The Case for a Creator DVD: A Six-Session Investigation of the Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God: A Six-session Investigation of the Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God [Englisch] [DVD-ROM]

I'm really excited about using this dvd for a high school bible study, however it does not include the participant's guide as stated in the editorial review. This is very important, because when you receive the dvd it states on it that you need a participant guide for each group member. When the review said it included that, I thought it must be on the dvd-rom and you could print it out. Not so! You must buy them separately!

The Case for a Creator: A Six Session Investigation of the Scientific Evidence That Points toward God film and the Case for a Creator the film did not cover Chapter 10 of the book the Case for Creator that is a very strong case for a Creator. The "Evidence of Human Conscience" and the Soul and Spirit discussed by JP Moreland are strong arguments for a creator. To teach the material I have to create the material from other sources. It was not even in the bonus material. This is the only reason to down grade from a 5 to a 4 rating.

The Participant Guide the Human Conscience and the Soul and Spirit discussed by JP Moreland in the book chapter 10 are strong arguments for a creator are left out of the DVD and the Participant Guide material. It would be very helpful to be in the bonus material of the DVD and Participant Guide material questions.

I read the book since many christian apologetics had mentioned him as a good author whom they often cite. Luckily, now I know the best arguments for "I.D." and it is still unconvincing.

A few thoughts,

1. There are plenty of transitional fossils.

2. The Miller experiment updated to our present understanding of the early earth's atmosphere actually showed more amino acids created than the original.

3. Just because the original 1859 Darwin tree could have been wrong doesn't disprove his theory. The tree has been updated with new discoveries and is just fine.

4. The big bang was rejected by theists for a long time and now finally, some now accept it happened. It is just a matter of time before evolution is accepted and twisted to somehow match the bible. Or preferably people finally look at science without trying to prove an endpoint before evidence is gathered.

5. The IDers accept the big bang 13.5 billion years ago, but reject evolution through natural selection. What was God doing for the past 13.4999 billion years of the universe before he decided to create humans, twiddling his infinity holy thumbs?

6. Evolution was not created to destroy faith, or to promote selfish, godless materialism. The theory is so widespread today because it is true.

7. Irreducibly complexity is an argumentum ad ignorantiam at best. The examples stated have all been shown to be possible by natural selection. Blood clotting in some fish and whales have fewer proteins than other creatures and still work fine, for example. The flagellum argument was disproven in the mid 90's, I guess Behe hasn't got the memo yet.

8. This book has an incorrect subtitle. This approach is not journalistic or scientific.

9. The universe was not fine tuned for life, life adapted to the conditions that the universe had already. Life adopted to physics, not vice versa.

10. Even though life as on the earth is probably rare, doesn't mean that they are not possible elsewhere, given that there are trillion and trillions of planets.

11. Life doesn't have to be carbon based. The idea that it does is commonly called "carbon chauvinism". Just because the earth's life forms are carbon based doesn't mean it is the only way to life. Silicone can be used too.

12. Just because the universe was not created for humans does not mean that life is purposeless and void of meaning. Making your own purpose is much more interesting than following what someone else wants you to live for anyway.

13. Christians did think that the earth was the center of the universe, Copernicus' law did deflate egos. Stating a metaphysical idea of earth being promoted to the heavens after Copernicus is not scientific at all. It is dark aged nonsense.

14. Saying that scientists are apart of a conspiracy to promote the idea of a godless universe is absolutely ridiculous. It should be given the same clout as moon landing deniers, holocaust deniers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists (if even that much clout). Also, this does not say much about the IDers who promote creationism for the sole purpose of proving that we need a god to explain the universes' existence.

15. "ID" is seen in the scientific community as pseudo-science, on the lines of science fiction's worst moments, except funnier.

16. Most of the people Strobel interviewed did not have their doctoral work in the fields that they talked about. Most were theologians, which isn't really a proper academic field anyway.

17. Some of the interviewees said that this science has shown that the Judeo-christian god is the one who created the universe. I wonder about the other gods who are also said to have created the universe. Couldn't they all have done it just as well as Yahweh?

18. I actually felt physically sick while trying to read this book, and sincerely hope that people will actually read a real science book instead of reading this frustratingly ignorant and nonscientific nonsense.

Well my twin babies are crying. Got to go, I could go on though...

If you want to be fair as I have attempted to do, and hear the other side of the argument, check out "why evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne, Bill Brysons "A short history of nearly everything" (which Strobel mentions) or Stephen Hawkins new book "The Grand Design." All are easy to read for the layman and interesting.