Talk:The Case for a Creator

One criticism noted was that only 3 were scientists, but the book was scientific(or pseudo)/philosophical, so shouldn't that be mentioned. for example William Craig discusses the Kalam cosmological argument which is philosphical not scientific and to be fair that doesn't make it invalid. Then there is Stephen C. Meyer who is discussing the relationship between religion and science meaning a philosopher and scientist are equally qualified in this area, although he also goes arguing against abiogenesis which the issue comes from the fact that he debates that from a scientific perspective on a philosophical, then there is Robin Collins who is a philosopher of science so, in other words he is delving into a topic he is somewhat qualified for. Anyway, I was just wondering if it would be more neutral to mention a response to this, or if I'm getting to close to original research. Thanks. 12.220.94.199 03:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a good point and I was wondering about that too. I would like to be neutral, but I don't want to come across as defending pseudoscience passing itself off as real science. There is absolutely no problem with Meyer talking about the relationship of religion and science; that is what he is qualified to do. He just isn't qualified as an expert in abiogenesis, which is a cutting-edge field that even most biologists aren't really qualified to speak about, and I think that fact deserves noting.King aardvark 15:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

citations

Someone has been pressuring to get bunch of citations for this page, which is of course a good idea. I'm not good at citationing stuff, but all the needed references are already found on the Wikipedia articles on Intelligent Design and Discovery Institute. Does anyone know what should be done re: the references in this case? King aardvark 19:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Can we reach a compromise on some of the wording here? I find some of the current text problematic--but I am willing to compromise.

"In the book, Strobel conducts a series of investigative interviews of Christian scholars, all of whom are ID proponents, who attempt to refute natural causes for the origin of universe and the development of life."

This last part about "refuting natural causes" seems loaded and innacurate. In any case, the scholars interviewed dont try to "refute a natural cause," they try to prove that naturalistic explanations/theories for certain phenomena fail (I'm not saying they succeed). To say that someone "refutes a natural cause" is to say that the person had an argument with a natural cause, which is ridiculous. There is no such thing as "refuting a cause" (you refute people, not causes) there is only attempts to refute arguments and theories about causes. But I think a compromise can be reached.

What about this instead? "In the book, Strobel conducts a series of investigative interviews of Christian scholars, all of whom are ID proponents, who attempt to refute naturalistic accounts of the origin of universe and the development of life." Gilbertggoose 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that sounds great. King aardvark 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. I will remove the NPOV and make the change. Thanks. Gilbertggoose 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientific degrees

Critics also point out that, although the book purports to investigate scientific evidence for a creator, of the experts interviewed, only Wells, Gonzalez, and Behe possess graduate degrees in a scientific field.

Is the citation requested for the "critics point out" (i.e., which critics) or "possess graduate degrees in science"? If it's the former, then maybe the tag should be moved up. If it's the latter - try clicking on the links to the "experts" higher up the page. Guettarda 15:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what the intent of the citation tag was. It wasn't mine. Personally, I'd lean to just letting people follow the links to the individual experts' pages. King aardvark 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I will remove that tag. I agree that the links to the experts should be sufficient. Gilbertggoose 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The first part of the statement is still a problem though - any idea who these critics are? If we can't find reliable sources, then maybe just make the statement - after all, the backgrounds of the sources are verifiable. Guettarda 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ID=psuedoscience

"Intelligent design is generally regarded by mainstream scientific organizations as pseudoscience.[1]"

While this is legitimate criticism, it makes no mention of address by the author. Strobel writes, "'But I hear it over and over,' I insisted, 'The National Academy of Sciences said, "Intelligent design . . . [is] not a science because [it's] not testable by the methods of science"'" (Strobel 214, citing Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences). Behe then addresses the objection with the claim that his research, at least, is indeed falsifiable: "'. . . [Take] my claim that there is no unintelligent process that could produce bacterial flagellum. To falsify that claim, all you would have to do would be to find one unintelligent process that could produce that system'" (Strobel 214). While this does not explicitly address the whole of the book, the principle behind the statement does. To simply state that the mainstream of the scientific community views ID as pseudoscience without mentioning the objection raised in the book implies that this criticism was overlooked by the author and is therefore misleading.

I realize that there is an entire ID Wikipedia article--I'm not suggesting that the debate be brought to this one--but I think that the above statement as it is implies bias, however unintentional. A change should be made to preserve neutrality.

--DPahman 07:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

"Though Strobel does object to their stance, Intelligent Design is generally regarded by mainstream scientific organizations as pseudoscience.[1]"

Just a suggestion . . . I figured that maybe my above comment was ignored because my intent wasn't clear, I hope that helps. . . .

--DPahman 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article currently says: Intelligent design is generally regarded by mainstream scientific organizations as pseudoscience.[1] Despite ID's fringe status in the scientific community, no anti-ID scientists are interviewed in the book.

Changing it to:

Though Strobel does object to their stance, Intelligent Design is generally regarded by mainstream scientific organizations as pseudoscience. Despite ID's fringe status in the scientific community, no anti-ID scientists are interviewed in the book.

wouldn't make any sense. The point is that Strobel pretends to be a "journalist" in all his books, but only "interviews" one side. No one is saying that Strobel overlooks the facts - here, like in his other books, he misrepresents the facts. All his books are equally misleading. Guettarda 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the point of a criticism section was simply to mention known, provable (or referenced) criticisms. I don't see how all the following criticisms (after the one mentioned) don't very well establish your point of view. All I'm saying is that this article, unlike, say, a book written to argue the case for an opinion, should strive to be as unbiased as possible. I think you're reading too much into my suggestion. . . .

--DPahman 16:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Some critics also point out that the book assumes the Christian God, though the arguments presented equally hold true for any monotheistic, omnipotent, and omniscient deity concept. [citation needed]

Not all of the arguments presented hold equally true for any monotheistic, omnipotent, and omniscient deity. Many arguments are presented with Biblical references and points, hence the Christian overtone. Darkfuzz 20:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention what should be obvious; The title is "THE CASE for a CREATOR!!

Yoda921 04:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Yoda Also he has already addressed that issue in his other two books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.15.62 (talk) 15:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections

The last paragraph is useless if the comments are unverified - which organisations are saying that Strobel's critique of Archaeopteryx is flawed? It reads as though it was added by an atheist who doesn't like his ideas but didn't/can't find a website that addresses the issue. "Some critics also claim..." also needs a citation - otherwise I may as well delete those parts...

Yoda921 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Yoda

I'd support removing the archaeopteryx paragraph. It's disjointed and far too specific. There are so many problems with the contents of the book (from a scientific perspective) that it really makes little sense to focus in on that one. King aardvark 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I'm wondering why there is a criticism section at all. This article is about a book not a discussion about its validity. If someone wants to hear an opposing view they can simply go to the ID discussion. There is not a single reference in the criticism section and it sounds rather vague to me. It appears as a desperate attempt to discredit the interviewees and author and sway a reader's opinion. Perhaps deleting that section altogether and allowing readers to form their own opinions would be more appropriate and closer to fair play. Maybe instead of a criticism section their should be links to related articles such as ID, evolution, Charles Darwin, Kalam Argument, etc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.192.117.66 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, it's traditional on WP and many argue it's needed (Plus the fact that it's actually WP policy), but I sort of agree.Nousernamesleft 00:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The initial comment "ID is pseudoscience" seems like an attempt to write off everything in the book without addressing a single point. Like a "poisoning the well argument." I'd recommend removing that comment, as it belongs (in the loosest sense - since when did the "National Teachers Association" become the "scientific community??") in the ID section.

Yoda921 14:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Pseudoscience, as referenced through the link, is something that claims to be science without following the scientific method (SM). The funny thing is that nothing in history can be proven through the SM because history only happened once. Of course you can't prove creation through the SM. You can't prove George Washington was the first U.S. president through the SM but no one doubts it do they?

You're right. That section definately needs to be purged of some things.

AUTHOR OF THE FIRST COMMENT IN THIS SECTION

That's because George Washington comes under the realm of "history." I.e. you see old documents pinpointing this fact. Of course, any events prior to the invention of writing cannot be classified as history; (i.e. "Prehistoric!!"). So, theoretically, any form of theorising regarding our origins could be regarded as "pseudoscience."

Yoda921 08:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Yoda

I agree, although I would emphasize the word "any" in the last sentence. I don't want to go beyond the scope of what this discussion section is for but . . . the scientific community has a habit of stepping beyond what they can prove and then just guessing to fill in the gaps. Prehistory is non repeatable and therefore cannot be subjected to SM. Christian explanations should not be discarded just because the majority of the scientific community does not believe in God. Science can only prove what is confined to the universe. You can't test for a god but that shouldn't disqualify him from existing. AUTHOR OF THE FIRST COMMENT IN THIS SECTION

The first section of the Criticisms section needs to be removed. The claim that ID is widely believed to be pseudoscience references a dead link, and as such, is now original research. The following sentence argues the point that no anti-ID scientists are interviewed in the book, however, this argument is invalid, as the book never claims to be a balanced discussion. It's "The Case for a Creator", not "The Case for and against a Creator". 159.116.54.138 19:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for point that out - since the link no longer works, I have removed the first part of the criticism section (as anyone should do in this case)

DarthSidious 18:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

Criticism

Why erase the following:

"The Critical Analysis portrays the errors about Scientific theory and Red Herrings, among many other logical fallacies, which Strobel employs in the documentary."

Although this may sound biased, it should not be seen that way. There is no argument that the video contains logical errors such as Red Herring and argument from ignorance.

Please repost.

Aequitas12345 15:25, 9 October 2007

Notability

Given that this article doesn't cite a single reference that actually mentions the book, I'm tagging this article for questionable notability:

A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
   • The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
2. The book has won a major literary award.
3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.
   — WP:BK#Criteria

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)