Stephen C. Meyer, It's called Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design.

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071475

From the reviews:

>“It’s hard for us paleontologists to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably....Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer.” (Dr. Mark McMenamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of The Emergence of Animals)

>“Darwin’s Doubt represents an opportunity for bridge-building rather than dismissive polarization—bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialogue—and bridges to span evolutionary gaps.” (Dr. George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and author of Regenesis)

>“Meyer writes beautifully. He marshals complex information as well as any writer I’ve read....a wonderful, most compelling read.” (Dean Koontz, New York Times bestselling author)

>“Darwin’s Doubt is by far the most up-to-date, accurate, and comprehensive review of the evidence from all relevant scientific fields that I have encountered in more than forty years of studying the Cambrian explosion.” (Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, senior scientist emeritus (biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research)

>“Meyer demonstrates, based on cutting-edge molecular biology, why explaining the origin of animals is now not just a problem of missing fossils, but an even greater engineering problem at the molecular level....An excellent book and a must read.” (Dr. Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia and technical director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center)

>“Darwin’s Doubt is an intriguing exploration of one of the most remarkable periods in the evolutionary history of life.... No matter what convictions one holds about evolution, Darwinism, or intelligent design, Darwin’s Doubt is a book that should be read, engaged and discussed.” (Dr. Scott Turner, professor of biology at the State University of New York and author of The Tinkerer's Accomplice)

>“It is a tour de force…This book is well informed, carefully researched, up–to–date and powerfully argued. It confronts Darwin’s doubt and deals with the assumptions of Neo–Darwinism. This book is much needed and I recommend it to students of all levels, to professionals and to laypeople.” (Dr. Norman C. Nevin OBE, BSc, MD, FRCPath, FFPH, FRCPE, FRCP; Professor Emeritus in Medical Genetics, Queen's University, Belfast)

>“Darwin’s Doubt is another excellent book by Stephen Meyer. Stephen Meyer has clearly listened to the arguments of those who are sceptical about intelligent design and has addressed them thoroughly. It is really important that Darwinists read this book carefully and give a response.” (Dr. Stuart Burgess, Professor of Design and Nature, Head of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University)

>“I spend my life reading science books. I’ve ready many hundreds of them over the years, and in my judgment Darwin’s Doubt is the best science book ever written. It is a magnificent work, a true masterpiece that will be read for hundreds of years.” (George GilderTechnologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling authorGeorge GilderTechnologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling authorGeorge GilderTechnologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling authorGeorge GilderTec)

>“The issue on the table is the mechanism of evolution—is it blind and undirected or is it under the control of an intelligence with a goal in mind? In Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer has masterfully laid out one of the most compelling lines of evidence for the latter.” (Dr. William S. Harris, Professor, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota)

>“Dr. Meyer has written a comprehensive and up–to–date analysis on the massive scientific evidence revealing the total failure of the neo–Darwinian explanation for life’s history. Darwin’s Doubt is important, clearly written with sound arguments, excellent illustrations and examples that make the topic easily understandable even for non–specialists” (Dr. Matti Leisola, Professor, Bioprocess Engineering, Aalto University, Finland (emeritus); Editor-in-chief, Bio-Complexity)

>“Meyer makes a case for intelligent design as the only viable scientific theory for the origin of biological novelty. Meyer’s challenge to naturalism will no doubt be strongly resisted by those committed to a materialist worldview, but provide food for refection for those who are searching for truth.” (Dr. Donald L. Ewert, Molecular Biologist, Associate Member (retired), Wistar Institute)

>“Stephen C. Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt is a truly remarkable book. Within its 413 pages of text are four tightly woven interrelated arguments. Using 753 references, he presents evidence associated with the serious weaknesses of materialistic theories of biological evolution, and positive evidence for the theory of intelligent design.” (Dr. Mark C. Biedebach, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach)

>“A great book on the origin of animal life and crises of Darwin evolution; very clear, factual, comprehensive, logical, and informative. An enjoyable reading for both non–expert and expert.” (Dr. Change Tan, Molecular biologist/developmental biologist, Associate Professor, University of Missouri-Columbia)

>Steven Meyer gives an insightful and thoughtful treatment to the history of life. Justice Louis Brandies taught us that, ‘Sunlight is the best disinfectant,’ and Dr. Meyer lets the sun shine in. (Dr. Stephen A. BatzerP.E., forensic engineerDr. Stephen A. Batzer, P.E., forensic engineer)

>“Steve Meyer’s book is a much–anticipated bombshell that details the swarm of problems of Darwinian evolution and also presents the case for intelligent design. Ask yourself: how often does a book of this kind receive a warm welcome from leading geneticists and paleontologists? Never, until now! ” (Dr. Tom Woodward, Research Professor, Trinity College, Tampa Bay, Author of Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design)

>“Stephen Meyer’s new book, Darwin’s Doubt, is a fascinating and rigorous study demonstrating not only that biologists and paleontologists do not have an adequate explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, but that there is an alternative view that makes more sense.” (Dr. Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus; Author of From Darwin to Hitler)

>“Meyer is a talented writer with an easygoing voice who has blended interesting history with clear explanations in what may come to be seen as a classic presentation of this most fundamental of all debates.” (Terry Scambray, New Oxford Review)

http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415097955&sr=1-1&keywords=Signature+in+the+Cell%3A+DNA+and+the+Evidence+for+Intelligent+Design

From the reviews:

>“Signature in the Cell is a defining work in the discussion of life’s origins and the question of whether life is a product of unthinking matter or of an intelligent mind. For those who disagree with ID, the powerful case Meyer presents cannot be ignored in any honest debate. For those who may be sympathetic to ID, on the fence, or merely curious, this book is an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read” — American Spectator

>Named one of the top books of 2009 by the Times Literary Supplement (London), this controversial and compelling book from Dr. Stephen C. Meyer presents a convincing new case for intelligent design (ID), based on revolutionary discoveries in science and DNA. Along the way, Meyer argues that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution as expounded in The Origin of Species did not, in fact, refute ID. If you enjoyed Francis Collins’s The Language of God, you’ll find much to ponder—about evolution, DNA, and intelligent design—in Signature in the Cell.

>Not familiar as I probably ought to be. I know that there were other homo species -possibly at the same time as humans. I think I heard something about interbreeding at some point, but maybe that was just speculation?

To be honest, I'm not exactly an expert on the specifics. However, Wikipedia provides as always - If the article and the numerous citations are to be believed, they're considered separate species as mitochondria genetic data (that I could explain further if you like) shows little significant breeding. However, there is indeed some evidence of limited interbreeding.

>This is fascinating stuff!

I'm glad you like it!

>To clarify: do all the primates share the same mutation which is different from the mutation in other creatures, ex. guinea pigs?'

Precisely! Mind you, I believe there are a few changes which have accumulated since divergence (since if they don't need the gene once it's "off", further mutations won't be selected against), but the crucial changes are indeed the same within primates - and those within guinea pigs are the same within guinea pigs and their nearby relatives (I believe), but different from those from simians. Amusingly, because mutations occur at a generally steady rate, the number of further divergences between the pseudogenes (no-longer-functional genes which resemble working copies in other organisms) in different species will give hints at how long ago those species had a common ancestor (this, and related calculations, are termed the "genetic clock").

Nifty, isn't it?

>I guess I don't see why it would be demeaning to be patterned after other homo species which were adapted to the environment we would inhabit. Maybe I'm way off here, but it seems like the case for common ancestry could also point to a common creator. (obviously it is outside the bounds of science to consider that possibility, but philosophically, it might have merit?)

I have indeed heard that before; the suggestion of a common creator as opposed to common descent is a fairly common suggestion, pardon the pun. The typical arguments against fall first to traits which can be considered "poor design" in pure engineering terms, even if they're traits that are now needed. I can point to the genetic baggage of the human eye compared to that of the cephelopod (nerve fibers over vs. under the retina), or the human back (not great for walking upright), or further traits along those lines which suggest that we're still closer to our origins. Indeed, we can also look at things like the pseudogene involved with vitamin C above as unnecessary addons; genetic artifacts which hint at our descent.

While this additional argument, I will grant, is better at addressing general creation then special human creation, we can also look at repeated motifs. For example, the same bones that form our hand also form a bird's wing, a whale's flipper, a dog's paw, a horse's hoof, and all the other mammalian, reptile, and avian forelimbs - though sometimes you need to go to the embryo before you see the similarity. When taken alone, that may suggest either evolution or design; it would make sense for a creator to reuse traits. It becomes more stark when you consider examples that should be similar - for example, the wings of the bat, bird, and pterodactyl, despite using the same bones, have vastly different structures, despite all being used for the same purpose (that is, flight).

The way that my evolutionary biology professor phrased this is that "design can explain this, but cannot predict it; evolution both explains and predicts." This idea - that natural observations may be explained or excused (begging your pardon) in a creation model, but are what are expected from an evolutionary model - is the major point I wish to make in this regard. And, I shall admit, perhaps as close as I can get to "disproving" special creation; it tends to approach unfalsifiability, if I understand it correctly.

>If I recall correctly, this is the position of Francis Collins / BioLogos. It's possible, but I have a few concerns. The first being that I think animals do have souls. If that's correct, ensoulment doesn't help make sense of the theology.

Yup; ensoulment as special is less compatible in that case.

>It would also mean that (at least at some point) there were other creatures who were genetically equal to human beings, but didn't have souls. Cue slave trade and nazi propaganda -they're human, but they aren't people. It would have been possible (probable?) that ensouled humans would breed with the soulless humans -and that just seems . . . squicky.

Point taken; even if you were to claim ensoulment for all humans existing at a specific point and thereafter, there can be...negative connotations.

>So, for now, it's a possibility, but it seems to be more problematic than special creation.

To be perfectly frank, I'm not really equipped to argue otherwise. As an atheist, my tendency is to end up arguing against ensoulment, as it's not something we can really draw a line at either. Still, I figured I'd put it out there; I'm a little delighted at your dissection of it honestly, as you brought up things I'd not yet considered.

>Like I said, the genetics is fascinating, and I am naive to much of it. Short of becoming a geneticist, could you recommend a good book on the subject of human genetics and common descent? I took basic genetics in college, so I was able to follow the discussion about chromosomes, telomeres, etc. But I would like to know more about the discoveries that have been made.

Oooh, that's a rough question. Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful question, but I rarely read books aimed at laymen dealing with my specialty; most of my information comes from text books, papers, and profs, if you take my meaning. Which in the end is a way for me to provide my disclaimer: I can provide recommendations, but I've generally not read them myself; sorry.

Having said that, I'm not about to discourage your curiosity - indeed, I cannot laud it highly enough! - and so I shall do what I can:

• Why Evolution is True is the one I generally hear the best things about; due to the possible audience, it is partially written as a refutation of intelligent design, but it also gives a lovely primer on evolutionary science - and compared to some of Dawkins's texts, it's more focused on the evidence.
  
• I have a copy of Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters on my bedside table right now - largely unread, I'm afraid. Basically, it takes a peek at one gene from each of our chromosomes and explores its relevance and its evolutionary history. It's by no means comprehensive; we have hundreds of thousands of genes, and it looks at twenty-three. None the less, It's been an interesting read thus far.
  
• Similarly, Your Inner Fish explores the human form, and where it comes from; it looks at various structures in the human body and draws evolutionary parallels; this one is more heavily focused on common descent in relation to humans.
  
  I think I'll hold off there for the moment. The latter two are focused more on humans, while the former is about evolution in general. I'm sure there are more books I could recommend - Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth has been lauded, for example. I tried to stick with texts which were at a slightly higher level, not merely addressing the basics but delving a little deeper, as you noted you have a measure of familiarity already, and those which were related to humans. I hope they help!
  
  It's not an alternative to books, but Wikipedia does have a fair article on the topic (which I linked near the very top as well). And believe it or not, I do enjoy this sort of thing; you are more then welcome to ask more questions if and when they occur to you.

Humans are different in many respects but we also share a lot of conserved traits. For example, humans being mammals we, like all other mammals, produce milk to sustain our young, we also have hair/fur like other animals, and we also have internal reproductive organs including the uterus that we use to gestate out young. If you go back a little further you see that humans share a lot of characteristics with other animals - we all seem to have four limbs, two eyes, two nostrils, one heart, two kidneys, lungs, a liver, etc. We share all these things because all animals share a single common ancestor. That ancestor was a tetrapod species. Go back even further and you see that we share some pretty interesting and old traits that date back to our earliest common ancestor that was a vertebrate aquatic animal - thats why humans and fish both have backbones (vertebrae). You may be interested in the book Your inner fish, which was also made into a PBS documentary. "Why do we look the way we do? Neil Shubin, the paleontologist and professor of anatomy who co-discovered Tiktaalik, the “fish with hands,” tells the story of our bodies as you've never heard it before. By examining fossils and DNA, he shows us that our hands actually resemble fish fins, our heads are organized like long-extinct jawless fish, and major parts of our genomes look and function like those of worms and bacteria. Your Inner Fish makes us look at ourselves and our world in an illuminating new light. This is science writing at its finest—enlightening, accessible and told with irresistible enthusiasm."

But you are correct in your observation humans have a lot of unique characteristics, even among the primates. First we share a few of the traits that primates have - opposable thumbs, forward facing eyes, good colour vision, long gestations, few offspring per litter, and it takes a long time for us to reach sexual maturity. But we do know why we have some of our unique traits.

1. Loss of hair: either hypothesized to be a adaptation to living in hot environments which enables use to cool or hypothesized to be a part of sexual selection (individuals with less hair were more likely to mate and so over generations humans became less hairy simply because thats what we thought was 'sexy') or it could be some combination therein.
   
2. Bipedal stance: this one is a bit more tricky since the first bipedal apes evolved about 3-4 million years ago. Lucy is an australopithecine hominid that lived just over 3 million years ago and would walk on two legs. We also know that the upright stance preceded an increase in brain size by about 2 million years. So what drove Lucy, or Lucy's recent ancestors to become upright bipedal apes? It could be because the forests were receding and tall grasslands were taking over. Walking on two legs enabled us to see over the grass. It could be that walking upright freed our hands for other tasks like carrying, using, or making objects. Maybe there is a reason we just don't know about because this change occurred so many million years ago.
   
   Finally, our big brains even though they may seem like a single trait have enabled us to do things that no other species has been able to accomplish. It enabled us to diversify in a way that no other species could. Other species might have a few unique combinations that allow them to be really great at a few things but humans have taken another approach, be ok at a lot of things. We decided to take the "jack-of-all-trades" route...and there are a few other species that have taken this strategy as well. Most of these species are the ones that live right along side us as "pests" - rats, mice, racoons, pigeons, and crows are some great examples of species that have learned to do things a bit differently. Instead of focusing on one single skill or trait be good at a bunch of different things. This is especially important skill to have when you live in an environment that is rapidly changing. Species that live in stable environments are more likely to become very selective in what they do, what they eat, or how they live. But if you live in an environment where your food sources change rapidly, or the environment changes quickly then you best be able to deal with a bunch of different problems. Humans quickly became that species. The species that was able to exploit any habitat, the species that was able to eat just about any kind of food, the species that no longer was constrained by any particular ecosystem. We could go anywhere and do anything and we would survive. This comes at the cost of being very good at one thing, like swimming or flying.
   
   Finally one of the reasons why a single species can't be good at everything (e.g. why we can swim like a tuna, fly like a bird, dig like a vole, or run like a cheetah) is because each trait is a trade off and comes at some kind of cost. For example, in order to attain the mass of an elephant you need to able to eat tons of food each day, which simply isn't possible for an animal living in the Arctic where food is scarce. There is no single best species and you can't really create a super species either.

It's a bunch of gobbledygook about the generations and the kingdom and all of that. It's all nonsense. In my humble opinion, you need to de-indoctrinate yourself to fully remove these types of fears. Not sure if I've shared this post with you before, but here's what I did personally:

Take some time to learn about the history of the bible. For example, you can take the Open Yale Courses on Religious Studies for free.

