blog entry regarding your topic. It makes me wonder how thoroughly you read her blog vs. the other blog. You may feel all warm and fuzzy about putting the Christian woman's link there to give the appearance of open-mindedness (and more importantly to convince yourself of that very fact) but no one is fooled into believing that you honestly portrayed both sides of the issue without your own opinion on the matter influencing what you wrote, the quotes you chose from ("Editing Error? 'Cause that was a necessary little stab to answer the question of whether or not home schoolers excel at critical thinking...) and even the "unbiased" links you included at the end.
I think its laughable that you honestly believe that you have been and are innocent of any agenda! Everyone believes their opinions are based in facts and truth through what they has seen and experienced. So whether you are following perceived truth or not, when you come to a conclusion and set your mind on it, you solidify your opinion and in turn create an agenda which filters into what you write and say on the matter.
So are you saying that truth can never be a part of an agenda?
ReplyDeleteI am saying that when examining whether something is the truth or not, you cannot have an agenda. When trying to find out whether the evidence supports the existence of a creator or not, then any agenda you may have should never ever influence how you interpret the evidence.
That is precisely what I mean. I don't mean to say that I never have any agendas, but that in terms of whether God exists or not, I do not. Further, you can never use only some of the evidence, but all the evidence you find must be taken into account. What Strobel does in this case is overtly biasing what evidence he seeks and then presents because he has an agenda. Therefore his attempt at making the case for a creator (or otherwise) is null and void.
Though you write them off as just having an agenda while believing yourself to be completely innocent of such a thing.
You're quite right that I appear on my blog not to have anything good to say about God and Christianity and Christians. And it's true that I do have an agenda in these matters. I wish to highlight the things I find egregious about them. But none of these are about factual claims. I state my opinion about things I dislike. For the record, I could say many good things about Christians, and some good things about Christianity (but none about god comes to mind). Maybe I should write a post about how many of my friends are Christians and how good people they are. I think that would be a boring read, though.
I think its laughable that you honestly believe that you have been and are innocent of any agenda!
Again, I meant - and think you should have understood - any agenda about what is and what isn't real. I have opinions like everyone else, of course. Here is what I wrote first:
"And no, we don't all have an agenda. That is, we do not all seek evidence only to confirm our hypothesis. Proper scientists seek evidence to test a hypothesis, and will keep that evidence whether it confirms or rejects the hypothesis. "
And a comment on something you said earlier: "Do you honestly think that any evolutionist is going to be interviewed for a documentary film called "Case for the Creator?" "
Yes, I think so. It has happened before, and I know people who would oblige, including myself.
I agree with your first statement. I think its absolutely true that you cannot have an agenda when honestly examining whether or not something is truth - if you actually are in the pursuit of truth. I definitely agree with that.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was saying was that after you feel you have arrived at the answer, or have settled on the "truth" you gain an opinion on the matter followed by an agenda when discussing or teaching on it.
I feel like much of the time we've been saying the same thing on that matter in different ways...
My issue was that you accused Strobel of having a bias DURING his pursuit (many years before he ever wrote any book or documentary). This was an ungrounded accusation, a total assumption to belittle his character while ignoring what he was actually saying. I do believe he has an agenda now, because he came to a final conclusion (just as you have on many topics that you have come to a conclusion on). He wanted to present the facts that led him to that conclusion. I think it would be quite a lengthy DVD if he tried to fit every piece of information ever discovered or concocted about evolution and creationism. He was showing the key points that changed his mind and brought him to his final decision. I believe you would do a similar thing if you were to make a documentary about how you came to a final conclusion on evolution. And I'm sure you would make it a priority to interview just as many creationists as evolutionists as well, right?
Just out of curiosity, did you have the same reaction to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth?" I don't remember him interviewing any scientists with an opposing position. I'm pretty sure he didn't include every single relevant or irrelevant piece of information that he ever came across with regards to global warming either.
If you are going to hold Strobel to such a standard, everyone must be held to the same standard. Or, again, you just come off as biased.
Seriously though, when was the last time a creationist was interviewed during a Darwin's theory presentation? You would know better than me (I don't watch a lot PBS) but I've never seen such an interview in the past - especially not as a usual occurrence.
Nevertheless, even if Strobel went about it all the wrong way and left out plenty of good information in your opinion, there should be plenty of ways for you to tear apart his theory (scientifically) without merely marring his character to belittle any truth he may have said.
I find it rather childish. Much like the political name-calling games during election time. I came across your blog while in search of the other side of the argument, to widen my understanding of the subject. To not blindly take something as truth because it sounds in line with my previous beliefs and inclinations. I was raised a Christian and I believe in God. Because of that I know I have a predisposition to agreeing with Strobel's presentation. With that understanding I decided to see if the other side was just as convincing.
What I found (at your blog anyway) was someone only willing to belittle Strobel's character in an attempt to sway readers from any proof he may have presented. Whether or not you are correct in your analysis of Strobel's presentation (how he presented and what he added or left out, that is) that was all you analyzed. And quickly claim it null and void due to that. I think that conclusion is coming from someone a little too anxious to throw it off the table. It would be much more convincing, to me, if you gave what he did bring to the table some serious scientific debate.
I'm sorry this became such an off-topic debate. We obviously have very differing world views. I doubt anything I say is truly going to be considered by you as you already have an opinion of me. The same goes for me. Therefore, it is a pointless debate and with no real purpose or worthwhile conclusion.
I'm sure we both have better things to do.
He wanted to present the facts that led him to that conclusion.
ReplyDeleteBut I happen to know, from my professional life, that he could only have reached that conclusion by omitting lots and lots of other evidence, and I am calling him out on that.
Just out of curiosity, did you have the same reaction to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth?"
I haven't seen it. If there is real evidence that supports the opposite conclusion, and if he didn't present it in a film that purports to make the claim that AGW is real, then that would be bad science.
If you are going to hold Strobel to such a standard, everyone must be held to the same standard. Or, again, you just come off as biased.
Everyone. If they are attempting to make the case for one conclusion as opposed to another.
Seriously though, when was the last time a creationist was interviewed during a Darwin's theory presentation? You would know better than me (I don't watch a lot PBS) but I've never seen such an interview in the past - especially not as a usual occurrence.
Well, you know, it would not make much sense to interview a physicist about linguistics, or an economist about geology. Interview those with expertise only. Just being a creationist does not mean you have any expertise. If a biologist trained in evolution is a creationist, then I do think it is a good idea - in a movie, for example - to hear their point of view. The things is, in the cases of Dembski and Behe, for example, they have been heard, and thousands of biologists, mathematicians, and philosophers have dismantled their arguments.
... only willing to belittle Strobel's character...
Please quote me exactly where I am belittling his character. I do not see it (and didn't intend at all to attack his character - just his sloppy work).
And quickly claim it null and void due to that. I think that conclusion is coming from someone a little too anxious to throw it off the table.
No, I actually watched the movie, and found everything in it laughable, given what I know about the subject. I think I gave it due time.
I'm sorry this became such an off-topic debate. We obviously have very differing world views. I doubt anything I say is truly going to be considered by you as you already have an opinion of me. The same goes for me. Therefore, it is a pointless debate and with no real purpose or worthwhile conclusion.
If you can show me convincingly where I have made an error, then I will change my view accordingly. That goes for Strobel, and it goes for anything else whatsoever, like religion, God, and you (I haven't actually made any opinion of you that matters in any of this, by the way, and discuss with you irrespectively).
Again, if you could point me to this belittling of Strobel you say I have done, I would be much obliged.
Thanks.
I only glanced at the comments, but a lot of the points seem to center around a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"-style of argument.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this type of argument is that Creationism is wrong. And in fact, as such I disagree with Bjorn when he said:
If a biologist trained in evolution is a creationist, then I do think it is a good idea - in a movie, for example - to hear their point of view.
No, it isn't, unless the movie is about the Creationism "controversy". If a movie were just presenting the theory of evolution, it would be stupid to interview a Creationist, because they have nothing to add to the conversation. In a movie on Creationism, it would probably be a good idea to interview an evolutionary biologist, because they might actually set you straight on a few things.
I know in some ways I am playing into Creationist assertions about evolution being a religion or whatever, because I am suggesting the "other side" shouldn't get a voice. But I'm suggesting that because the "other side" already had their voice, and everybody who understands the topic decided that side's contribution was stoopid like, I dunno, a hundred years ago.
We only have an obligation to listen to the other side for so long. If they were wrong yesterday, and wrong last week, and wrong last year, and wrong last century, then I'm really not interested in hearing their arguments today. The smart money is that they are STILL WRONG.
If I am sounding like an absolutist, that's because I do believe that there is an objective reality, and that we have limited access to that reality via our senses -- and from that, it seems to follow inescapably that some truth claims are absolutely true and others are absolutely false. Many truth claims don't fit so neatly, which is why I don't really consider myself an absolutist per se. But some do, and we should not be afraid to say so.
Creationist and IDist models for the origin of species are false. The debate is over. The "other side" does not need to be heard any more.
No, it isn't, unless the movie is about the Creationism "controversy".
ReplyDeleteOkay, if it's a movie about evolution, then no. But if it's a movie about the evidence for evolution, then I would choose to include a voice from the already debunked side (and then have an expert debunk the creationist again).
"I, in turn, wonder if he hadn't already made up his mind at that time?"
ReplyDeleteThis is where I had a problem mostly. It seemed to me that you were trying to discredit is authenticity (without any real evidence to prove your accusation) to make his claims or findings less credible.
Also the fact that the rest of the entry and your reasonings for encouraging people to watch the rebuttal was the same kind of thing. Rather then listing (or quoting from the rebuttal) what scientifically was inaccurate, you resorted to listing ways he incorrectly presented his work.
You say that from your work you have countering information, and that's fine. That's actually what I came in search of. To see what the other side had to offer. I just didn't see you offer any such thing in your blog entry or in what you quoted from the rebuttal.
I was thinking about it though (and I'm honestly considering -- as in, I haven't settled on an answer yet) would Strobel or Gore or others like them actually be held to the standards your talking about? I understand why, as a scientist when presenting your findings, you would need to show both sides relatively equally (even if it were just to dismantle the other). But are journalists and documentary producers/writers (like Michael Moore or others similar) held to those standards as well. I mean, neither Strobel, Moore or Gore (at least not to my knowledge) claim to be scientists. They are presenting their own view of an issue. Just like reading an article or watching Moore's take on 9/11, wouldn't it be up to the reader/viewer to find out the other side of the debate? Even though Strobel presented scientific data and talked about things that had to do with science, he still is just a journalist. Not a scientist. Shouldn't he be held only to the standard of, say those writing for the New York Times?
Just a thought.
James,
A lot of creationists believe that evolutionists have "nothing to add to the conversation." (I know, try to breathe). You probably would just think them "stoopid," right? Anyone that so easily writes off the other side of any debate only limits their own understanding. In turn, what YOU say adds nothing to this discussion.
"I, in turn, wonder if he hadn't already made up his mind at that time?"
ReplyDeleteThere is, unfortunately, plenty of evidence that Americans who are also Christians find it difficult to reconcile evolution with their faith, and therefore come out against evolution only because of that. Therefore that comment.
That's actually what I came in search of. To see what the other side had to offer.
There are good online resources for that. Best one is talkorigins.org. If you have specific questions, I'll be glad to help. I have also written about the evidence for evolution in other posts.
If a journalist argues for or against a particular scientific theory or hypothesis, then he should be held to the standard of scientists, of course. It's the subject matter that should be the determining factor.
A lot of creationists believe that evolutionists have "nothing to add to the conversation."
If the conversation is the validity of evolutionary theory, then evolutionary biologists do of course have something to add. If anyone thinks otherwise, then all I can say is that they must be crazy. Or, if by 'evolutionists' you just mean people who believe in evolution, but aren't experts, then I have personally seen many evolutionists arguing for evolution even though they clearly do not understand much of it. But, it is true what James says, that the debate over evolution or creationism is over, and the evidence has exclusively and repeatedly come out in favor of evolution, with no evidence left for creationism whatsoever.
So, where is the proof that God doesn't exist?
ReplyDeleteCharles, why would you ask that? Did I or anyone here say that there was proof that God doesn't exist? No, we were talking about creationism and evolution.
ReplyDeleteBut, since you ask (out of the blue), note that when you posit the existence of something then the burden of proof is on you. Not on those who says they think not. So I ask, where is the proof that God (any) exists?
Sorry. I made the assumption that you are an atheist. My mistake.
ReplyDeleteAs far proving the existence (or non-existence) of God, I'm not smart enough. I'm just your average "joe" who happened to watch the "Case for a Creator" video and I was looking on-line for any rebuttals. That's how I stumbled onto your web site.
I withdraw my comment.
I am indeed an atheist. I believe there is no God. I do not have proof that there isn't. Again, the onus is on those who claim something is there.
ReplyDeleteI happened by and saw this, and I'd like to point out something that doesn't appear to have been addressed above.
ReplyDeleteHadassah, if you're still paying attention - you said repeatedly that all Strobel was doing, all he claimed to be doing, was to outline the reasons he came to faith. That is NOT what he claimed was trying to do (although it is, in fact, what he ended up doing). In his books, Strobel claims to be presenting the evidence for his arguments (for a creator, for Jesus), as though he were in a courtroom, to see whether it would stand up to scrutiny. It's a ridiculous claim, as he interviewed only people who promoted his worldview. In a courtroom environment, these "experts" would be challenged by opposing counsel, who would also be allowed to present their own evidence. To my knowledge, Strobel brooks no disagreement in any of his work.
As far as scientists being interviewed for a creationist video is concerned, as Bjorn mentioned, there are any number who would agree - if they could be certain their arguments would be presented unedited in their entirety. Of course, most would probably be gun-shy, as the last time this was attempted was when a few were interviewed for Expelled, and their remarks were edited severely and taken entirely out of context, in order to make it appear as though they were validating the producers' world view.
Furthermore, as Bjorn also pointed out, Strobel has a habit of interviewing theologians on scientific topics about which they are, frankly, unqualified even to have opinions, let alone express them publicly.
A few other things:
Even though Strobel presented scientific data and talked about things that had to do with science, he still is just a journalist. Not a scientist. Shouldn't he be held only to the standard of, say those writing for the New York Times?
1. Not when he claims to be offering contradictory evidence for established scientific fact.
2. On his very best day, Strobel wouldn't meet the standards of the NY Times. Christians fawn all over him, because he's their very own "investigative journalist". In reality, he hasn't been one since he became an apologist, and his writing style and willingness to subordinate facts to his authoritarian world view indicate he wasn't a very good one to begin with.
Just out of curiosity, did you have the same reaction to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth?" I don't remember him interviewing any scientists with an opposing position.
That's because there are no serious scientists who hold such a position - only right wing ideologues in the pay of large corporations.
What I found (at your blog anyway) was someone only willing to belittle Strobel's character in an attempt to sway readers from any proof he may have presented.
Bjorn certainly did not belittle Strobel. He didn't need to; Strobel does that entirely on his own, each time he opens his mouth or puts pen to paper. The tragedy is that whenever he does so, Christians are entirely oblivious to it, as all they see, all they care to see, is that he validates their beliefs.
Strobel claims at all times to be presenting evidence objectively. In fact, his entire body of work is carefully crafted so as to to bolster the faith of those who already believe - or want desperately to.