Case for a Creator

If you have Netflix, I'd recommend putting "The Case for a Creator" DVD on your Que. The movie pretty much recounts some of the arguments in Lee Strobel's book for why the evidence in biology and astronomy points to a creator. He goes a lot more in depth into each one of these arguments in the book with more point-counter-point going back and forth.

The points made by Strobel and the experts he interviews here do not point specifically the existence of the God of the Bible. But they do discredit the notion that life could have existed by mere chance and that more complex life developed from simpler life.


One of my favorite points from the DVD is when it discredits the 1959 Miller-Urey Experiment, the famous experiment that tried to prove that the basic element of life -- amino acids -- could have been produced completely by accident by a spark of electricity. Miller assumed in the experiment that the early Earth contained elements of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen. In the movie (and in the book), Strobel interviews Dr. Jonathan Wells, who says that the early Earth did not contain those elements but instead contained water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. One of the reasons for why hydrogen couldn't have been present in the mix is because, like now, it would have floated in the air. According to Wells, when Stanley Millier tried to conduct the same experiment using the latter set of elements, nothing occurred that had any resemblance to life.

Some other arguments that Strobel points out are Michael Behe's irreducible complexity, Jonathan Wells' interest in the Cambrian Explosion, and the discovery of cosmic acceleration, which -- by logic -- shows that the cosmos had a central origin and thus an originator.

Now, to be fair, there are so many counter-arguments all over the internet against Strobel's points that it makes my head spin. I really don't even know which points are sourced and which are not. They come from all over the place and from every angle. I would like to take a closer look at some of them, but the essential points that Strobel are pretty darn strong in showing that chance could not have been our great creator.

Most of the time, Strobel has been criticized as another dodo Christian author simply preaching to the Choir. Except, he began his journey as an Atheist who wanted to debunk all credibility for any god. Others criticize him for interviewing only scientists who believe in a Creator... but if you read the book, Strobel is so incredibly versed in the atheist argument and brings up so many references to support atheism that it's obvious he's done his homework. He's done his research against Christianity before actually accepting Christianity.