Read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman

Also read A History of God by Karen Armstrong

Next, learn some actual science. For example - spoiler alert: evolution is true. Visit Berkeley's excellent Understanding Evolution Website.. Or, if you're pressed for time, watch this cartoon.

Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

Learn about the origin of the universe. For example, you could read works by Stephen Hawking

Read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking

Learn about critical thinking from people like Michael Shermer, and how to spot logical fallacies.


For good measure, use actual data and facts to learn the we are NOT living in some biblical "last days". Things have gotten remarkably better as man has progressed in knowledge. For example, watch this cartoon explaining how war is on the decline..

Read The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker

Another great source is the youtube series debunking 1914 being the start of the last days.

Another way to clear out the cobwebs is to read and listen to exiting stories. Here are some resources:

https://leavingjw.org

Here is a post with links to a bunch of podcasts interviewing JWs who've left

Here's another bunch of podcasts about JWs

Here is a great book from Psychotherapist and former JW Bonnie Zieman - Exiting the JW Cult: A Helping Handbook

I wish you the best. There is a whole world of legitimate information out there based on actual evidence that you can use to become a more knowledgeable person.

You may still wonder how you can be a good human without "the truth." Here is a good discussion on how one can be good without god. --Replace where he talks about hell with armageddon, and heaven with paradise--

To go further down the rabbit hole, watch this series.

Here's a nice series debunking most creationist "logic".

Start to help yourself begin to live a life where, as Matt Dillahunty puts it, you'll "believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible."

Step back and breath. I was just pointing out that the level of this person's usage of facebook is apt for the subreddit /r/oldpeoplefacebook. This is a common practice on reddit, pointing out a comment or post and saying that it would fit into another subreddit.

***

Yep, breakups happen. They suck. I had a girl who I dated for 4 years and was living with break up with me. Often times you can use this as a time of introspection to ask yourself questions and be objective with the answer. Asking things like:

Why did this person break up with you?

I can only speculate, but I'll cover some of the most common reasons.

Was it because you, or they, need to grow more as a person?

Your post history says that You're a freshman, I'm going to assume in High School and not college. Regardless, your experience is real and I don't want to dismiss that. You've both got growing to do, I know High School (and even College) seem like they are the whole world. Being obsessed with popularity and the social games that are played.

It's often said that "the best revenge is a life well lived." Grieve for the loss of the relationship, that's normal, but the best way to move on is to show this person (and everyone else) that you've improved on yourself for yourself.

Were they no longer attracted to you?

You shouldn't change who you are to fit into the mold other people want. You should strive to be the best person you can be. If you do that and you remain strong and confident, then people will be attracted to you. When this happens and you find someone who is at their best, you will make great partners to each other. Focus on improving and growing yourself, when you do that people will recognize it.

Did they find some base reasoning that the relationship could not work?

You said that this breakup came after a discussion on evolution. This can be an aspect of a person's core beliefs. If they are religious evolution often goes against their beliefs and make them feel like you not believing the same as them.

If you want to seek a deeper understanding of the evolution v. religion topic I would suggest this video. I would also suggest Bill Nye's follow up book Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. This should give you more information on what science knows and be able to appeal to a source or existing arguments.

I would also check out the /r/CrashCourseYT series Philosophy. This will help you build logical arguments, so that way you can say what you believe, why you believe it, and why they should agree with you. In addition to keeping an open mind in case they also have information that might benefit you.

Was it because of your actions towards them or others?

Being verbally or emotionally abusive. You can assess your actions by reading this article. People can use your behavior towards them or others to identify if you're a good match for them. Generally showing kindness, even when someone is wrong, is key. If you're nice to others, then this can appeal to a possible mate. If you are cruel to others, then this signals people you might be interested in that you could, eventually, be cruel to them.

***

I wish you the best and hope that some of what I have written will encourage you to become the best person you can be.

Edit: fuckin trolled

https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Versus-Fact-Religion-Incompatible/dp/0143108263/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0143108263&pd_rd_r=RBSYGCN2TFMSJG9N9A5N&pd_rd_w=dyrKf&pd_rd_wg=ZCWLt&psc=1&refRID=RBSYGCN2TFMSJG9N9A5N

Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Jerry A. Coyne

“Faith Versus Fact" is an excellent book that presents the persuasive argument that while faith and science compete to describe reality; science is the best tool to find out what is true about our universe. Evolutionary geneticist Jerry A. Coyne follows up his masterpiece of Why Evolution Is True, with an outstanding book of its own that clearly separates science from religion. This persuasive 336-page book includes the following five chapters: 1. The Problem, 2. What’s Incompatible?, 3. Why Accommodationism Fails, 4. Faith Strikes Back, and 5. Why Does It Matter?

Positives:

1. Professor Coyne is a persuasive writer. Well-written and well-reasoned book. Engaging and accessible.
   
2. A great topic; why science and religion are incompatible.
   
3. Great use of logic, history, reason and facts to persuade the audience at an accessible level.
   
4. A quote fest, “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it by Neil deGrasse Tyson”.
   
5. Clearly states his main thesis. “…understanding reality, in the sense of being able to use what we know to predict what we don’t, is best achieved using the tools of science, and is never achieved using the methods of faith.” “My claim is this: science and religion are incompatible because they have different methods for getting knowledge about reality, have different ways of assessing the reliability of that knowledge, and, in the end, arrive at conflicting conclusions about the universe.”
   
6. Makes a very strong case that there are very clear differences between science and religion. “Science and religion, then, are competitors in the business of finding out what is true about our universe. In this goal religion has failed miserably, for its tools for discerning ‘truth’ are useless. These areas are incompatible in precisely the same way, and in the same sense, that rationality is incompatible with irrationality.”
   
7. The three reasons why the issue of science versus religion has been revived. “The conflict between religion and evolution didn’t really get going until religious fundamentalism arose in early-twentieth-century America.”
   
8. An expose of the Templeton foundation.
   
9. Clarity and lucidity of thought throughout the book. “These are empirical claims, and although some may be hard to test, they must, like all claims about reality, be defended with a combination of evidence and reason. If we find no credible evidence, no good reasons to believe, then those claims should be disregarded, just as most of us ignore claims about ESP, astrology, and alien abduction.”
   
10. A good explanation of what constitutes science. “What is “known” may sometimes change, so science isn’t really a fixed body of knowledge. What remains is what I really see as “science,” which is simply a method for understanding how the universe (matter, our bodies and behavior, the cosmos, and so on) actually works. Science is a set of tools, refined over hundreds of years, for getting answers about nature.” “Scientific truth is never absolute, but provisional.”
    
11. Provocative. “There is simply no way that any faith can prove beyond question that its claims are true while those of other faiths are false.”
    
12. The problems with religion. “Religion begins with beliefs based not on observation, but on revelation, authority (often that of scripture), and dogma.” “Take the Resurrection of Jesus, for which the only supporting evidence is the contradictory accounts of the Gospels.”
    
13. Clearly explains why accommodationism fails and does a great job of dissecting the problems with non-overlapping magisterial (NOMA) that popularized Gould. “In the end, NOMA is simply an unsatisfying quarrel about labels that, unless you profess a watery deism, cannot reconcile science and religion.”
    
14. Miracles in perspective. “Miracles were really the result of fraud, ignorance, or misrepresentation.”
    
15. Destroys myths with expertise. “But science has completely falsified the idea of a historical Adam and Eve, and on two grounds. First, our species wasn’t poofed into being by a sudden act of creation. We know beyond reasonable doubt that we evolved from a common ancestor with modern chimps, an ancestor living around six million years ago. Modern human traits—which include our brain and genetically determined behaviors—evolved gradually.”
    
16. Mormonism takes a direct hit. “But as with the existence of Adam and Eve, both genetics and archaeology have shown that the Middle Eastern origin of Native Americans is a fiction.” Game over.
    
17. Morality as it relates to evolution. “Finally, and perhaps most important, evolution means that human morality, rather than being imbued in us by God, somehow arose via natural processes: biological evolution involving natural selection on behavior, and cultural evolution involving our ability to calculate, foresee, and prefer the results of different behaviors.” “We have an enhanced morality but it is the product of culture, not biology.”
    
18. Looks at popular arguments in defense of “God” only to reject them with ease. “Rather than assuming that the world was created for humans, the more reasonable hypothesis is that humans evolved to adapt to the world they confronted.”
    
19. The faith in reason tactic. “My response to the ‘no justification’ claim is that the superiority of science at finding objective truth comes not from philosophy but from experience. Science gives predictions that work. Everything we know about biology, the cosmos, physics, and chemistry has come through science—not revelation, the arts, or any other ‘way of knowing.’”
    
20. The harm of ill-founded dogma. “The harm, as I’ve said repeatedly, comes not from the existence of religion itself, but from its reliance on and glorification of faith—belief, or, if you will, ‘trust’ or ‘confidence’—without supporting evidence.”
    
21. Notes and references included.
    
    Negatives:
    
22. Why Evolution Is True was such a great book it’s hard to live up to those lofty expectations.
    
23. Philosophy and theology is not Coyne’s forte but he provides enough to make his case.
    
24. Lack of charts and visuals to complement the narrative.
    
25. I would have liked to have seen a bit more on the legal side. Examples of religion doing harm and a summary of cases where science and religion intersect besides the obligatory mention of the 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial”.
    
    In summary, a book worthy of five stars. Sure it’s not the masterpiece that I Why Evolution Is True but it’s a book that needed to be written and is another great contribution to society. Religion fails to accurately describe the universe as it really is and in fact has impeded progress. Coyne makes the persuasive case that science is the best method to find the truths about his world and you will not get any disagreement for yours truly. An excellent book, I highly recommend it!
    
    Further suggestions: “Why Evolution Is True” by the same author, “Undeniable” by Bill Nye, “God and the Multiverse” by Victor J. Stenger, “Science and Religion” by Daniel C. Dennett, “Why People Believe Weird Things” by Michael Shermer, “Atheism for Dummies” by Dale McGowan, “The Soul Fallacy” by Julien Musolino, “Why Are You Atheists So Angry?: 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless” by Greta Christina, “A Manual for Creating Atheists” by Peter Boghosian, “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens, “The God Virus” by Darrel Ray, “Moral Combat” by Sikivu Hutchinson, “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Nonbeliever Nation” by David Niose, “Freethinkers” by Susan Jacoby, “Nailed” by David Fitzgerald, and “Think” by Guy P. Harrison.
    
    Maybe read this after reading Why Evolution is True? Have you bought the book yet?

> Once again, the only way that natural selection could make the transition between point A and point B more likely would be for each individual step in the process to cause the organism to be more fit than the previous mutation.

B was never a goal. You're looking at the events that happened and assuming that they were pre-ordained and directed. If you could rewind the clock, A might just stay A. Or, A might evolve to C. B is merely what happened; it wasn't planned. There may have been millions of other things that could have, but didn't, happen.

> I'm not ignoring natural selection, I am just saying that in order for natural selection to 'guide' the gene from point A to point B [snip]

There was never an intent to do that. B was a random place.

Do you think that Homo Erectus was saying "Now, I need to get myself a more advanced larynx for more complex speech. And, I need a bit more brain power so I can think about writing some shit down. Then, I will finally be able to invent and drive a Lincoln Naggravator?

No. Perhaps homo erectus was saying "Ooo! Look at me. I've got fire. I've got stone tools. I'm the king. I'm the best. I must be created in god's image. I must be the purpose of the universe!"

But, from where we stand today, people think he was just a stepping stone to becoming us. But, his species was around for maybe 8 or 9 times as long as we've been around. And, homo erectus didn't render the planet virtually uninhabitable as we are doing.

But, the point is that nothing in evolution was directed in any particular way other than for survival. If we could reset the clock to 7 million years ago, it's extremely unlikely that we'd evolve again. (And the world would be a better place, IMNSHO.)

> Let me try to spell it out for you here.
>
> Imagine that the initial genetic sequence is A, and the genetic sequence that we are aiming for is B. I will represent the process of going from A to B with the following line:
>
> A - - - - - - - - - - B

But, there were numerous other possibilities, including the most likely that A just stays A.

A - - - - - - - - - - C

A - - - - - - - - - - D

A - - - - - - - - - - E

A - - - - - - - - - - F

A - - - - - - - - - - G

A - - - - - - - - - - H

A - - - - - - - - - - I

A - - - - - - - - - - J

A - - - - - - - - - - K

A - - - - - - - - - - L

A - - - - - - - - - - M

A - - - - - - - - - - N

.....

The fact is that what you call B could have been anything. Then you look at what actually happened and assume it was a goal. It wasn't. It didn't have to happen at all. It's more likely that what you call B is really K and all the other letters of the alphabet and many more didn't happen to actually happen. When you realize that, you realize that the likelihood of getting to B is irrelevant because B is just another random place, as A was. And, the whole thing could have ended at A. The chambered nautilus and horseshoe crabs are relatively unchanged after hundreds of millions of years. These are the successful species on the planet.

> 1<2<3<4<5<6<7<8<9<10
>
> Each step much give more fitness to the organism than the last

Exactly so. But, none of them are special. And the end point that you call B could just as easily be called 11. In 10 or 100 million years, we could be at a point 273 steps farther along and all of them would be incremental changes that made the organism more fit for whatever random conditions existed at that time and none of them would be special as you make B sound.

> Ultimately, each step in the process would have to be beneficial (which is highly unlikely)

No. It's extremely likely that the ones that are beneficial survive. The others are weeded out. So, each of those unlikely steps just happens to make the organism more fit. When a parasite loses an organ because that function is now performed by the host, that is more fit. When a bird loses its ability to fly over time, as the flightless cormorant of the Galapagos did, it is more fit in an environment with fewer predators. It's solid bones make it heavier, allow it to dive deeper, etc. But, that particular B is just a random point on the line. The flightless cormorant still has vestigial wings and still uses feet to propel itself underwater rather than using wings as flippers in the way that penguins do. So, it is not perfect. And, perhaps the evolution is not complete. Perhaps we're looking at step 7 rather than your point B.

So it is with us.

Perhaps, if we manage to survive the difficult time we've created for ourselves, we will evolve stronger backs and better knees that don't give out on us with age. Perhaps we're not point B either. Perhaps we're point 3 or 342 along the way to becoming a species smart enough not to kill ourselves off and well evolved enough not to have back and knee pain anymore.

More likely, in my own personal opinion, we will not survive for very much longer. More likely, in my personal opinion, we are at some point along the way and have hit a bad mutation that makes us more likely to eat out our resource base, destroy our own habitat, and die out without ever reaching some point that you might call B.

> Another common semantic issue is what 'evolution' exactly is. Is it merely 'change' over time? Or is it the introduction of novel new formations and functions within organisms that didn't exist prior. Apparently this Lizard's cecal valves were enlarged muscles that already existed within the organism. It is true that the lizard adapted, but untrue that it had novel new functions or structures that didn't exist prior.

Well, by your new standard, your larynx is still fish gills and your arms and legs are still the fins of lobe finned fish and your inner ear bones are still the jaw bones of fish. By your standard, nothing about us is really new either. We're still basically just like coelacanths.

In fact, as we evolved from lobe-finned fish, we are still in that taxa. For the same reason that humans are still apes and humans are still mammals because we evolved from both, we are also still in the taxa sarcopterygii.

BTW, Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin is an excellent read. I highly recommend it. It is not vitriolic in the way that Dawkins can be. It just explains evolution. It says nothing about religion and does not attack it in any way. I think it would help your understanding tremendously, if you're willing to actually learn a bit more about the science behind evolution.

> What evidence do you have to show that each individual step was beneficial? That each tiny mutation of a single nucleotide was beneficial? That every single example of evolution involved massive positive changes that were composed entirely of many tiny genetic mutations of one or two nucleotides that were always positive or beneficial to the organism?

