The Case for a Creator, Chapter 5
Back in chapter 2, Strobel claimed that he would be interviewing “authorities in various scientific disciplines about the most current findings in their fields” [p.28]. How has this promise played out so far?
Up till now, he’s interviewed Jonathan Wells – who has a legitimate degree in biology, albeit one which he admits he acquired for the express purpose of attacking evolution – and Stephen Meyer, who has a doctorate in the history and philosophy of science. I very much doubt whether either of these people can be described as scientific “authorities”, but they do have some relevant expertise, so by a generous accounting, we could say Strobel’s 2 for 2. This chapter is about cosmology and the Big Bang, so for him to keep up that record, you’d expect that he would interview some prestigious cosmologist or famous astrophysicist who supports ID. Who will it be?
Interview #3: William Lane Craig, Ph.D, Th.D
When I first read this, I underlined it and then scribbled two big question marks in the margin. William Lane Craig? Really?
Craig is a professional Christian apologist with a doctorate in philosophy and another in theology. Whatever knowledge he may have about cosmology, in no sense can he be described as a scientist, much less an “authority” in any scientific discipline. I thought the purpose of this book was to interview professional scientists who believe that their work supports intelligent design. Are there so few of those that the well has run dry after just two interviews? Couldn’t Strobel find any actual astrophysicists with whom he could discuss this topic, forcing him to turn to professional Christian apologists? What happened to Allan Sandage, that famous astronomer convert mentioned in the last chapter – was he unavailable, or maybe unwilling to speak to Strobel?
What makes this even more absurd is that, instead of discussing any actual science, Strobel and Craig spend most of this chapter rehashing the kalam cosmological argument, a philosophical proof for the existence of God. We’ve strayed far from anything resembling scientific discovery here, except in the very limited sense that the Big Bang might be said to support the claim that the universe had a beginning – but then again, Christian apologists were making these very same arguments centuries earlier.
I won’t spend too much time on this chapter repeating my own counterarguments from Ebon Musings, though I can add a few side points. The next installment in this series will appear next week.
Other posts in this series: