I have recently been made aware of a popular book called “The Case for a Creator,” by journalist Lee Strobel. I first heard about the book from one of my students who asked if it would be appropriate to read for an assignment in Honors Biology. The current booklist I have pre-approved for the assignment includes mostly books that summarize and comment on mainstream biological knowledge. I was immediately doubtful of the book’s appropriateness because of the title. The presence of the word “Creator” in the title made me suspect that the book probably did not present mainstream scientific viewpoints. However, in the spirit of “fairness,” I decided not to reject the book without giving it a serious look. In my opinion, it is important to seriously examine books like this because an offhand rejection can be interpreted as evidence of the “philosophical bias” that is so often wrongly attributed to supporters of mainstream science.

A few days later, I visited my local bookstore and spent about 10 minutes looking for the book in the science section. I could not find it there. After finally asking a bookstore employee, I was directed to the religion section of the store. As it turns out, the book was correctly shelved.

Once I found the book, I sat down in a comfortable chair and began perusing it. It quickly became clear to me that this was another book with the singular purpose of promoting the idea of Intelligent Design (ID). Several similar books have been published recently, but this author claims to be “objective” because he is a journalist, not a scientist with specific scientific predispositions. Of course, the problem with the claim of objectivity is that Strobel only interviewed scientists who publicly defend the case he initially set out to make. This is not really a surprise, given the book’s title, but it is interesting that an author would make the claim of objectivity in such a situation.

Some of the usual ID supporters are represented: Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, and J.P. Moreland. Based on my brief examination of the book, the viewpoints represented by “The Case for a Creator” are all antievolution viewpoints. No space is devoted to the other viewpoints held by the majority of religious scientists. Unfortunately, the author did not present the ideas of anyone who accepts both religion and mainstream science. Once again, the claim of objectivity falls flat.

Not encouraged by my short inspection of the book itself, I decided to check out the book’s website: www.caseforacreator.com. The website, not surprisingly, completely upheld my initial qualms. One of the graphics on the website says, “God did it. Case closed.” There could not be a statement more inconsistent with the nature of modern science! “God did it” explanations have never been acceptable in science because they can never be disproved. This is not to say that I disagree. I also believe "God did it." It's just that I believe we shouldn't try to use science to dust for "God's fingerprints." Also, anyone familiar with the nature of modern science would know that scientific explanations are never considered absolute, regardless of their level of evidential support.

I’m guessing you can tell by now what my answer was regarding the appropriateness of the book for the assignment. I carefully explained to the student that the book was not appropriate because of its religious nature. I told the student about my difficulty finding the book at the bookstore because it was in the religion section of the store. In the end, the ultimate reason for my rejection of the book was simple—“The Case for a Creator” is a book intended to promote a religious viewpoint, not a scientific one.