We've found numerous intermediate stages that creationists have denied would ever be found. Basilosaurus, Ambulocetus along the way to whales. Feathered dinosaurs with simpler feathers that would only provide warmth not flight, etc., etc., etc.

(to be continued, over the size limit for a post)

Here's another side of the coin. Not necessarily to drag you out of the cult, but just some very awesome, beautiful truths. If you've seen me post this before, i apologize. I don't like to assume everyone reads every thread.

Take some time to learn about the history of the bible. For example, you can take the Open Yale Courses on Religious Studies for free.

Read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman

Also read A History of God by Karen Armstrong

Next, learn some actual science. For example - spoiler alert: evolution is true. Visit Berkeley's excellent Understanding Evolution Website.. Or, if you're pressed for time, watch this cartoon.

Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

Learn about the origin of the universe. For example, you could read works by Stephen Hawking

Read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking

Learn about critical thinking from people like Michael Shermer, and how to spot logical fallacies.


For good measure, use actual data and facts to learn the we are NOT living in some biblical "last days". Things have gotten remarkably better as man has progressed in knowledge. For example, watch this cartoon explaining how war is on the decline..

Read The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker

Another great source is the youtube series debunking 1914 being the start of the last days.

I wish you the best. There is a whole world of legitimate information out there based on actual evidence that you can use to become a more knowledgeable person.

You may still wonder how you can be a good human without "the truth." Here is a good discussion on how one can be good without god. --Replace where he talks about hell with armageddon, and heaven with paradise--

Start to help yourself begin to live a life where, as Matt Dillahunty puts it, you'll "believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible."

You mean like heart, liver, kidney?

Its probably not going to be a satisfactory answer but they are shaped they way they are because they have always more or less been shaped that way. For example, the basic structure of the heart hasn't changed much in...well 500 million years. I suggest reading the book your inner fish which really explains how many of the features we have today are simple modifications on a theme that was well established over half a billion years ago. The age old adage "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies nicely.

Of course there is variation, and variation arises through different selective pressures. For example, take a look at the heart of different animals (ignore the spider): they all have chambers, they all pump blood, and they all have a similar structure. A basic structure modified to meet the unique demands of those species. A blueprint that has been slightly modified over time. Each new iteration of the "heart" is shaped to fit the needs of that species based on the selective pressures its ancestors encountered. It would be impossible to explain each iteration and its unique function, for that we would need to consider the unique environment, life history, and evolutionary history of that species. All these factors coming together to create organs which function for that animal. The basic blueprint isn't tampered with too severely, because the underlying function and and basic physiological mechanisms are conserved across species. All hearts need to pump blood, that is the underlying function of the heart. Moreover, the basic physiological mechanisms that allow a heart to beat and the types of cells that make up heart tissue are conserved. What changes are the number and orientation of chambers. The reason why the number and orientation of chambers changes is because the ancestors of those species encountered unique obstacles and pressures that favoured these slight changes. Why are the organs shaped the way they are? Evolution.

Edit: Maybe an analogy would help. Its really easy for evolution to tweak what has already been designed. You design a chair...but now you want a bench...take the same chair and just stretch it out, or copy and paste. Using this technique you are more likely to end up with a functional product at the end of the day that is user friendly. Something that resembles the original but with slight modification. Drastic changes in design can result in disasters, so its better to just work with what you have and go from there. Evolution works in a similar way. You have a heart that functions well with two chambers. Its fairly easy to modify that and make four chambers by splitting the two that already exist in half. But to restart and create a whole new way of pumping blood is inefficient and risky. Its like trying to take the blueprint for that chair and modify it into a bean bag...not going to work. We are more or less "locked in" to the blueprint we have. Slight changes can work, but total rewrites aren't going to happen. So the organs are shaped the way they are because their shape helps fulfill their function. Their function, being determined long ago, with very few changes has resulted in a conservation of form throughout the ages and across species.

Hello and welcome! Indoctrination in most cults can leave a person bitter about the world around them. Learning the actual facts about reality, the universe, and humanity is a good way to counter those negative feelings in my experience. Not sure how much of this applies to you, but here are my recommendations for de-indoctrinating yourself:

Take some time to learn about the history of the bible. For example, you can take the Open Yale Courses on Religious Studies for free.

Read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman

Also read A History of God by Karen Armstrong

Watch this talk from Sam Harris where he explains why "free will" is likely an illusion, which debunks the entire premise of "the fall of man" as presented by most Christian religions.

Watch this video on the Cordial Curiosity channel that teaches how the "Socratic Method" works, which essentially is a way to question why we believe what we believe. Do we have good reasons to believe them? If not, should we believe them?

Watch this video by Theramin Trees that explains why we fall for the beliefs of manipulative groups in the first place.

This video explains why and how childhood indoctrination works, for those of us born-in to a high-control group.

Another great source is this youtube series debunking 1914 being the start of the last days.

Next, learn some science. For example - spoiler alert: evolution is true. Visit Berkeley's excellent Understanding Evolution Website. Or, if you're pressed for time, watch this cartoon.

Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.

Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.

Watch this series where Aron Ra explains in great detail how all life is connected in a giant family tree.

Learn about the origin of the universe. For example, you could read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

Learn about critical thinking from people like [Michael Shermer] (http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things?language=en), and how to spot logical fallacies.

For good measure, use actual data and facts to learn the we are NOT living in some biblical "last days". Things have gotten remarkably better as man has progressed in knowledge. For example, watch this cartoon explaining how war is on the decline.

Read The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker.

Watch this Ted Talk by Hans Rosling, the late Swedish Statistician, where he shows more evidence that the world is indeed becoming a better place, and why we tend to wrongly convince ourselves otherwise.

I wish you the best. There is a whole world of legitimate information out there based on actual evidence that you can use to become a more knowledgeable person.

You may still wonder how you can be a good human without "the truth." Here is a good discussion on how one can be good without god. --Replace where he talks about hell with armageddon, and heaven with paradise--

Start to help yourself begin to live a life where, as Matt Dillahunty puts it, you'll "believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible."

I wrote this top paragraph after all of the ensuing stuff. Sorry for the length, my intention is more to get the idea down as completely as possible rather than to rant at you personally. I guess a tl;dr summary would be that Dawkins' practical method of going for the fat center of the bell curve won't last unless his message is grounded in a rigorous response to a religiosity that is more thoroughly founded upon learning and wisdom. If he doesn't strike a better balance, over the long run, people are going to end up listening to those who know almost as much as he does about biology but who also understand religion better than he does which wouldn't be that hard to do.

It's just my opinion, but I think that either criticizing "the christian masses" on the masses' own terms or criticizing "the christian intellectuals" on their own terms would be a way of going about things that would demonstrate more integrity and more faith in his own way of looking at things.

It is obvious that there are smart atheists and dumb atheists just as there are smart christians and dumb christians. (I'm not talking about the relationship between either of those view points and intelligence in general, I'm just saying that given enough time we could find four people, each one roughly falling into one of the categories. Also it should be noted that "smart" and "dumb" here are sketchy combinations of philosophical background/education and 'processing power').

It also is clear that if I engaged with atheists that either didn't have a lot going on upstairs, or hadn't ever engaged the historical texts back and forth and I threw all of this theology at them that they didn't know and then drew the conclusion that there exist no atheists who have seriously read christian literature and are still atheists, I'd be an asshole.

I think that there are certain conclusions that can be drawn about Christianity from the run-of-the-mill christian who doesn't have time for philosophy just as there are conclusions about atheism that somebody could draw by looking at atheists in the same situation. However, I think that those are largely anthropological questions about how they live and it's relationship with qualities associated with the one identifier in question. The funny thing is that even correcting for asking appropriate questions of appropriate people (i.e. not asking folks with high school degrees where they think morality comes from and playing 'gotcha' when they talk about it coming from God) if the answers aren't compared with people in other countries holding the corresponding positions on the God/No god issue, it is most likely that the answers from american christians would be just as different from spanish christians as they are from american atheists.

It just seems to me that Dawkins' motivation is that he knows more about the origin of life than many people, and that he wants to share his appreciation for the inner workings of the natural world with those who would hand-wavingly dismiss the claims of science as not having a voice on those issues.

This is a very good thing, but when people like Ken Miller can do the same thing without all of the disenchantment of the world, it becomes clear that the reason that Dawkins goes about the disenchanting along with the evolution-educating is because it is obvious to him that none of it is true and so why shouldn't he help people by helping them to lead truer lives?

The problem with this is that Dawkins proudly states that he doesn't know anything about the history of christian thought and therefore is going out trying to engage it as an amateur. This is logically sound from his point of view, but it rests on the idea that all people who believe in God are delusional. It is obvious that he believes this because he thinks that the Templeton Foundation is secretly trying to promote intelligent design. (Suggesting that "You can rule out the people they'd privately like to honor (such as Intelligent Design "theorists")" doesn't seem to have been done in jest and comes off as tin foil hat to somebody distinguishing between christians who understand the relationship between the claims of science and the claims of religion, and those that don't.

One fundamental problem (and then I'll stop, because I know this is much to long already) is that Dawkins explicitly says that not engaging christians who respect science is part of his idea of christianity as a whole, rather than just a practical strategy.

When he (or any of the new atheists) talk about moderate christians, they are talking about people who basically have the right idea about things (i.e. no superstition, fairies, or magic prayers) but are too embarrassed or it would be too upsetting to their parents or something and so they don't come right out and say that they don't believe in God.

Obviously this describes a certain number of people, but narrowing one's understanding of the christian population to simply those who are zealots and those who are moderate and christians in name only, kind of reveals a fatal misunderstanding of orthodoxy. Orthodox Christianity sits in the middle of all of the ways of being "kind of" christian and if one is going to compare people as being more or less christian (which is obviously problematic, but when Dawkins propounds that moderate christians are agnostics who won't speak up, the lid's already come off) then it is neither of those two groups who are ahead of the other. They are equally far away, in different directions, from being a christian who both understands and respects our capacity to investigate the natural world through reason and whose life is animated by the message of scripture and tries to fulfill it everyday in their lives. This isn't meant to be a value judgment because who a person is deep down is more important and of course people don't have an unlimited amount of time and not everybody has the opportunity to receive such an education. On the other hand, it is foolishness for Dawkins to paint people's religous beliefs with a broad brush and lump them all together as delusional fairy worshippers. His thinking of things that way might be resilient enough, but he can't convince many people to think along these lines without starting to bump into people whose neighbors are christians for whom religion is not as he describes it. For this reason, his work would be strengthened by understanding the history of Christian thought.

> Science has always been a way to understand God better for Christians.

has it? Or have Christians been forcing their 'worldview' on others for 2,000 years claiming to have special knowledge about the mysteries of existence and life after death with no other evidence than a book and their own personal 'revelations'. For most of that time, their claim to absolute truth was absolute and unchallengeable. The advancement of sciences in the areas of physics, biology, astronomy and chemistry, especially in the last 200 years, have been able to explain many of the mysteries that confounded our ancestors, and have transformed our lives in tangibly positive ways. Take leprosy: People in Biblical times thought leprosy was a sign of sin against God, and so you were 'unclean'. Of course nobody believes that anymore (to his credit, it seems Jesus didn't buy into it either). According to wikipedia: In the past 20 years, 15 million people worldwide have been cured of leprosy, which is caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium leprae. It's one example but I'm sure you can think of many more. The church has lost so much ground to science that there are only a few little islands of mystery from which to they try to claim authority and justification for their philosophies, such as:

> the Bible is kind of like an ethical cheat sheet, from an omniscient God who actually knows the answers
> even those who didn't hear about God know what's right & wrong

and you have your own theory:

> God started things off, realized natural selection was a great way to set up a diverse planet, and probably intervened a bit in the ape -> human transition.

Now, you are basically saying that the differences we perceive between a human and a chimpanzee are actually the direct result of a deliberate intervention, at a specific time in the past, by a creator god (from outer space), who engineered the development of our culture, giving us laws, clothing, marriage, and possibly music and mathematics. It's an interesting theory, but whats the motivation?

> man is different from the animals

This is the central issue. Logically, if we are animals than either animals have souls (and we should all be vegetarians, or burn as murderers), or humans do not have souls (and there is no eternal life for believers). This is a catch-22 for a bible believing christians and meat-eaters. Maybe you can say animals do have souls, but God said we can eat them so its OK. This is kind of like saying God is an asshole who arbitrarily makes up the rules as he goes along (which is a solid theological position - just ask Job: the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away).

I think to separate ourselves from the animals is to deny the truth of what science has shown us about ourselves. For Christians, science may be just a way to understand God better, but for the rest of us it is a way to understand reality better. Of course Christians want there to be no conflict between faith in the Bible and reality because no philosophy can exist without being rooted to some degree in reality; otherwise it is just a fantasy.

Let me back up a second. You said you believe the Bible is true and historically accurate, and I won't ask you what evidence you have for believing that. I used to believe as you did, that the Bible is true, and so is evolution but that somehow there is no conflict and the two work together - that somehow there in the whole mix of life evolving naturally, God intervened and sent Jesus to fulfill his mysterious plan so that we can all live forever in heaven. I just didn't want to accept that all those people (including my family) could be wrong; they are obviously sincere in their beliefs. For several years I found various ways to explain it all without accepting a 'naturalistic worldview', and all that implies including a very high probability of there being no life after death. I might still believe in the Bible if I hadn't started reading science books and watching BBC documentaries... yep Attenborough offered me the red pill and i took it.

If you can pretend for a moment you were born in Africa or Asia, in some remote tribe with no written language. You wouldn't have any reason to trust in a book you could not read; everything you know about the universe has been explained to you by those around you, those who came before, those who were close in the beginning. This is the same experience as any animal that learns how to hunt or fly or build nests from their parents.

The book I mentioned, Our Inner Ape documents the social behavior and societies of bonobos and chimpanzees, written by noted primatologist Frans de Waal who has studied these unique primates for decades. It's a fascinating read and may surprise you to see how many behaviors people tend to think of as uniquely 'human' are, in fact, shared by our closely-related ape cousins. In fact, de Waal shows, all major traits are shared, including language, toolmaking, and the full range of emotional states. Within the ape societies, the apes have their own standards of 'right' and 'wrong' behavior that they enforce in the same ways we do: shunning some, rewarding others, punishing the worst offenders. They learn from each other, and pass on skills to their offspring.

Evolution, as I understand it, is the theory that explains how more efficient/adapted forms emerge from the natural processes of entropy and diffusion. The theory explains how natural processes have driven our biological development, and also why men have nipples. Biological evolution is a special case; Evolution itself is a law of Nature, at a more elementary level, in the realm of Physics or Math.

All of our languages, customs, art, music, and every other thinking pattern has evolved through these same natural processes. Basically, I'm describing Memes. Have you ever thought about Christianity as a Meme? Of the Catholic Church as an organism whose main goal is to ensure its own survival? We have been and continue to evolve, quite rapidly, both biologically and culturally. Every individual and every idea wants to survive, but not everything gets successfully passed to the next generation. Every meme and species is only one generation away from becoming extinct. Adapt or die. This is why the mainstream church is becoming warmer to the idea of evolution, why the Vatican apologized for Galileo - survival of the religion is more important than orthodoxy.

The line between science and philosophy and religion get blurred with evolution because it answers, quite elegantly, the 'big' question: where did we come from? For this reason, it is a threat to all memes based on the idea of a 'creator god' because it nullifies this concept directly. Indirectly, it has the potential to erode the foundations underneath many religions. But I don't think the ideas of evolution are really a threat to you, me, our standards of morality, our way of life or anything else. The victims are a literal interpretation of the Bible and belief in a 'creator god'. Why not let it go? If you had never read the Bible, would you really be a less moral person? really? If not for that one book all people would know nothing but evil and be totally selfish to each other? Is this one book worth deliberately lobotomizing yourself? You'll go crazy trying to reconcile it; do you want to end up like Ray Comfort or Ken Ham?

