Lee Strobel is a Christian apologist and author whose book, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God,  is on Dr. Eric Hedin’s reading list for his creationism-infested “science” course at Ball State University. Strobel claims that he was once an atheist, but that the evidence turned him religious.

Wikipedia characterizes the book thusly, which is perfectly in line with the other books on Hedin’s one-sided creationist reading list:

The Case for a Creator consists of interviews with intelligent design advocates and Christian apologists who argue for the existence of a creator. Critics of the book accuse it of bias, which they assert is contrary to the book’s own claims of being neutral and scientifically rigorous.

The advocates interviewed in the chapters and their topic(s) of discussion are as follows:

• Intelligent design advocate and Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture(CSC) fellow Jonathan Wells presents a case against evolution;
• Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer discusses the relationship between science and religion, as well as the origin of life, arguing against the likelihood of abiogenesis without the assistance of a creator;
• Philosopher of religion William Lane Craig discusses the Big Bang and argues for a creator as first cause, using the Kalam cosmological argument;
• International Society for Complexity, Information and Design fellow and philosopher Robin Collins discusses the anthropic principle and argues that the universe must be designed by a creator;
• Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer) and Jay Richards (theologian) present a case that the Rare Earth hypothesis supports intelligent design;
• Biochemist Michael Behe discusses irreducible complexity in biology as an argument for a creator; and,
• Philosopher and theologian J.P. Moreland examines the supposed existence of consciousness separate from the brain, including near-death experiences, as an argument for a creator.

It’s no surprise, then, that over at the wonderfully-named site For God’s Glory Alone Ministry (article expanded from one in The Christian Post) Strobel is quoted as saying that Hedin’s course is great, for it provides the opportunity fo the kids to see all sides:

“I believe we should give teachers, scientists, and students the right to pursue the evidence wherever it takes them – even if it takes them to the politically incorrect conclusion that there’s an Intelligent Designer,” Strobel told The Christian Post via email. “In other words, let’s test the evidence in the marketplace of ideas.

The two problems are these: intelligent design (and also old-earth creationism, also on Hedin’s reading list in the form of books by Hugh Ross), has already been tested in the marketplace, and scientists aren’t buying it. And, of course, Hedin’s course doesn’t present the alternative view that has been tested in the marketplace, and won: modern evolutionary biology.  The man is intellectually dishonest, but of course that’s what creationists must do to get their ideas into the classroom (we’ll see how long Hedin is able to get away with this).

Strobel, who apparently hasn’t really looked at Hedin’s class, nevertheless teaches something similar.  His defense of this strategy is, really, indistinguishable from the views of P. Z. Myers and Larry Moran, both of whom have—while criticizing content of Hedin’s course—argued that it should nevertheless continue to be taught because eliminating it would violate “academic freedom.” The words in bold below perfectly express P.Z.’s and Larry’s views. I wonder if they realize that their views are perfectly consonant with the creationist call to “teach the controversy” on the college level.

Strobel, whose book, The Case for a Creator, is on the course reading list, says that he doesn’t have any specific knowledge about Hedin’s class, but said, “In my view, a fair teaching of cosmology, physics, biochemistry, biological information and human consciousness tends to point quite naturally toward an Intelligent Designer. Students should be allowed to draw their own conclusions based on the evidence. I certainly don’t see any First Amendment prohibition against free academic inquiry, especially in an elective course like this. I hope students will be able to consider all aspects of scientific evidence and not be unfairly prohibited from considering certain evidence just because some critics don’t like its implications.”

He added, “For me, it was a surface-level understanding of science that paved my path into atheism, but it was a more thorough and open-minded investigation of the broad spectrum of evidence that ultimately led me to conclude there’s a a Creator, as I describe in my book The Case for a Creator.”

LOL! If Ball State keeps this up, their graduation photo will look like this: