I’ve just finished reading Norman Geisler and Frank Turek’s apologetic book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. I enjoy reading and keeping up to date with apologetics, and I especially liked this book because the presentation was slick, the content easy to read, and topics were placed in logical order to form a cumulative argument for Christianity. Geisler and Turek argue that there can be only one form of truth. This is followed by arguments for the existence of God as well as for the truth of miracles and New Testament writings. The book caught my eye when I read comments on the back cover by other apologists. The following was a comment by Josh McDowell: “If you’re still a skeptic after reading I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, then I suspect you are living in denial!”
I’ve now finished the book, and am in the process of going through it again to take notes. I’m afraid, Mr McDowell, that I’m still an atheist, and as far as I know I don’t think I’m living in denial. I’m simply not convinced by some of the arguments that Geisler and Turek have put forward.
A major drawback was the chapters on biological evolution, which I found wrought with mistakes and misunderstandings of what evolution actually is. Not only do Geisler and Turek make the same mistake as Lee Strobel, in his book Case for a Creator, by falsely linking atheism with evolution, but they also make false statements about what biologists actually claim (e.g., that man evolved from apes, and that the first life suddenly appeared as a fully developed cell in a warm little pond).
I admit I’m no expert on evolution, but I do know something about the topic (I studied Zoology and majored in Botany while at university). I could easily pick out the mistakes in Geisler and Turek’s chapters on evolution because I’ve had some previous exposure in this field. Now this is what worried me: if Geisler & Turek made fundamental mistakes in their chapters on evolution – a topic that I’ve formally studied in the past – what other mistakes did they make with other topics in the book, topics that I know very little about? I was left wondering, for the rest of the book, if all of Geisler and Turek’s claims and premises in other chapters could be trusted.
At this present time I will give Geisler and Turek the benefit of the doubt. However, I’m working through the book more thoroughly and will later post my thoughts regarding some of their arguments.