A couple other interesting books you might enjoy if you feel like taking the red pill:

Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind

Your Inner Fish

Sorry for the novel, kind got caught up in it :)

Let's dismantle your friend's arguments:

> Because something can't come from nothing...

Prove it. If he can't, his argument already falls apart. People assume that "something can't come from nothing" is a fact, but what evidence backs this up? Every single human being has been surrounded by "something" for every instant of his or her existence. Not once has any person experienced absolute "nothing". Thus any statement about the properties of "nothing" (besides being self-contradictory, as "nothing" cannot have properties) is complete and total Making Shit Up. This is begging the question.

> ...there had to be a being intelligent enough to create it

If something can exist without prior cause, then clearly prior cause is not always needed for existence. Therefore the demand that the universe have a prior cause is unreasonable. Furthermore, the universe is not a "thing" - it is the set of all things. Assuming that the whole must have the characteristics of its parts is the fallacy of composition.

> Because god exists outside of science, he doesn't need a scientific explanation.

"Outside of science" is a nonsensical statement. Please define or stop using this. Also, this is special pleading.

> The chances of abiogenesis occurring is 1 in 10^40,000. Most statisticians agree that these chances are far too improbable for such a thing to occur that it's essentially impossible.

This is Just Plain Wrong. The chance of abiogenesis occurring is not 1 in 10^40,000; people who think so are basing their beliefs off junk science and junk math. See: here for details. By the way, the whole "most statisticians agree..." is a ploy by your friend to hide the fact that he just pulled a random unsubstantiated number (10^40,000) out of the air and expects you to accept it.

>Nearly all genetic mutations are big and negative...

Again, Just Plain Wrong. See this and this. Your friend needs to do a little more research.

> ...therefore evolution having mutations that are small and positive is nearly impossible.

Your friend is showing his ignorance regarding evolution. Mutations are neither positive nor negative without context. A mutation which is helpful under certain circumstances is harmful under others. See the previous two links for more.

> Everything in nature seems perfectly designed for human beings.

Yep, cancer, natural disasters, predators, odorless toxic gases, plagues have all been perfectly designed to suit human beings. Toss your friend alone and naked into the wilderness and see how far that "perfectly designed" environment takes him. Better yet, toss him into the 99.99999999% of the universe that is not Earth and see how long he survives.

Furthermore, saying that "everything looks designed" is self-defeating. Ask your friend to show you an example of something which is not designed. Let's say he suggests X. Point out that, according to his beliefs, God did in fact design X, thus your friend has demonstrated an inability to tell the difference between things that are designed and not designed. In addition, if literally everything around us is designed, then he very concept of being designed loses all meaning (in the same way that theists like to say that good without evil loses all meaning).

> There's no way to explain that/the complexity around us with mutations.

Again, does not understand evolution. He should read this before making more ill-informed statements.

> There had to be a creator.

Even if this were true (it's not, given that every single thing your friend has said above is utterly wrong) - but even if this were true, there's nothing that says that this creator is anything like human notions of "God".

You have quite a few misconceptions about evolution. I am a former creationist myself, and everything finally "clicked" for me reading Jerry Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True". If you are serious about your questions, I'd encourage you to read it.

My answers to your questions:

1. Evolution doesn't have a "goal" in mind. Changes happen naturally (mutations), but they will only stick around in a population if they are adaptive in some way (better for the creature). It's pretty cool that evolution eventually produced us, but this was not inevitable in any way, nor an "end goal" of evolution.
   
   
2. Not sure if you are looking for a literal crocoduck or something, but we have tons of transitional fossils (in a way, all fossils are transitional). Coyne's book talks quite a bit about evidence of whale evolution, where transitional fossils are very clear.
   
   
3. Physics is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is simply a description of how things work, it's not a set of rules imposed from someone else that matter has to obey/follow. So it didn't have to "be in place" before anything.
   
   
4. In our view, Earth appears to be very well suited to support life (us, specifically). But this is actually backwards, we were shaped (by evolution) to be perfect for life on this earth. It's like a puddle saying "this is an interesting hole I find myself in, it fits me rather neatly, doesn't it?" (courtesy of Douglas Adams). Regarding life on other worlds, space is pretty big, so lots of people expect to someday find a planet somewhere else out there that could also support life. The fact that we don't yet have the technology to find them doesn't mean they aren't there.
   
   
5. If you want to be precise, the Big Bang was more like a very rapid expansion of stuff, but I don't have a problem describing it as an explosion, as long as you don't use that analogy to make other unwarranted assumptions.
   
   
6. Some other primates do have sharper teeth and claws. How a particular trait in a specific creature evolved is mostly speculation, but I could see situations where higher intelligence would be an evolutionary advantage over physical prowess.
   
   
7. I used to be a Christian. I am an atheist now because I examined my faith in great detail, and concluded that it didn't hold up to scrutiny. I am open-minded though, if we see evidence that suggests that God is real, I'd be willing to consider it.
   
   
8. To borrow from Matt Dillahunty: I want to believe as many true things, and as few false things, as possible. So the only thing that would make Christianity more attractive is if I had any reason to suspect it was actually true.

Bingo. Stephen Jay Gould called this "Non-Overlapping Magisteria":


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria


As a religious person, I view religion as a way of understanding the meaning behind it all, and science as a tool for exploring God's creation. Science is about the pursuit of truth, and God is Truth. How could there be any conflict? If religion has held some view (generally for lack of any better explanation at the time, as it was with Geocentrism) that has since been disproven by science (done correctly, that is), then what is a religious man/woman to do but rejoice? Knowledge is a good thing. If God created the universe, then to study the universe is to learn more about His handiwork.


EDIT: I just wanted to take a moment (since this post has gotten a wee bit of exposure and because this will be extremely relevant to a lot of the response comments) to suggest a book that has been instrumental in shaping my views on evolution and the relationship between religion and science. The book is called "Finding Darwin's God", and it's written by Kenneth Miller. Anyone use the green dragonfly Biology textbook in high school? Yeah, that Kenneth Miller.


http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501


Anyway, this is the book that changed my mind (as a Christian raised with the "evolution is antithetical to our faith" mindset) on evolution. Miller (himself both an accomplished Biologist and a Christian) spends the first 2/3 of the book utterly demolishing every single common argument against evolution. Just... destroys them. "Irreducible complexity", young earth creationism, etc. You name it, he brings it down with logic and relevant examples. Great source for anyone looking for some well-sourced material and examples to bring to a (respectful, let's keep it classy) debate on the subject. Then, with the last 1/3 or so of the book, Miller talks about how embracing science (including evolution, obviously) is actually the only responsible choice for a person of faith. He discusses how the "God of the Gaps" philosophy is really and truly detrimental to belief in a glorious God who created the universe, and talks about how a Christian should not be afraid of new scientific discovery but should instead embrace it.


Anyway. Great book. If I were to list the 5 books that had had the largest impact on my life and views, this one would definitely be in the top 5. Plus it changed my mind on something. It's not often that that happens, especially to pre-college me (I've mellowed out a bit since then). I'd recommend it to anyone, whether you are a person of faith or not.

Living in a fallen world not only affects our ability to make good decisions, but it has also affected our physical world. There are biological imperfections, such as infertility, that occur due to living in a fallen world. It sucks a ton. Adam brought these terrible sufferings upon us (often my husband says he can't wait to punch Adam in the face) but our good God has given us a way to use those sufferings for good and that we can take those challenges and become better people if we continue to trust in God through them.

If you feel like you need a more intellectual basis for a belief in God, there are really good books out there explaining why God exists.

One is The Last Superstition by Edward Feser. https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314517/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Another is Who Designed the Designer by Michael Augros. https://www.amazon.com/Who-Designed-Designer-Rediscovered-Existence/dp/1586179691/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

If you would like a great book on how to keep peace of heart during trials, I would recommend Searching for and Maintaining Peace. https://www.amazon.com/Searching-Maintaining-Peace-Small-Treatise/dp/0818909064

I think if you can get to the point where you do acknowledge there is a God due to the logical basis for Him and that this God must be good due the logical basis for what kind of God He is, you might be able to trust Him more. We can't really trust someone we don't know too well.

Prayers for you and your wife during this very stressful time. I hope you two try to find ways to relax amidst the stress.

Awesome, it's great you're so proud of her!

Haha knowledge that leads to everlasting boredom! Book studies were the worst, I always felt super obligated to study extra hard because there were so few people that often nobody would answer!

Don't be so sure that your family will keep abandoning you, it's possible sure, but there's always hope! Often they're surprised that you can leave the witnesses and live a normal, or even better than normal life (of course there's always the "blessed by satan" get out clause) but they do expect people who leave to get aids and die from a heroin overdose.

It's easy to prove them wrong! Either way though, you have your own family to look out for and you can learn what not to do!

On to the suggested reading. I've mentioned many on here before but I don't expect everyone to be aware of it all so here goes:

Reading (I have a kindle and love reading, but they're all available for ebook and in paperback)

• Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time and The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths these books really really helped me comprehend how I allowed myself to be fooled and that I can learn from my mistakes
  
• Richard Dawkins - The greatest show on earth and Coyne's Why evolution is true concreted the fact that the earth wasn't made and that animals didn't magically appear
  
• Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World - it is a bit similar to shermers books, but a great read nonetheless, Sagan has an amazing awe at the universe and it's beautiful to read!
  
• Christopher Hitchens - God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything This book is by far among my favorites but it has a more aggressive tone, which is why I wouldn't start with it. Hitchens was awesome, even though I didn't agree with everything he said.
  
  Web
  
  
• JWFacts, of course...an invaluable site but it WILL make you mad
  
• Bad astronomy - add it to your RSS reader, often breathtaking, and generally about space
  
• Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True blog - science and politics
  
  
  Pocasts
  
  (all on iTunes etc, i like them because I can listen at work or download to my phone)
  
  
• The skeptic's guide to the universe it's intelligent, they discuss science and science news and skepticism and I always learn something
  
• Dogma debate just great, lots of debates with christians of various kinds and you can hear how both sides present their arguments
  
• Rationally speaking you said philosophy is of interest, if so this is a must!!!
  
• Cognitive dissonance - they are angry they talk news and politics and religion, it's very funny, informative and irreverent
  
• Caustic soda just a generally awesome science / history / factual podcast
  
  
  That's about it for now, if you soak all that in / want more / have suggestions let me know, and I'd love to hear what you think! :)
  
  

> as I have no proof that we evolved from other animals/etc.

Such proof abounds. If you're going to debate these people, you need to know some of it.

I don't mean enough to ask a couple of questions, I mean enough to carry both sides of the conversation, because he'll make you do all the heavy lifting.

Start with talkorigins.org.

First, the FAQ
Maybe the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution next,
then the pieces on observed instances of speciation

See the extensive FAQs index

Here are their questions for creationsists - see both links there

and then read the index to creationist claims

That's just to start. Take a look at the Outline (which starts with an outline of the outline!)

If you're going to talk with a creationist, you either need to get some idea of the topography or you'll end up chasing in circles around the same tree again and again.

Yes, it looks like a major time investment, but once you start to become familiar with it, it gets easier quickly. Don't aim to learn it all by heart - but you should know when there is an answer to a question, and where to find it.

read books like Your Inner Fish and Why Evolution Is True and The Greatest Show on Earth

I list Your Inner Fish first because it tells a great story about how Shubin and his colleagues used evolutionary theory and geology to predict where they should look for an intermediate fossil linking ancient fish and amphibians (a "transitional form") - and they went to that location, and found just such a fossil. This makes a great question for your creationist - given fossils are kind of rare, how the heck did he manage that? If evolution by natural selection is false, why does that kind of scientific prediction WORK? Is God a deceiver, trying to make it look exactly like evolution happens?? Or maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation is true - that evolution actually occurs. (Then point out that many major Christian churches officially endorse evolution. They understand that the evidence is clear)

It's a good idea to read blogs like Panda's Thumb, Why Evolution Is True, Pharyngula, erv (old posts here) and so on, which regularly blog on new research that relates to evolution.

Make sure you know about the experiments by Lenski et al on evolution of new genes

Don't take "no proof" as an argument. The evidence is overwhelming.

I'm 38 now, but I woke up when I was almost 30. I felt the same way; that I had to start over again on a worldview. When I went back to college, I took every single class I could think of that the Watchtower Society would frown upon. For science, I took anthropology (emphasis on human biological evolution), astronomy, biology, geology, and earth history; lecture and lab for all classes. I also took anthropology of religion, magic, and witchcraft. I took an advanced upper level English course with an emphasis of ancient mythology. I took four philosophy classes, intro to philosophy, logic in practice, critical thinking and composition, and philosophy of religion. All of this served as a foundation for a secular worldview.

First and foremost, you need to learn how to think and not what to think. This is where philosophy comes in. An Introductory Philosophy class at a local community college is a great start. Logic, particularly informal logic and logical fallacies should be learned first. Identifying logical fallacies is what will help you differentiate between good information and bad information. The reason the Watchtower Society admonishes against higher education, is because a critical thinking component is generally a standard part of a General Education guideline. A first year college freshman will learn the intellectual tools necessary to recognize the logical fallacies, rhetoric, and deceptive tactics used by politicians, advertisers, and religious authorities, such as Watchtower. If you can't take a philosophy class, search YouTube for "Philosophy for beginners" and then search "informal logic for beginners". Once you have a full understanding of logical fallacies (which is part of informal logic), you will become dismayed of how much Watchtower uses them, and how JWs are oblivious to this. You'll see it in politics and union propaganda as well, so there are other benefits too. On a side note, this video was shown in my Introductory Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion classes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM There are striking parallels to waking up from the JW religion and Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Going back into the cave is not an option.

With the background of learning how to think, topics in science, and everything else comes a lot easier. Although courses in anthropology, biology, and earth history (which includes history of life on earth) do teach evolution, the basics of biological evolution can be found on YouTube by searching "evolution for dummies". Once you understand what it is, then look at the evidence for evolution. This is an important second step, because unlike Creationism, there are tons of evidence for evolution. This is where the "aha" moments comes from. I recommend this article by the Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution I also recommend the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. He goes into detail the five pillars of evidence for evolution; comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeography, and embryology. This book is found in most public libraries, so you can check it out for free get it on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649 Also, check out the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

Understand that learning all of this is not easy. It takes time and patience. But the payoff in the end is well worth it. It's not like going to a meeting and hearing the same recycled drivel over and over again. I'm still not refined on a political position. All I can say is that I do not identify with any party because doing so obligates me to defend that platform. I like certain things from each party, and I vote accordingly. However, you can take an online "what political party am I quiz" to get a sense of where you are.

You can also look at how we've evolved physiologically, with regards to our bodies and how they're adapted for persistence hunting techniques. We have several other adaptations that aid running, big buttock muscles that only really engage fully when running, the pinch in the hip only seen in later Homo sp to help balance when running, and tendons like the Achilles are adapted for running, evolution of the nuchal ligament etc. We have little body hair, and far more sweat glands than any other primate to prevent hyperthermia. Our bodies have pigmentation (we were totally black during our evolution, even up until 10k years ago - first Britons were black) that is universal, which would protect us in heat of the day from skin cancers, etc. We "exchanged" our ability to climb trees, for the ability to run long distance, something no other primate can do. People like to say “we cant hunt, go and hunt a rabbit and see” – Not all animals hunt in the same fashion. https://youtu.be/826HMLoiE_o Running prey down over long distance - humans are the best long distance runners on the planet. No animal can match us. Some might say, isn't our ability to run for running away from predators? No. We do not have fast acceleration like a gazelle, we couldn't outrun an ensuing predator at all – they’re fast over short distances.


Our shoulder also evolved for throwing, throwing that would've been used for throwing weapons/spears. Not for throwing paper airplanes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y__4xX8xp8&t=62s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_bYlY6AHew&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zb2wsgYNwk&t=5s
We can generate far greater throwing speeds than any other primate. As can be read here: https://scholar.harvard.edu/ntroach/evolution-throwing
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3785139/


Even our teeth. There are other primates with huge canines, but there is a significant (lots of differences, not just this one) difference between us and other primates, behaviour. We do not display our teeth for defensive, or mating purposes. Male gorilla's will often show their canines as a show of dominance, thus it is evolutionary advantageous for them to have bigger canines - not only for a show of dominance, but also to win over impressionable females. Similar to how stags with largest antlers are the most attractive to females. Our canines existence is purely for the tearing or ripping through tough fibrous material like meat. Why are they so small? Our canines have gradually been getting smaller, along with our teeth in general (and jaw) from the early Australopiths. Basically down to tool use, extra processing outside of the mouth meant that it wasn't necessary to have big powerful jaws or huge flat molars like in earlier species, or massive canines. If you look at our teeth in more detail - our teeth became smaller and our enamel became thinner which allows for microscopic breakages creating sharp edges, both which aid shearing of meat. Even our molars are very adept at slicing through meat, which you wouldn't think at first. There is plenty of shearing action in our jaw motion. This is demonstrated by this video: https://youtu.be/hdBQG8lKszk


To say meat consumption was sparse or only in small amounts, is wrong and misleading, the above points and more clearly point towards a significant increase in meat intake and it was vital to get us to the point we are at today. Haven't got the time to sit here and explain it in even more detail, but I can recommend these books as a starting point if you're at all genuinely interested in the subject.


https://www.amazon.com/Processes-Human-Evolution-hominins-Neanderthals/dp/0198739915/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356167&sr=8-5&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Human+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=51ihhNFeyIL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Story-Human-Body-Evolution-Disease/dp/030774180X/ref=mp_s_a_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356167&sr=8-6&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Human+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=41oZy7BlFpL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Bite-Story-Teeth-Origins/dp/0691160538/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356353&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Teeth+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=51m-p9AT1CL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Mammal-Teeth-Origin-Evolution-Diversity/dp/0801896681/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356386&sr=8-4&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Teeth+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=51hDV7cQ%2B6L&ref=plSrch

You might want to check out Khan Academy, which provides entirely free online courses on a huge range of subjects.

On evolution, Stated Clearly is an outstanding series of videos that break it down very simply and straightforwardly (and they're made by an ex-Christian whose education about evolution was part of his reason for leaving the religion). If you're interested in a book, the best I've seen -- and in fact maybe the best popular science book I've ever read -- is Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. It would certainly be enough to help you decide if you'd like to read more.

If you're interested in neuroscience and the brain you might want to read How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker or The Tell-Tale Brain by V. S. Ramachandran, both of which are wide-ranging and accessibly written.

Finally, you can just search for "best science books" (or similar phrases) -- you'll find plenty of lists out there of the best books of all time, the past year, the past decade and so on. You can't go wrong just reading the top few, or if there's an area you find yourself more drawn to you can focus on that.

Above all, focus on the positive and enjoy the process of learning about these things, because it's an absolutely fascinating world out there. Have fun!

One great place to start is the Talk Origins Archive. Their "Guide to Creationist Claims" is also very good.

Also, the /r/atheism Wiki has a pretty good section on Creationism that's worth checking out.

There is plenty of evidence of large scale changes over geological time in the fossil record of many lineages. I'll let you research the sites I've linked (and hopefully many others you find yourself from credible sources) rather than linking to any specific ones.

I'm not sure what /u/OldWolf2642 has a specific problem with, but judging by his "humans <> apes" statement I think he's simply trying to point out that modern H. sap. did not evolve from other modern apes. We all (H. sap. are simply one example among several species of modern ape) evolved together from a common ancestor. He's right about that but his phrasing might make it seem as though macro evolution isn't part of modern evolutionary theory - IT IS. It's just that some of us feel that the the terms "micro-" and "macro-" evolution are used as an excuse for creationists to acknowledge the easily demonstrable (on a human timescale) case of natural selection within a species and still be able to dismiss larger scale changes over larger time frames. But, in fact, the terms are often used to distinguish research in some fields from research in others. The phrases are perfectly acceptable. But, as many have pointed out, "macro-" is just an unavoidable consequence of "micro-" happening over long periods of time. The creationists' ploy, here, is comparable to saying "I accept the existence of this glass of water, but refuse to acknowledge the "oceans" you people keep going on about". It's all the same thing, just on different scales.

My personal favorite books laying out the case for all sorts of evolution are:

Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

and

The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

But the /r/atheism Wiki has a great list of Recommended Reading and videos. Many of these are about atheism generally, but they include good stuff on evolutionary theory as well.

Keep studying and have a blast!

What the heck, I'm in the mood to toy with a troll on a Saturday night.

"People assume evolution is true because they say it's the most logical thing to believe, but I believe that intelligent design is more logical if you examine the evidence with no presuppositions."

First, scientists don't assume anything, and people who have gone to actual schools rather than Christian schools have learned the scientific method and possibly even proven evolution to themselves in a laboratory experiment (yes, it happens in the lab)

If you examine THE evidence? ... with no presuppositions? Funny. Because the Intelligent Design lie was invented by the Discovery Institute, whose mission is to prove that God is behind it all -- i.e. they are starting with a presupposition.

". Evolution has no proof. They have fossils and dating methods that they say is proof, but subjectively they must not truly be proof because if they were truly proof then there would be no intelligent people who believed in creation left"

hahahahhahaa that's a good one! They have thousands of fossils, and dating methods that have been proven... and when they dig where they expect to find certain kinds of fossils based on the theory of evolution, they find them! They have found fish that were able to walk on land, the transitional fossils between the hippo ancestor and the whale, etc.

The fallacy of appeal to authority is no kind of proof especially in this case because you're not appealing to biologists of the modern era, 99% of whom see evolution as the central defining theory of their life's work.

"Evolution has never, in human history, been observed. Their have been many cases of micro-evolution"

Caw! Caw! Caw! You, my friend, are a parrot. You are parroting Ken Ham, which is pretty funny. You obviously don't know that ALL evolution takes place with tiny steps -- i.e., there's no such thing as "macro evolution," so you and the people you parrot are demanding to see something that wouldn't fit the theory of evolution, then claiming that the theory is bunk because the experts haven't provided it. Guess what? That's a dishonest and shameful tactic. You should be ashamed of yourself for mindlessly parroting something so intellectually dishonest.

"3. Evolution goes against the law of entropy." That's just nonsense, again parroting Ken Ham and his ilk. Read this instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy Meanwhile, consider these points: A. How can crystals form if entropy governs everything and B. The sun sends radiation energy to the Earth, so the Earth is not a closed system - additional energy is added every day.

" it's more logical to believe that an all powerful God created everything than things evolving"

No, it's not more logical. Consider: A perfect God wouldn't have given us the appendix, the tailbone (and in some people actual tails), goosebumps, and other vestigial traits. These things are only logical in light of evolution.

So.. show me the proof? You have a computer. You can use google. You are literate. You can read a book. Why should random redditors be challenged to prove what you are too lazy and ignorant to discover for yourself? The evidence is not that hard to find. Try reading Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649

Read up on fossils -- and not in Answers in Genesis or whatever source you parroted in your OP. Read up on how it's been true over and over and over that fossils are found in layers, in exactly the same order everywhere, and that you can predict which fossils you might find in a layer of ground based on evolutionary theory. Note, nobody has EVER found a fossil in a layer where it doesn't belong. A find like that would at the very least shake up one portion of the story that other fossils have told.

Evidence that points to evolution IS proof.

Look up "equivocation." This is a favorite trick of Ken Ham and his ilk. Don't do it! Stop it! Grow up and accept reality! You don't have to equivocate on words like that to learn science - you only have to do it to cling to the creator-god. The bronze age people who made up that story can't be faulted for believing it because they didn't have the scientific method, the technology to study the world like we do, or centuries of scientific findings that have told a much more interesting story.

But you are not a bronze age person, so let go of that fairy tale and embrace the real world.

>methodically state the case for why creation is most likely and/or why evolution is unlikely.

You will find lots and lots of the latter. Very little of the former.

>I'd also be happy to read GOOD anti-creation books as well, provided they meet the above criterion of not being mocking.

Those would just be science books based on the academic literature, wouldn't they?

Here is my reading list form the past few months. These would be pro-evolution (a.k.a science). Creationism is mentioned in a few of them, but almost in passing because Creationism is simply not a factor in legitimate scientific research, so it gets pretty much no consideration.

Knock yourself out. ;)

• Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin - Also, watch the three part series that aired on PBS hosted by Neil Shubin.
  
  
• Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean B. Carroll - An in depth look into developmental evolution.
  
  
• The Universe Within: Discovering the Common History of Rocks, Planets, and People by Neil Shubin
  
  
• The Link by Colin Tudge and Josh Young
  
  
• Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade
  
  
• Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA by Daniel J. Fairbanks - This and the other Fairbanks book listed below are the only books on this list with the intent to refute what creationists contend. He does this not by presenting the creationist argument and then trying to refute. He does it by simply presenting the evidence that science has born out regarding human evolution and genetics.
  
  
• The Story of Earth by Robert Hazen - this is a cool book about the history of the Earth and life and how geology and biology worked in tandem with other factors to produce life from the point of view of a protein biologist.
  
  
• Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth by Richard Fortey - Good general overview of evolutionary and geologic history.
  
  
• The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Edwin Douglas - This is the most academic book in this list and, as such, is the most difficult to read. It is a concise look at what we know about the Cambrian Explosion from the scientific literature.
  
  
• Life's Ratchet by Peter Hoffmann - Very good book about how the chaos wrought inside cells by thermal motion at the molecular level leads to the ordered functioning of the machinery of life.
  
  
• What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology by Addy Pross - Super interesting take on the question, "What is Life?" He comes to a very interesting conclusion which might have implications for abiogenesis research.
  
  
• The Machinery of Life by David S. Goodsell - A neat little book that gets you acquainted with what it's really like inside of cells. A good companion book to read with Life's Ratchet as they highlight different aspects of the same topic.
  
  
• Evolving by Daniel J. Fairbanks
  
  
• Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes by Svante Paabo - Very interesting book about the drama, blood, sweat and tears, Dr. Paabo shed to develop the techniques to sequence ancient DNA. You simply won't find books like this and Your Inner Fish above amongst Creationist literature because they simply don't do what these scientists do out in the field and in the lab.

Here are some books, articles, websites and YouTube Videos that helped me on my journey from a hardcore creationist to a High School Biology teacher.

BOOKS

The Language of God - By Francis Collins ~ A defense of Evolution by the head of the Human Genome Project (Who also happens to be Christian)

Only a Theory - By Ken Miller ~ Another Christian biologist who accepts and vigorously defends the theory of evolution

Your Inner Fish - by Neil Shubin ~ The wonderful story of how Tiktaalik was found

Why Evolution is True - By Jerry Coyne ~ A simple and thorough treatment of evolution written for the mainstream

The Greatest Show on Earth - By Richard Dawkins ~ A wonderful and beautifully written celebration of evolution

The Panda's Thumb - By Stephen Jay Gould ~ A collection of eloquent and intelligent essays written by SJG. Any of his collections would do but this one is my favorite.

ARTICLES

Crossing the Divide - By Jennifer Couzin ~ an article about an ex-creationist and his difficult journey into enlightenment.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - John Rennie ~ a nice rundown of the major objections to evolution.

WEBSITE

An index of Creationist Claims - Via the TalkOrigins archive ~ an impressive index of the major problems creationists have with evolution, as well as good, evidence based rebuttals.

YOUTUBE VIDEOS/PLAYLISTS

Why do People Laugh at Creationsts? - Via Thunderf00t ~ a scathing review of outrageous sins of logic committed by creationists. Thunderf00t's style isn't for everyone, since he can come off as smug and superior

How Evolution Works - Via DonExodus2 ~ a nice and thorough overview of how evolution works

The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - Via Potholer54

Evolution - Via Qualia Soup ~ short (10 minutes), simple and well made, this is one of my go-to videos to help logically explain how evolution happens.

> I studied it for a time on my own because I like to see all sides of the issue.

Have you read any books by scientists who accept evolution? I know some people read books that are critical of evolution but these books usually misrepresent evolution in some way and are dishonest.

If you really want to see all sides of it, check out a book like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. He lays out what evolution is, the evidence for it, as well as how it fits into biology.

> I saw how flawed it was and decided not to put my faith in a theory.

Well, consider for a moment that you might be making a decision based on faulty information. Absolutely no faith is needed to accept evolution. Really - the evidence for everything in evolution is there. Scientists are usually very clear what they are reasonably sure of and what they aren't. Remember: scientists compete with one another so if any of them makes a mistake, the others usually jump on it.

Furthermore, as I explained above, a theory in science isn't the same thing as a theory a layman would use. It's not a guess or a hunch! Theories in science are the ultimate goal, and ultimate achievement in science. Other examples of theories in include quantum theory, or atomic theory, or the theory of gravity. If you go to school to obtain a degree in physics, you might take a course in atomic theory. At no point in the future will the professor change the course title to atomic fact. Theories are a higher level of understanding than mere facts - theories explain facts, and unite them.

> So forgive me please if I don't know as much about Evoulution as I undoubtably should.

Relevant xkcd.

Evolution really is a fascinating topic and it tells us so much about who we are as a species and our place in the grand scheme of things. There are many religious people (including Christians) who have no problems accepting modern biology. In fact, many religious people view evolution as one of the mechanisms God used to create everything. Your religious beliefs should not be a barrier to you being able to learn about the variety of life on this planet. Some religious biologists who study evolution every day, when asked why they study what they do, cite a desire to understand God's creation. While I don't agree with their beliefs, I can respect them.

In addition to Jerry Coyne's book, I'm more than happy to offer books or video suggestions. Qualia Soup has a short one which might clear up a few misconceptions straight away - here it is.

Absolutely. Actually, the correct way to say this is “Is it possible to be a Christian and accept evolution?” We don’t “believe” scientific theories; we accept as (provisionally) true based on the evidence.

Most Christians do accept evolution. (and it is “most” in that the number of Christians who accept evolution is > 50%) Here is a list of statements by various Christian denominations accepting evolution: Statements from Religious Organizations, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vie...

The way that this is done is very simple and was summarized back in 1890:

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

Christians have always held that God has two books: scripture and Creation.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

So what happens when there is an apparent conflict between the two books? Christians decided that in 1832:

British evangelicals wrote in the 1830s that "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

What we have today are some people insisting that their interpretation of the Bible must be paramount. IOW, unless you accept their interpretation and reject evolution, then you can’t be Christian. That’s not the core belief of Christianity. Those core beliefs can be found in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds. Nicene Creed - Wikipedia .

They state “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker heaven and earth” or (Apostle’s) “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth;” Apostles’ Creed: Traditional and Ecumenical Versions - The United Methodist Church

Those statements of belief do not specify how heaven and earth was made. Thus, as Rev McCosh has pointed out, evolution is simply how God made the diversity of life on the planet.

So the issue becomes: do Christians want some current people to require an additional belief —a belief in their interpretation of scripture contrary to God’s Creation — in order to be “Christian”?

​

Several of the most famous evolutionary biologists, who made significant contributions and additions to the theory of evolution were religious.

For example Theodosius Dobzhansky (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), who actually is one of the fathers of the modern synthesis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) and who coined the phrase "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Dobzhansky believed in a personal God who had created though the means of evolution.

Another famous evolutionary biologist was paleontologist Pierre Theilard de Chardin (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...). He participated in the discovery of Homo erectus in Asia. He was not only religious, he was a Jesuit priest.

Francis Collins, who lead the Human Genome Project at the NIH, and is fervent evangelical Christian, thinks God chose evolution as the mechanism to generate life's diversity, and speaks against Young Earth creationism.

These are just some examples. The erroneous view that religion and the theory of evolution are incompatible views largely stem from a particular flavor of Christianity present in some communities in the USA

But in principle, nothing prevents biologists from believing in God, and there is nothing special about the theory of evolution that denies the existence of God.

