This is not a book of science. Instead, it's one man's quest to find opinions that validate his view of the world. The chapter on Darwin, instead of discussing research that discusses faults in Darwin's theories, Strobel relies solely on interview of one scientist. I'm sure the scientist has valid points, but no book purporting to be about science should spit out the opinions of others in interview form as if they are gospel.

I also found the tone very condescending. Strobel asks a leading question, scientist tells him why his preconceived notions are wrong, Strobel fall all over himself saying what a schmuck was has been for so long for not knowing the truth.

I kept looking for the scientific evidence that was promised but it never materialized. No observations other than "Gee, that cell is so complex and beautiful, God must have done that." No data. No theory to explain the data [of course, no data]. No predictions. No testable hypothesis. No anything that looks, feels, sounds or smells like science, at least not science as we know it. Instead there seemed to be a lot of philosophical argument [which would be just fine if the grandiose promises of scientific evidence had not been made]. And a lot of sentences that start "I believe..."

Why the author implies the intelligent design immediately leads one to the [Christian] church, and not a mosque or a synagogue?

I was hoping for some well thought out arguments supporting creationism. Unfortunately, none are to be found in this book. This book is a littany of circular arguments, skewed "logic", giant leaps, false assumptions, and general stupidity. ... They dismiss all the work of Stephen Hawkings in just one paragraph by saying that he used "imaginary" numbers in his work and nothing real could possibly result from that. (For those unfamilar with imaginary numbers, they are a standard tool of math generally taught in high school algebra class.

Basically: If science cannot explain something now, if we don't know the answers now, then the only explanation can be God. The same kind of thinking brought us Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Neptune, etc. That's what mythology does--explain the inexplainable. Don't understand the complexity of planetary movement? Jeez, it must be Helios who carries the sun across the sky! Don't understand the complexity of the double helix? Jeez, it must be an intelligent creator who designs humans! We've known DNA existed for only 50 years...do you think possibly, just possibly, that one day science will know more about it than they do today? Or should we just immediately "cry god" and end of story?

This is the book for you if you like...
-circular logic
-one-sided "evidence" (there is no debate)
-science presented by a biased non-scientist
-short-sighted, shallow thinking
-science by creationist scientists
-ridiculous conclusions

This is disappointing. When I picked up the book, I actually had a little hope that there might be some real evidence. But, nope, fooled again.

[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310241448/103-0131351-3217401?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance[/url

The Case for a Creator, by Lee Stroble. A really good book. Whether you are a Christian or an Atheist, this is a good book for you. For christians, it will help strengthen your beliefs. For an atheist, it will help strengthen yours as well, by posing questions and doubts to such theories as the Big Bang, Evolution and others.

Post opinions here.

Yes, but this book sets out to prove it. Whether or not it does well, I couldn't say. (Nor do I really care; woo agnosticism! )

fundamentally conflict?

The part where occasional mood swings and a tendency to change your mind can allow you to have two conflicting opinions at the same time.

Perhaps this will reveal how little I know about Agnosticism, but I thought Agnostics didn't know whether or not God exists. It would seem that the Agnostics would care the most whether something proves or disproves the existence of God.

Basically: If science cannot explain something now, if we don't know the answers now, then the only explanation can be God.

I was hoping for some well thought out arguments supporting creationism. Unfortunately, none are to be found in this book. This book is a littany of circular arguments, skewed "logic", giant leaps, false assumptions, and general stupidity.

It always interests me when people say things like that. Not to sound ignorant, but how can you be both an atheist and a Christian? Don't the two viewpoints fundamentally conflict?