Book Review: Lee Stobel's Case for Intelligent Design

Our Sunday school class recently began reading Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator, and watching a DVD based upon the book. I just completed the book and it has been completely fascinating. Strobel is a gifted author and in this area, he appears to be very proficient; although, I must admit that I am somewhat ill prepared to attest to the veracity of all of his claims. All I can say is that from a layman's perspective, he makes some very compelling arguments.

We all have our areas of interest and science has never been one of mine. Consequently, over the years, I have intentionally shied away from debates over creationism, evolution, intelligent design, etc, not because I thought they were unimportant but simply because I lacked the interest/motivation to develop enough understanding of the subject to enter the debate. I must admit, however, that Strobel has brought these issues to life for me and I am amazed at the body of evidence (as presented by Strobel, which is admittedly somewhat one-sided), from a scientific and rationale point of view, that support the scriptural idea of creation/design and the very existence of God.

These have never been points of contention for me because I have always seen them within the context of faith and as such, never needed the witness of science or reason to verify what I believed. It is good, however, to know that these truths are supported by an appeal to reason and are scientifically plausible. With this said, I was really surprised to read this statement made by Dr. William Lane Craig in the closing words of chapter 5:

"But I think it is indisputable truth that there has never been a time in history when the hard evidence of science was more confirmatory of belief in God than today." (p. 151)

Upon reading this, my mind immediately went to the first chapter of Romans. This chapter begins as a powerful introduction to the doctrinal treatise that is to follow. He states in verse 16 that the good news (gospel) about Jesus Christ embodies the very power of God and is the vehicle through which God's salvific intervention and purpose is accomplished in the world.

What follows is a depiction of the wrath of God and it is here that the text has become problematic for me over the years. It is not because I do not think that God is capable of displaying displeasure or anger, but I've found it difficult to reconcile the idea that everything that can be known of God, or in other words, everything that is important for man to know about God, is visible in the external world. As a result of humanity's access to this knowledge, the whole of mankind is guilty and therefore without excuse. Let's look at what he says exactly:

Rom 1:18-20
8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; (NRSV)

Over the years, upon this reading and reflecting upon this passage, I've immediately found myself arguing with Paul, considering a hypothetical fourth world aborigine with no access to the gospel whatsoever, who would be condemned by Paul's logic. I am going to argue later that this is not actually what Paul is saying here, but I have thought this myself and happen to know that there are many people who accept this interpretation.

While I agree that the transcendence of God is clearly visible within the Universe, I do not believe that people can arrive at salvation solely through observation and that to fail to recognize this is reason for condemnation. Because of this controversy in my mind, I have chosen to lay aside what Paul says here as being inconsistent with the overall message of salvation contained within the entire biblical record.

Obviously, many people who take a high view of scripture with its appeal to infallibility, inspiration and the such like will find my hermeneutical decision to be heretical. But since I am not a fundamentalist with literalist leanings and because I have some Universalist tendencies and believe that a critical approach to scripture will often lead one to make some uncomfortable observations about what its authors say, I have been fine with my decision.

After reading much of what Strobel says about Intelligent Design and the fallacies of evolution, however, I have returned to this section of Romans 1 and believe that I have come to a better understanding of what Paul is saying . I am sure this is common knowledge for many, but it really has been revelation to me. So, let me take a few moments of your time to share with you what I think God has shown me about the scriptures I quoted above.

The idea that Paul is indicting all people for ignoring God--who is clearly visible in the external world--is wrong. To put it bluntly, this just seems unfair to me because while God, in general terms, may be visible in the created order, it does not mean that all people have the necessary tools to arrive at a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ simply by observing the natural world. What I missed here, however, is the statement that Paul makes in v.18 while identifying the class of people upon whom the wrath of God will be revealed. It is those who suppress the truth of God.

This is a far cry from the aborigine who has never heard of Jesus Christ. I agree that there is an indictment here, but this is not a universal indictment upon humanity for ignorance. The idea here is best understood in legal terms. For instance, a district attorney who has in his/her possession evidence that proves the innocence of a defendant they've brought to trial but refuse to reveal this evidence, is a prime example of those who suppress the truth. Paul is saying that there are people who are aware of the reality of God but are unwilling to acknowledge this reality and not only that, but they actively suppress this knowledge.

While I do not want to spend much time debating the merits of Intelligent Design over Evolution, I do think this arena serves as a prime modern day example of what Paul is decrying in this passage. There is sufficient evidence through a scientific understanding of the properties of the Universe to argue in favor of God:  a super-mind, the ultimate architect. In particular, according to Stobel, the past fifty years of scientific research across a broad spectrum of disciplines (cosmology, physics, biology, biochemistry, etc) has yielded a tremendous amount of evidence consistent with Paul's claim that the invisible God is seen in the visible universe. Yet, much of the scientific community not only rejects this, but actually proposes theories and ideas that are less logical and requires more faith than a belief in the possibility of God.

Strobel records a quote at the beginning of chapter 8 that illustrates the attitude of many atheistic/agnostic scientist:

We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; be we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations. (Biochemist Franklin M. Harold, p.239)

This is the attitude of suppression that I think Paul is addressing. Science is supposed to be concerned with the truth, regardless of where that truth leads. But there appears to be this overarching motivation within much of the scientific community to dispel any gravitation towards a divine explanation of the nature of the universe and a willingness to embrace naturalistic materialism regardless of how absurd its conclusions may be. It is reminiscent of another quote in Strobel's book: 

 "Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialist overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical." (Sir John Templeton, p. 341)

The unwillingness to accept any validity in a God Hypothesis keeps them trapped in a purely physical and mostly illogical world of explanations, since much of the design visible in the Universe can not be adequately explained without an appeal to divine order. The degree of precision in the order of the universe makes the ideas of natural selection and random chance a millions times more dubious than an appeal to a Creator. Instead, much of science is waiting for some yet to be discovered corroborative evidence that will someday permanently remove God out of the picture, which is more unlikely now than ever. The more we know about the universe, the more we realize the vastness of what we do not know and to explain it outside of an appeal to design is more and more fraught with difficulties. 

The paralells between Paul's description of an aggressive atheism in the latter portion of Roman's 1 and what we see within modern day science is staggering. Besides aggressively suppressing the truth, they are said to know God but unwilling to honor him. They refuse to retain God in their knowledge, embracing the creature rather than the creator. The portrait and parallels between what Paul is saying and what is going on in the scientific debate over the design of the universe is so relevant and clear. 

In conclusion, I recommend Stobel's book to anyone interested in the evolution/creation debate. Stobel is not a traditional creationist, and for that I am grateful. He believes in a Big Bang and that creation took place over a long period of time, yet a very small amount relative to the age of the earth. Accordingly, Strobel is not a young earth creationist either. Strobel's case for Intelligent Design comes purely from a scientific perspective, appealing to the authority of various scientific disciplines and experts within these fields. There is a fair treatment of dissenting opinions, although indirectly. No one who is opposed to IS was interviewed in the book.

While I did not agree with all of Strobel's claims or theories, I did come away from the experience feeling good about what I believe. As previously stated, my religious/spiritual beliefs have always been constructed primarily upon faith and as such, I do not necessarily need scientific agreement. But it feels good to know that reasonable proof is out there, acknowledged by many scientist who are not Christians themselves.  It has also been good to recapture a portion of scripture that I have long been unable to reconcile with my overall understanding of grace and redemption. This is a book that I am sure will be a part of my library for many years to come. If any of you have read the book, I would love to hear your feelings about it, whether positive or negative.