I also suggest the following books: Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller. A Christian (Catholic) and a biologist. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.): Kenneth R. Miller: 9780061233500: Amazon.com: Books

and Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion - Kindle edition by Michael Ruse. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. Michael Ruse is an agnostic, therefore his analysis is more objective and more critical. But his result is the same: absolutely a Christian can accept evolution.

I can't add much to what has been said by others in this thread, but I had similar experiences and feelings to you for a long time from a young age and did eventually get over them. I feel like you need to develop a more sophisticated understanding of both Catholic doctrine and the arguments for it and praxis - let me tell you, Christian praxis goes well beyond "being a decent person" to a wholesome life-view that strengthens you as an individual, as a member of your community, and in relation to God, and is inexorably linked with sound, devout doctrine. I would advise reading some Catholic apologetics or theology to start. Since you're trained in Biology you may find Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God a good starting point. Also, if you're not already, make a sincere effort to attend Mass at least weekly, go to Confession regularly, and following the Church's moral and spiritual guidelines even if they don't seem to be directly related to "being a decent person". It may feel like you're only "going through the motions," but you never know what benefit you might find! The final author I'd recommend is Søren Kierkegaard - let me be clear, his books aren't easy reads and I take issue with a lot he says, but I found his presentation of Christian praxis and ethics (particularly Either/Or) one of the most beautiful I've ever read and I credit him with giving the death knell to my doubts. I don't have the link handy, but Julia Watkin's book on him in the Outstanding Christian Thinkers Series is an excellent place to start if you find him interesting.

>Why not just call your religion Science or Darwinism?

As mentioned before, this really depends on the definition of religion. We need to be able to use this term without capturing political parties, sport team fans, charity groups, or hobby clubs.

Your question creates a false dilemma too. There are millions of Christians who agree with the general scientific consensus and Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection (evolution).

While a majority of atheists tend to support Modern evolutionary synthesis (not "Darwinism"), there's no rule that demands the odd atheist cannot reject evolution, by positing something like space aliens.

Besides that, do you really want to place science and religion on opposition? To say that the scientist is a priest? Consider which "priests" creates reliable cures to disease. Which "priests" sends men to the moon and machines to mars?



>I've also made it my personal business to seek out arguments on both ends.

This statement is too vague. Which ends? The existence of god(s)? The veracity of Evolutionary theory? The strengths and weaknesses of the Scientific Method?

Please list the books/topic you're talking about and perhaps readers here can comment better on this subject.



>Anything that's provable. I get it! I love me some science.

Well, that's not wrong, but I think you're pushing this a bit too far. A better way to put it is that for any given number of statements about the world, those with repeatable, verifiable evidence for those statements we can place a greater confidence in.



>One must choose to believe pretty much all things or basically be nihilist.

This doesn't sound right and reads in my mind as a sloppy statement (and another false dilemma). But I'm not a philosopher, so I can't exactly point out where you go wrong.

As a layman I'll try to at least mention there's a middle ground to be found between absolute gullibility and absolute skepticism. We can grant Fallibilism and move towards creating a system of thought that attempts to filter out statements that are meaningless or false, and hone statements we think are true to better model and predict the world around us.

That's why a lot of atheists appreciate the Scientific Method. Plagued as it is by certain philosophical problems (like induction), the Scientific Method tries to at least reach soundness by testing predictions of a certain hypothesis against the actual world itself.

See Richard Feynman on the Scientific Method for more.



P.S. I'm mostly a Humanist. I say "mostly" because I don't go to Humanist meetings, or tithe donations to Humanist organizations. Their listed values just seem the closest to what I'd describe to someone.

Edit: P.P.S. I think you may be interested in the book Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.

I'm shocked this is even still a debate in schools... There is no competing theory that does anything close to explaining the natural world as well as evolution.

The debate should be framed not on "pro versus anti evolution" but rather is there any competing theory that can be presented which debunks evolution or better describes the natural world. There isn't, but if there were evolution would be replaced with that theory.

That being said the opposition presumably will advocate for Intelligent Design (I.D.) which is not scientific in the slightest and should be easily debunked with a bit of research. If you have time read this book, it does a wonderful job explaining the nuance of the debate. I read it in college and loved it; never had a second thought about evolution again.

https://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669

If you don't have time these are a couple examples of evidence supporting the theory of evolution I didn't see posted below. Or maybe you could find a synopsis of the book I mentioned.

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/09/13/why-humans-must-eat-vitamin-c/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

Science isn't a pro vs anti debate; if that's the debate it's just an excuse to let religion into the classroom. The theory with the most credible evidence which best helps us understand natural phenomena should be the leading Theory. I.D. is not that theory.

You may find this book called your inner fish: a journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body very interesting. It is a really fascinating and, quick read.

Tetrapods include amphibians, reptiles, birds, turtles and mammals. All tetrapods have a single common ancestor, that was as you describe "the first fish dude who jumped out of the water". Really, that is the best way I have heard it described and youre not wrong! We don't know which species is the first, but we do have several transitional fossils from water to land. These species are collectively known as tetrapodomorphs which basically means "kind of like a tetrapod - kind of like fish". This picture gives you a good idea of some of the different species alive around that time. Tiktaalik is one of my favourites, mostly because the name is fun to say. This species lived about ~375 million years ago, during the Denovian. Here is another example of the limbs of those transitional species from fin to limb!

Acanthostega (~365 million years ago) and Itchthyostega (~360 million years ago) are two species of tetrapods that lived after Tiktaalik, and they are better suited for life on land. They likely lived in swampy areas but were still tied to the water.

After the first tetrapods established themselves on land they evolved or radiated into many different groups. This is a good and simplified family tree of tetrapods. There are the amphibians, the turtles, the mammals and the reptiles. This is another family tree which depicts some extinct groups. Notice that the birds are placed firmly with the other dinosaurs and are now the only living representatives of that lineage. And that early mammal ancestors (therapsids) stem from a distant synapsid ancestor which evolved quite early on.

The reptiles are a bit of a funny group because they contain a lot of extinct species and this confuses people as to what actually is a reptile. Simply put reptiles include the living turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards, and tuatara and many other extinct species including the dinosaurs, the extinct flying reptiles like the pterosuars and the extinct aquatic reptiles like ichthyosaurs. Another cool fact is that crocodiles and birds are more closely related to each other than they are to the other reptiles (turtles, snakes, lizards and tuatara).

Maybe the question "What do you know for sure?" is meant to direct you to a place where you can know things for sure? And that would be Catholicism. :) For all it's amazing, beautiful mystery and mysticism, Catholicism is also founded on some fundamental truths that we can be really, really certain about, primarily the simple fact of God's existence. For a very good, easy-to-read, in-depth exploration of a proof of God's existence from reason alone, I would recommend Who Designed the Designer, by Michael Augros.

For a Catholic, “faith" does not mean "belief without evidence," but "trust in God and acceptance of what he has revealed." We can certainly have logical reasons for that trust and for that acceptance! Catholics have always had a "two books" approach: faith and reason are like two books which both aim at the truth, so they will never contradict; if they appear to it means our understanding of one or the other is incomplete.

I went through the same sort of thing as you. All I can really say is to keep pursuing the facts and the evidence. People will try to discourage you for one reason or another, but don't let them. If the Christian god exists, you've done nothing wrong by asking questions because he values the truth.

Since you mentioned your friends and family being YECs, I strongly recommend reading the Talk Origins archive if you haven't seen it yet. It has a great list of Creationist claims and the evidence against them. If you're interested in learning more about Evolution, I'd also recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. It's the book that made me start questioning Christianity and to this day it remains one of my favourites.

Definitely check out these books. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry Coyne

It’s may not go as deep as some others but it’s an easy read book that keeps you engaged and is totally worth your time. I love this book so much because it’s very approachable for anyone. It’s filled with easy to understand examples, and I find that it’s a great refresher for myself every now and then. It’s also a great book to give or recommend to others who may not know much about the subject.

As others have mentioned, Darwin’s book is more of a piece of history than anything else. It was absolutely groundbreaking at the time but we know so much more now. Plus, the way it was written definitely shows it’s age and makes it a kind of a hard read.

I have heard great things about KhanAcademy. As far as books go, for Humans, the course I co-teach uses Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples & Disease (ISBN 0-8153-4183), but I would definitely brush up on basics before reading that one -its definitely a text book, but a great reference. A more general book might be Why Evolution is True , and I like 'Survival of The Sickest' for some general knowledge on why some diseases tend to stick around (which you would think would go away...). I hope that helps, that's about all I can think of off the top of my head right now. PM me if you have any questions too, I love talking about genetics. :)

Thank you for asking a question. I have to give you credit, most people don't care enough to search.

Emotions are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. They absolutely can be tested. "Feelings" is just the word we give to certain brain states. Each brain state is simply a mix of hormones in the brain.

Both Sam Harris and Michael Shermer reference these studies in their most recent books. To answer you question directly, oxytocin is the chemical responsible for love.

By the way, you're back to shifting the burden of proof again. I'm not saying your beliefs are either true or not. I'm simply saying you have no evidence for them so there's no good reason to believe them. As I simply said before, you can believe any thing you want, but until you have evidence, you could be as crazy as the people who think they are Napoleon Bonaparte.

Think about it for a moment. I know people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and sexually probed while on the ship. Are they telling the truth? For them, yes. They believe it, and it's as real as anything else in their life. But is it true? Probably not.

It seems you have an opportunity here. I get the feeling you're pretty smart and might be looking for answers. That's a powerful combination. The problem, however, is that the places you've been looking for answers up until now have been pretty bad. You can go deeper down the rabbit hole into things for which there is no evidence, or you can discover reality as it is.

If you're interested in living an evidence based life there are books that will help. Can I recommend one or two to get you started?

Michael Shermer has written two books that will get you started. Either would be excellent for you and your position at the moment.

The Believing Brain and Why People Believe Weird Things.

Once you get a foundation of how things work, then we can move on the fun stuff like physics, biology, philosophy, astronomy...and so on.

Do you listen to podcasts? There are a few of these you might try out as well.

Rationally Speaking
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe
Point of Inquiry
Reasonable Doubts


In the end, as I said before, you're going to have to make a choice. Either the supernatural realm exists or it doesn't. And since there isn't any evidence now, nor has any evidence ever been shown that anything supernatural ever existed, it should be an easy choice.

It's pretty simple really. When someone says weird, crazy things they believe, I would believe them too, IF THEY HAVE EVIDENCE. If they don't, I'm sorry I'm going to withhold saying you're right or wrong until I have more information.

Hey, well I would expect them to biased towards the Bible, as people who believe the Bible want to support it :) Just as atheists want to tear it down. Do you think an atheist would want to explain the contradictions in the Bible? Of course not, they want to find theories that will discredit it. (confirmation bias, we all have it, I know atheists say they don't but I can see how mad often they are at God, that is a bias in itself.) Perhaps the Bible is just mankind's way of trying to understand God, by assigning him human qualities.

I think this is a pretty comprehensive summary of the contradictions:

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/bible.htm

http://www.comereason.org/bible-contradictions-explained.asp

Ok, I wish I could address all of this but I am pretty new to the subject myself! I just try to keep an open mind and I am always reading and researching. I don't 100% believe the Bible is true, I think I will always have questions, but right now God makes a lot more sense to me than that the universe came into being out of nowhere. I too have trouble comprehending the evil and suffering in the world, but the fact that there IS evil doesn't mean that there isn't a God. A God who can create all this knows a lot more than we do, and maybe he has a much better plan than we can comprehend. I recommend The Privileged Planet (book and DVD) which describes the extreme fine tuning of our planet and our universe.

Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller is on my (ever growing) to read list.

https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8MWM3P3QW7V54VQ94S6F

https://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669

Here is a good interview, make sure you read page 4 where he talks about the Bible.

http://www.godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-1/

I really do recommend John Lennox also

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=john+lennox

Have you attended any churches? I've found them to be so very different from the Kingdom hall. It gives you an entirely different idea of what it is to be a Christian and worship God (I find church enjoyable, uplifting and encouraging).

I think you may be asking the wrong question.

Fully grasping evolution is a monumental task. You need to have somewhere between a solid understanding and expertise in a whole bunch of fields. Off the top of my head: Biology, genetics, statistics, chemistry, paleontology, geology and probably lots, lots more.

But if you are only asking what you need to know to start to learn about evolution, the answer is not much at all. The more you know about those topics, the better, but you don't really need to have a very deep understanding of any of these topics if you only want to have a solid grasp of evolution. Evolution is obviously part of biology, but it is a distinct-enough subset that you can have a pretty solid understanding of how evolution works without much understanding of the more nitty-gritty parts of biology at all.

I would say that just about anyone with a sense of curiosity should be able to pick up the book Why Evolution is True and read it and understand the vast majority of it, and you will come away with a decent grasp of the fundamentals (at least enough to learn what you need to learn to understand more). Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth will be a bit more challenging of a read, but you will come away with an even deeper understanding. Either of them are well worth checking out if you are curious.

And FWIW, it is a great rabbit hole to go down... It is a really fascinating subject!

Not a book, but the overviews on TalkOrigins.org are a good place to start. Just start at the top and work down. It addresses some common theological issues.

You can also look at an index to creationist claims on the site, which has short answers to many points creationists raise, including a section on philosophy and theology.

You also might look at the unrelated biologos and clergy letter project for more theological support for evolution.

As for book, someone already mentioned "Why Evolution is True". Your Inner Fish is also a good place to start. The Greatest Show on Earth is also supposed to be good although I haven't read it.

If you do become interested in debating, or if you just have questions, it would be better to head over to /r/DebateEvolution, which specializes in the issue and has a lot of people very knowledgeable about the subject.

Here are some cool videos for you(not really informative about the makeup of cells but nonetheless might interest you enough to read the amazing books that I've listed below! The microcosmos really is a whole 'nother world!):

Kinesin Walking Narrated Version:

http://youtu.be/YAva4g3Pk6k


This is a better model. Notice how the 'legs' shake around violently until it snaps into place. Sometimes the random motion of the jiggling atoms(these aren't shown. Imagine the Kinesin molecules shown in a sea of water molecules, all jiggling about ferociously. The 'invisible' water molecules are bumping up against the Kinesin, and it's evolved to work with the random motions) makes it step backwards! But the ATP/ADP process makes it more likely to step forward than backwards(an evolved process). This is explained well in the book Life's Ratchet below.

Molecular Motor Kinesin Walks Like a Drunk Man:

http://youtu.be/JckOUrl3aes

Here are some amazing book to read. Seriously read all of these, preferably in the order listed to get the best understanding. They will blow your mind many times over. Many, if not all, may be at your local library.


QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691125759


Quarks: The Stuff of Matter

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0465067816


Thermodynamics:A Very Short Introduction

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199572194


Life's Ratchet:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0465022537/


The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1416594795


The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307275175p

I would also recommend taking a biology and maybe a chemistry class at your local community college, if possible. My biology class started with the smallest stuff, atoms(technically not the smallest, but whatever), and worked its way up through the chain of sizes up to the biosphere. It was very informative and there were a few people in their 40s(a guess) that really enjoyed the class. So you can do it, too!

> For starters, its entirely irrelevant to a discussion on human behavior. the last traces of our planet will have been destroyed billions of years prior to heat death which will still happen billions of years after we are all dead and buried and everyone who ever knew our name is dead and buried as well.

I agree 100% with your second sentence, however your first is dead fucking wrong.

Physics is everything.

It is, after all, THE science.

If sociology and psychology are indeed sciences, they will be touched in some way, some how, by physics.

Nevertheless, what you've stumbled on is a point within a point that I sought to make.

What do most people believe? All kinds of crazy shit. Everything from astrology to alternative medicine to Bronze Age myths and superstitions to My Little Pony to ... dare I say it ... hope.

Not many people have even heard of Thermodynamics, much less understand it.

And you're telling me that their beliefs, or more to the point the lack of comprehension and flat-out disinterest of modern physics, does not influence their behavior?

No, friend, what I've said is quite relevant.

What you're doing is attempting to turn it into a red herring and drawing unneeded attention to minutiae. It's neither. Follow the flow of my writing top-to-bottom. It fits.

All I'm doing is trying to make a point. Don't sweat the small stuff.

I really do stand behind what I've said. You are free to disagree. And that's fine. You're not alone.

> Also, our star is around 1% of the mass required to form a black hole, if that.

I stand corrected. It will collapse to form a white dwarf after it burns away what's left of a dead planet previously known as Earth.

Details.

> By all means, keep science in the discussion, we need it, but lets stick to facts that are relevant. I'd do some actual studying and work with thermodynamics before you try to talk about, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics of course you may need a few years of elementary calculus and physics before it makes any sense. have fun, i've done it.

Hmmmm, I think I may have studied elementary calculus and physics before I studied:

• college-level chemistry (what can you tell the class about Gibbs Free Energy?)
  
• organic chemistry
  
• multivariate calculus
  
• linear algebra
  
• differential equations (ordinary and partial)
  
• engineering (calculus-based) physics
  
• topology
  
• real analysis
  
• complex analysis
  
  ... aaaaaaand
  
  
• psychology
  
  Do I need to re-take them so that I can be more smug like you?
  
  > A better argument would have been to say that we are utterly insignificant in the grandest scheme of things.
  
  I do agree with that statement. And that would be quite satisfying if I wanted to toy with memes. Yes, the universe doesn't exist for us. It's > 99% dark matter / dark energy, and less than 1% us. Big deal.
  
  Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick to practical science.
  
  I'd rather strive for understanding than latch on to soundbites and convenient explanations.
  
  In closing, before you make authoritative statements like these:
  
  > Please leave the 2nd law of thermo out of any and all discussions about TRP and our planet.
  
  Try to remember this:
  
  > Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. - Carl Sagan
  
  Now, hopefully, we can get back to my point.
  

That's right, yeah. There are tons of transitional fossils. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, technically :) But the big ones they always want to see are the ones between what we would now consider major species groups, like "land mammals" vs "whales". And yes, there are plenty of those.

It turns out that fossilization only happens in incredibly rare conditions. The critter generally has to have the right level of hard tissues, fall in one of the right kind of sediment, not get scavenged, etc. It's pretty amazing that we have as many as we do, if you think about it. So yes, we would expect a 'gappy' picture to connect the dots through, but there are MORE than enough dots to have a pretty good picture of what the whole tree looks like. (Even more data is now available with the advent of DNA sequencing, and it turns out to map generally pretty well to how the picture looked from only having fossils.) If you want more on this Why Evolution Is True is a good, not too intimidating read.

Don't be offended, but for the sake of a congruent discussion I'm going to reply to your response in sections. Some people find it annoying or pompous, but I assure you that is not the case.

>Well I've probably read the same texts you have in school, it's not like I was home-schooled in Alabama or anything,

I didn't actually have my "intellectual awakening" until I was out of High School. And not in the "took Philosophy 101 and now I think I understand the world" kind of way. I just didn't really look deeper into the world around me until I was 19 or 20. I was a very shallow person for a long time.

> I've found the atheist model of looking at reality intellectually wanting.

I question what exactly the "atheist model" you mention is. Atheism isn't a religion and has no dogma or tenants to follow. It simply means that I do not believe that there is a god or gods. More specifically, I am agnostic atheist, meaning that though I do not believe in any gods, I do not claim it to be definitive. Merely that there isn't evidence to support the claim of any god(s). You're theist, I'm atheist. If we drill down into each other's beliefs, there would be more specific terms like Christianity or Darwinism, for instance, but those are not synonyms for (a)theism.

>I was considered bright and well-read in college if that helps distance you from some prejudice you may have in your mind.

I push myself to not judge someone from a couple internet comments. I don't think you're dumb, or anything like that. Perhaps misinformed, but certainly not unintelligent.

>When you say "proud not to know" it makes me question if that's your true attitude towards any theist or just the radical U.S. "GOP", evangelical version of it.

Certainly not. I associate with a very diverse set of people. There are some very angry, ignorant atheists, just like there are very smart, kind theists. And it has nothing to do with a political party in my eyes. Individuals need to be treated as such. Everyone knows and thinks differently.

>There are arguments out there that strongly challenge the hypothesis of macro-evolution (for example) that I HIGHLY doubt many in this generation are familiar with

Before I get into the meat of this part, I'll say that while there are many ignorant people of all beliefs, it's not beneficial to discussion to narrow it down to any generation, young or old. It insults many without cause.

This here, however, is a definite sticking point with me. No other theory "strongly" challenges the mountain of evidence for evolution. There is truly no reason to divide this into macro/micro. It's the exact same mechanism under both terms, and those who wish to argue against evolution were the ones to introduce this separation of concept. The only real difference between them is the length of time evolution acts across, and I will admit that trying to wrap one's head around the hundreds of millions of years that this process has been acting is daunting. Here is where I would make my first book recommendation, "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne. I know the tile is a little on the nose, but the reason I choose this is because the author presents the overwhelming evidence for evolution in a digestible, logic driven manner. It responds to nearly every common objection raised by those who doubt the scientific theory, and uses clear, concise wording to accomplish it.

>so sometimes I just get a little annoyed when I see another "all believers are idiots" types of posts when their own personal understanding of the science(s) involved is often threadbare at best.

I am in absolute agreement with you here. All believers are assuredly NOT idiots, and Religion and the idea of higher powers persists for many reasons, but among the most prevalent is that of comfort. It is a tough world out there and answers can be hard to come by. Things happen(good and bad), often without a clear explanation. Believing in a god means shifting these uncertainties off one's own thoughts so that he/she can keep moving forward with life. (Obviously there's more to it than that, just an example).

>Especially because you can spout that all day but let someone fire a salvo back and watch the censors get busy. Such a double-standard but that's not your fault.

I assure you I am willing to hear all ideas on belief without censor, but one of my personal favorite quotes applies, and that is "That can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Burden of proof is a key concept to understand.

>You're basically putting yourself in a position where everyone who believes they've had a genuine spiritual experience is either stupid or a liar. If that's not ignorance or pride I don't know what is.

What qualifies as a spiritual experience in your eyes?

>You're right that most religion tends towards a lot of negativity, but that's as much a sign that spiritual warfare exists as it is for arguing it doesn't.

I realize I'm guilty of it as well in this meandering reply, but if you wish to have a healthy discourse, try to keep your topics more narrow. Religion in general is a much larger can of worms than evolution or theism/atheism, and requires a much broader set of ideas to be exchanged.

---

Okay, sorry that took so long, and about the length of the text. I spent a lot of my day thinking on your words.

Check out the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.

Check out a copy of the books The Greatest Show on Earth or Why Evolution is True from a library. You can also get one of them for free on Audible, but you will miss out on the citations and diagrams.

See if you can watch or read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. I watched the miniseries, it's pretty good. It used to be on Netflix but no longer is.

Cosmos is great, and is on Netflix. If you want to watch videos about Cosmology just type in one of the popular physicist's names, Brian Greene, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss (his Universe from Nothing book is really great, so are his lectures about it), Sean Carroll etc.

Let me know if you want to talk, I'm always up for it.

> I'm not disputing that, but I would call that adaption (one part of evolution) for the purpose of separating a theory that explains changes in species over time and occasionally speciation, from one that suggests all life evolved from single celled organisms.

You can declare this separation all you want, but it is all in your head. Both of these are integral parts of the theory of evolution.

> There is currently no theory with sufficient evidence That's what a mystery is.

Please do not misquote me, it is intellectually dishonest.

> The unproven presupposition I'm referring to is that all life can have evolved from single celled life through a combination of beneficial mutation and natural selection, not the big bang, that's beside the point.

I was using the Big Bang as an example of another theory that, under your assumptions, would be false because of the same reasons. You seem to have missed that.

> What I'm saying is that evolution is in fact a theory in the traditional sense of the world, not like the theory of relativity or gravity as is often suggested. Many believe it is the best model we have right now, but it's not even close to certain.

You are demonstrably wrong. I'm afraid this might come across to you as an appeal to authority, but I am going forward anyway. The fact that an overwhelming majority of biological scientists accept the theory of evolution as true is not a coincidence or a mistake, and is generally considered to be at least as robust as the theory of gravity (which if anything is a more incomplete theory). If you need some education on this topic, I suggest the book Why Evolution Is True, which does a stellar job of laying out the evidence. For a free option, take a look at the website talkorigins.org, which is an excellent compendium of evidence and arguments on the topic. Please take this opportunity to learn about this theory that you are bashing.

EDIT Please stop mentioning Intelligent Design in the same nature as the theory of evolution. ID is an unscientific proposition, and far from a theory.

Sure.

If evolution is of interest to you (and if you have interest in the intersection between theology and science), Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller explores both sides of the debate and debunks many common misconceptions about evolution. I first read it in a college biology topics course.

If you like the topic of 'creationist attempts to dispute or disrupt the teaching of evolution in the classroom', Summer of the Gods, about the Scopes Monkey Trial, is a great book (although not explicitly about science).

You may find The Selfish Gene by Dawkins worth a read.

Books by Mary Roach can be fun; I've read Stiff and enjoyed it, and Packing for Mars was pretty good as well.

I have heard good things about The Emperor of All Maladies, though I haven't read it myself.

Our Stolen Future, about contamination of the environment by artificially produced estrogen and estrogen analogs, is dated but interesting.

The Discovery of Insulin by Bliss is a great story about how science happens and how scientific discovery occurs, and it lays out what may be the most important discovery in medical science during the 20th century.

Were those types of books what you were looking for?

Not by a Horseman, but during my deconversion I found 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God by Guy P. Harrison to be helpful. Since you've already read The God Delusion and God is Not Great you may not find anything new in it, but for someone wanting a gateway book toward more militant literature, it's a good one. In it the author gently refutes common theistic reasoning. It might be a good one to recommend to budding atheist friends.

As to your question about whether God Delusion is thoroughly critical of religion, I feel that yes, it is--I think Dawkins spends a good deal of time explaining why we should be intolerant of religious thinking.

Just gonna throw this out there - most of me and my wife's shelf breakers came from books or film that wouldn't traditionally be seen as related to mormonism. Our brains were just too wired to sniff that stuff out and reject it even if engaging with it. Instead I'd recommend two of the most powerful books I ever read and obiliterated my testimony without so much as a mention of Mormon history:

The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins - Dawkins has a bit of a reputation as a vocal Atheist so your wife may already be biased. But if not - he is a wonderful writer, capable of relaying complex scientific principles in easy-to-understand layman's terms. So clear and levelheaded, it's essentially impossible to read this book and not have a minor stroke from the cognitive dissonance it throws on every concept of a divine creator that's ever existed.

Varieties of Scientific Experience by Carl Sagan - Carl Sagan was the original 'make science cool and accessible' superstar and in my mind he still hasn't been topped. This book is a supremely entertaining, mind expanding and FAIR mediation on science and belief from one of our generations greatest thinkers.

Hope this helps (cause reading mormon history books if she isn't ready sure as hell won't)

Some here will disagree, yet I think your cause is a noble one.

My suggestion would be to keep encouraging her to be a freethinker, question everything, and learn all she can about science. If she can be at a point where she understands that "science is more than a body of knowledge, it is a way of thinking" (Carl Sagan), if she can fall in love with the wonders of the creation of the universe and the evolution of life on this world, then you'll be done, as those things will show any thinking person the absurdity of religion as a moral compass.

If she likes to read, here are some books you might consider getting for her:

• The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. An amazing argument for the use the scientific way of thinking in every aspect of our lives.
  
  
• A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. How math and science can fully explain the creation of the universe, and a powerful argument against the universe needing a creator.
  
  
• The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. The subtitle is The Evidence for Evolution. Meant as a book for readers your sister's age. Big plus is that if she likes it, she may want to read The God Delusion and/or The Magic of Reality.
  
  Edit: grammar

Why Evolution is True. Originally started as a book I had to read for class, but it turned out to be pretty interesting. The only downside is there's a kind of subtle militant atheism to it. I'm an atheist myself, but in the book, there's kind of a "This is right and Special Creation is stupid." Granted, it could be the author holding special creationism to the same standard evolution endures. He never blatantly attacks any particular religion. Pretty cheap on Amazon if anyone is interested. It's kind of a light read.

Next, I'll be reading Your Inner Fish. Looking forward to that one.

Hey, I just want you to know that if it's just a hobby you are looking at a ton of information to process. What you are refering to is called taxonomy, You can check out Zoology books that are meant for the university, I think it's quite friendly to people who haven't had that much biology before, but some knowledge is adviced. Check out "integrated principles of zoology" by McGraw Hill.
http://www.amazon.com/Integrated-Principles-Zoology-Cleveland-Hickman/dp/0073524212

If you want popular science I can recommend:
1- A very easy and straightforward approach to evolution is "Why Evolution is true" by Jerry A Coyne. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649

2- Richard Dawkins has a book that is dedicated to the evolution of humans, it's called "The ancestors tale" http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17977.The_Ancestor_s_Tale (I haven't read it, but I'm told it's very good). A lot of people don't like him, I think he can be a bit obnoxious and unapologetic in religious debates, but if you are interested in evolution you should be able to filter past that.

Happy reading!

If you can't tell her yourself, let Neil Shubin do it in one of my favorite books, Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. This book talks about said "missing links" and about Tiktaalik, the missing link between fish and amphibians. He talks about the genetic similarities between every living vertebrate, but explained very well for scientists, but also put very simply for people who don't fully understand all the terminology. He talks about fossils, and he talks about his own personal experience and makes it a very fun read. He also talks about experiments that have been done to stop genes from expressing or forcing them to express to see what will happen as a result, and have even gone as far as to take genes from chickens and replace them with shark counterparts to see the results. Very surprising, very interesting, and most certainly an extremely worth-while read, especially for a creationist.

Also, I simply don't understand how she could be studying micro and/or medicine and deny evolution when evolution is the basis of micro. Ask her what she thinks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) which is essentially staphylococci which have adapted as a response to antibiotics to become resistant to antibiotic treatments. Ask her what she thinks of the AIDS virus (or any retro-virus at that) and why we can't cure it. Or ask her why there is no cure for the flu, and why vaccines for the flu only work for the strain that effects us that year. Ask her what a strain is, if it's not an evolved or adapted form of a different strain. Ask her where H1N1 (swine flu) came from and what is the difference between H1N5 (bird flu).

You can literally observe mutation and evolution over only a few generations in micro. Viruses in particular, and since they replicate so fast and so frequently and in such great numbers, the chances of mutation increases, and a bunch of mutations increase the chance of one of them being viable and successful. AIDS mutates so quickly that it changes entirely throughout your body before anything can be created to cure it.

I saw another commenter linked to talkorigins.org. Check that it, it is an invaluable resource.

• Why Evolution is True is said to be the "best" layperson-oriented book available on the topic. I haven't read it because I learned this stuff in High School 40 years ago, so this is one of my few recommendations not based on my own reading.
  
• I bought The Magic of Reality for my mother and read it out of interest. It's extremely well written, in a warm friendly tone, with lots of pretty pictures and great explanations. It's aimed at kids as young as 12, but it's not condescending or down-talking at all. Very enjoyable for a factual book on science - recommended!
  
• As a Christian, you may be interested in this book written by Christian biologist Ken Miller: Finding Darwin's God. Can't accuse this guy of being biased against God! Also a great explainer, considered a classic. It's not 100% up to date but most of the information remains valid.

> and that means it is the end of the discussion is vapid

No one said that is the end of the discussion. They said it answers the question asked.

> short sighted, and lacks serious contemplation of the issue

Again simply asserted and not argued for.

> On top of all of that, it is overly simplistic.

No its not. In fact, though I doubt you've ever seriously studied evolutionary theory, it is quite complicated.

> In other words, saying we do what we do because of evolution presupposes and begs so many answers and questions that it is often times not a respectable or acceptable answer for those seeking greater understanding...

I don't think you have any idea at all about which questions and or answers are presupposed by explaining any of this in terms of evolutionary theory. A few specific (non-metaphorical) examples would be nice.

Again, you need to be careful: No one is saying everything we do makes sense in direct evolutionary terms. Skydiving doesn't seem to make any sense in evolutionary terms. But excitement, adventure, and thrill seeking do.

> For instance, if I order a pizza and want to know where it came from, Pizza Hut, while a valid answer doesn't address the greater(possible) context.

Answering "pizza hut" answers the question you asked. If you would like to know more, you must ask different, better questions. You didn't ask "where does the dough in my pizza come from?" you asked "where did my pizza come from?". This is not lazy, unimaginative, or vapid, it is accurate to the question asked. If you have a better, more specific question, there are other answers that make perfect sense in terms of pizza hut.

> While some of the questions to which I ask may never be known, to assert them as unimportant or lacking in value shows a bias and a personal prejudice that could very well lead to ignorance.

First, this doesn't follow. Just wanted to call your attention to that. Examining a question to discover that it doesn't really mean anything requires some of the most careful thinking humans do, and no-one could properly show that a question doesn't have value without first understanding what that value or meaning seems to be. And no, doing this does not engender any kind of bias or prejudice, in fact quite the opposite, it requires complete, accurate understanding.

"What is the color of envy?" Certainly green. But wait, that question doesn't make any sense. Emotions don't have colors. The question "why have we culturally associated negative emotions with colors which in certain constituents (vomit, rot, defication) trigger disgust?" is a much better, more meaningful question. But envy doesn't actually have a color, it is an emotion.

Second, nice straw-man. I suspect you're carrying baggage over from previous conversations.

> While I am not directing this at any person here, I am saying that I've seen many atheists lack either the willingness or comprehension skills necessary to consider other arguments/evaluate their own.

Ah yes, baggage definitely carried over from previous conversations. Never mind that this assertion, completely out of left field, shows a pretty gross generalization, I doubt you look any more intellectually capable or willing to them.

> Simply put, claiming that the reason for us being here is because evolution "just is" blindly assumes too much.

Like what? Again, I don't think you have even the slightest idea.

> After all there is no proof of this such a position, and even more so then that, there are good possible arguments to be made to the very contrary.

Oh lordy here it comes.

Read a book. Seriously prove yourself to be not a hypocrite and go buy those two books right now. And read them in full, charitably, even if you're not a creationist.

> Regardless my main point is simply this, many people(atheists) who argue for evolution as an answer worthy of general acceptance within humanity (for our be all end all origins of existence) have given up on the serious consideration of other alternatives

Yes, because the alternatives have been so thoroughly trounced, debunked, and defeated which evolution has been so thoroughly explanatory, consistent, and supported.

> as such are generally not interested in a fruitful discussion but merely want to espouse their dogmatic world view.

"Fruitful discussion" isn't just discussion which includes totally erroneous, impossible things. Upon your asking about where your pizza came from, my suggesting that we pay serious attention to my hypothesis that it was pooped out exactly as is by a superhero I call Pizza Man three minutes ago would not be a means to fruitful discussion. Having a diverse discussion isn't having a fruitful one. A fruitful discussion proceeds toward truth, it doesn't include as many possibilities as possible for their own sake.

> It's a completely different thing to say that since evolution created us we should just believe that is the totality of our origins.

Again, the stench of baggage here is heavy. First, if evolution created us, evolution created us, that is the totality of our origins. The question you're trying desperately to beg includes evolution creating us by the hand of a sky wizard. If that were the case, it wouldn't be evolution creating us. It would be evolution and a sky wizard. No evidence of the sky wizard, no reason to think he created us through evolution. No reason to think he didn't either, but in order to think he did (and that's what were worried about, if he did), ya need evidence.

And again with the straw-man. No one is saying that since we understand our evolutionary origins necessarily and sufficiently, we must now never consider any further possibility or amendment at all, ever. Quite the opposite, science is constantly doing it's best to discover that evolution is wrong- this is part of the scientific method. It doesn't seem to be able to do a very good job to that end (indeed more and more support keeps showing up), and that's why we take evolution so seriously.

We we don't do is give every random suggestion or hypothesis automatic credence as equally likely to be true just because some guy thought of it. You must have evidence that your hypothesis is true, or it is tentatively, parsimoniously considered not true (not 'false' mind you, 'not true'- as in lacking established truth value).

Had the same problem (although, I went to Christian boarding school, not home schooled).

Learning about evolution and why we know it is true taught me a lot about the scientific method and epistemology - that there are things we can /really/ know and not just believe them because of our "gut" or because someone told us.

A couple videos that helped on my journey:

Our Origins Made Easy : The scientific method and the need for evidence is especially well presented.

Foundational Falsehoods of Creation

There are many good books on the subject also ("The greatest show on earth" by Richard Dawkins).

You will be amazed.

​

Edit: Start with the videos. As you get the basics, move on to talkorigins, books, and other things - your interest will fuel the search. The biggest thing you will gain is that 'how to think' is more important than 'what to think'. It's one thing to take someone's word for it that evolution is true. It is completely different to learn why it is true. This will change the way you think about many things.

Finding Darwin's God is an introduction to evolution by a Christian scientist. It's a great option.

Richard Dawkins is also very good. He's a militant atheist, but his writings on evolution are wonderful, clear, and beautiful. The Selfish Gene or The Greatest Show on Earth are both very good options.

On evolution:

I urge you to read some books on the issue that aren't written with a fundamentalist Christian slant. The science is decisive, and the distinction between "macro" and "micro" is itself a religious confusion. (as others have already pointed out).

On the Big Bang: The biggest problem with the Big Bang is that we don't know how it happened. That is a problem, and scientists are working obsessively to solve it. But saying "God did it" buys you a whole host of new problems. How did God happen? Who created God? Why did he create the universe? You haven't answered anything by saying "God did it": you've just kicked the can down the road and added an additional unfalsifiable and unsupported assumption.

Also, the evidence for the Big Bang is all around you: look up background microwave radiation,distribution and evolution of galaxies, the abundance of light elements, and the expansion of space.

On the supernatural:

Any thinking that starts with "Do you think it's possible that..." is a HUGE RED FLAG. Almost anything is possible, but usually the sort of logic that must be defended with a "Well, it's possible..." is absurdly improbable. This is a good example. Yeah, it's possible that an entire other world could be layered on our own - but it's more improbable than winning the lottery, and I don't buy lottery tickets.

If I had to explain the fundamental difference between the way I think about the spiritual and the way you think about the spiritual, it would be this. You ask "Is it possible that..." and "Do you think that maybe..."

I ask "Is there empirical support for..." and "Does the evidence support the assertion that..."

As for the hope that human consciousness continues on....

Nope. This is it. That sucks, and I'm sorry. It's among the hardest pills to swallow about being an atheist - but it's true whether you believe it or not.

>>Finally! do you have any good book recommendations? Again, thanks!

Ooh goody, I always love it when people ask for book recommendations. :)

Here's just the tip of the iceberg:

• The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan
  
  
• Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne
  
  
• The Skeptic's Annotated Bible by Steve Wells
  
  
• Why There Is No God by Armin Navabi
  
  
• Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman
  
  
• The God Argument by A.C. Grayling
  
  
• Deconverted: A Journey from Religion to Reason by Seth Andrews
  
  Get through these books, and you'll be better armed against Christianity than many. Have fun!
  
  EDIT: Use the smile.amazon links that the bot posted below if you're going to buy any books. Lol.

> Creating technology is a biological thing.

>My beard example is by definition an adaptation. You adapt to a cold environment by growing your beard.

"Adaptation, in biology, process by which an animal or plant species becomes fitted to its environment; it is the result of natural selection’s acting upon heritable variation."

It is not the relevant definition of adaption though. You are equivocating. Using 1 word but different definitions of it to muddy the waters. Adapting with technology or growing beards is NOT the evolutionary examples you read in here that you dismissed as mere adaption and you damn well know that.

>The entire reason evolution was latched onto was because people wanted a way to explain life without the need for a super natural Creator.

Another lie, the vast majority of Christians accept evolution.

Even within the religion creationism is a minority position. The evidence led to evolution.

>People want to feel like they don’t have to answer to a higher power like God.

Accepting reality has absolutely nothing to do with this.

https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501

A Christian Biologist wrote that. The entire point is that the ToE is compatible with gods and I assume specifically the Christian god.(note: I've never actually read it. [Edit: but I have seen it recommended to people who couldn't reconcile the two]. It wasn't until after I left Christianity and theism altogether that I first discovered people actually rejected the ToE for a literal reading of two contradicting stories in Genesis, so I never had a reason to) On his wikipedia page it lists "Criticism of creationism" as what he's known for.

>You said that there are tons of examples of “missing links.” What are they? As far as I’m aware there are like 2 somewhat viable organisms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

'------------
TL;DR Sorry about the book review. Check out the linked book if you're interested in a rational and well-thought out exploration of the absurd implications of new earth/creationist theories on the nature of God.
'------------

For anyone interested in further reading on this topic, check out the book "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. (www.amazon.com/dp/0061233501/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_9o7szbXJJD182).

The author -- a practicing Catholic -- goes through several popular new earth/creationist theories and summarily dismantles them as being inconsistent with any notions of the Christian God's character. A chapter titled "God the Charlatan" addresses the theory that God created the earth 6,000 years ago and intentionally left behind false evidence (I.e., fossils, carbon dating, light particles from galaxies not yet created but still placed midway between their apparent point of origin and the earth, etc.) solely for the purpose of hiding his role in the creation.

This book became an early shelf item for me when it was assigned as required reading in my Biology 110 class at BYU. Like most TBMs, I "knew" that evolution was nothing more than a theory created by mankind to explain away God, but I had never stopped to think through the ramifications of worshiping such a deceitful God.

The author ultimately comes to a "faithful" conclusion that leaves the door open to the existence of a divine being by applying a "God of the gaps" approach to the apparent unpredictability of sub-atomic particles. Although I can't say I'm ready to endorse his theory, my agnostic-but-not-quite-atheist self can at least acknowledge that it is a lot less crazy of a theory than anything else I've ever heard.

Edit: fixed formatting

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History available on iTunes podcasts as well.

Steven Pinker’s book The Better Angels of our Nature is a fantastic total annihilation of Watchtower’s constant fearmongering about how much violence there is in the world and how it’s only getting worse.

Basically anything by Richard Dawkins is evolutionary biology gold, highly recommend his book The Greatest Show on Earth

Neil deGrasse Tyson recently released a great book Astrophysics for People in a Hurry that gives so many mind-blowing facts about our universe in quick-to-read fashion. His podcast StarTalk Radio is fascinating and fun as well.

Bart D Ehrman is a fantastic biblical scholar, his book Forged examines the Gospel writers and why many are not who the religious believe them to be.

This isn't exactly what you're looking for (it has much more to do with pollination and fertilization than it does germination), but the hammer orchid has a structure that looks like a certain insect. The orchid has evolved a part (the labellum) to look uncannily similar to the female Thynnid wasp (at least to the males). When the male Thynnid wasp tries to copulate with the labellum, the orchid swings the two backward, smashing the wasp against pollen packets, which stick to it. The wasp then flies away and is tricked again by a second orchid. This time, however, the pollen from the first flower enters the stigma of the second and fertilizes it.

I'm just a high school student, so professionals out there please correct me if I'm wrong. I apologize profusely for any errors or misconceptions.

1. Here is the Wikipedia page where I got most of my information.
   
   
2. Here is a Youtube video demonstrating the orchid/wasp interaction and offering some more details.
   
   
3. And here is a link to Richard Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth which devotes a good amount of time to discussing how the hammer orchid evolved and is also a very good book about evolution itself.
   
   Hope this helps!
   
   

That is exactly what I am interested in doing! So since I have spent quite a lot of time thinking about this I believe I can help. As for what to read: I started with Your Inner Fish because it brings human evolution back to when we first got out of the water and explains very, very early brain evolution and development of the brain in utero. Also an easy read. Next I have been tackling "Evolution of the Human Brain" by Lieberman (can't find an amazon link for it, sorry). I'll admit it is not an easy read and it is not impeccably edited but I believe all the facts are there and it is very comprehensive. You can learn a lot from this book. I will also suggest The Brain. Now, I can't speak to the quality of this one because it has just come out, but the guys who wrote it are incredibly smart and I expect nothing but great material from them.

As for schools: you must know now that it really all depends on the person you want to work with. They could be anywhere in the world. I mentioned before, this is my thing, so I can tell you that the schools I have interest in because they have one or more people researching this area are: UC San Diego, George Washington U, possibly NYU if you can tie it into neuroscience and work with the medical center, then there are people abroad as well if that's something you would consider.

Hope that helps.

edit: the book is called "Evolution of the Human Head" not Brain.

I'm not qualified to make a recommendation on basic physics, but here are some of the best examples of science writing I've come across for the other subjects you've listed:

1. Scientific History and Chemistry - The Invention of Air, by Steven Johnson. This book is about Joseph Priestley, and his contribution to the discovery of oxygen. Priestley was incredibly prolific, and made a ton of contributions to completely unrelated fields. It also touches on why science started to really take off at this point in history, and the necessary conditions for good science to occur.
   
   
2. Natural Sciences - Why Evolution Is True. Jerry Coyne takes a college-level biology class on evolution, and condenses it into a single book. It is very easy to understand, even if you don't have a biology background.
   
   
3. Scientific History and Astronomy - The Big Bang by Simon Singh. This is probably the best popular science book I've ever read. A lot of these books will tell you how scientists think the universe works, and stop there. This book is different, it explains the reasons why scientists think the universe is a particular way, and lays out the history of how these ideas changed during the development of astronomy.

>but she still shook her head and explained how she doesn't understand how monkeys just popped up from the big bang.

The same process you used applies here, monkeys didn't just "pop" up, they came from an ancestor. Perhaps a visual like this can help.

> but then she said "What about diseases that are still around, why aren't we at the point where we are immune to everything?

Evolution doesn't 'finish' its an ongoing process. Additionally while some mutations are beneficial and help survival, others just 'come along for the ride' which may ultimately the cause of certain diseases/disorders/etc.

I'm no expert on additional readings, but i did enjoy The Greatest Show on Earth

If he is interested in actually learning about evolution, as opposed to just hearing a a gist of it, which probably won't convince him, there are some excellent books which very clearly state 1) what evolution is 2) the evidence that we have for it 3) why this evidence points to evolution being true.

Your Inner Fish, my favorite.

Why Evolution Is True

The Greatest Show On Earth

Snarky edit: "Show me the evidence"... well, he can always just go to a museum. The evidence is freely available for anyone to look at.

Hi prophetofantman. I am one of the few creationists on this sub. I recommend you post your question to /r/Creation as well. If you message the mods I'm sure you'll be given access.

If you are interested in some more general books on this topic, I can recommend the following:

Three Views on Creation and Evolution.

Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism.

The Cell's Design - Fazale Rana

---------------

Some good Young Earth Creationist books:

Understanding the Pattern of Life - Todd Wood

Thousands, Not Billions, ed. Don DeYoung

Seraphim Hamilton, a young Eastern Orthodox commentator and YEC, wrote a good blog post here.

-----

A good book on theistic evolution is "Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?" by Denis Alexander


-----

A good Old Earth Creationist book is John Lennox's

"The Seven Days Which Divide the World".

You might also be interested in this Christianity Today article
"A Tale of Two Scientists"

This isn't heavily science-y and a bit journalized, but I really enjoyed Stiff: The Curious Life of Human Cadaver's by Mary Roach. I also like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. There's a lot of overlap with what he teaches at his UChicago Eco & Evo course. Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is also wonderful, but will likely make you angry. Yet another interesting read is The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.

> The Bible was still legit

Take some time to learn about the history of the bible. For example, you can take the Open Yale Courses on Religious Studies for free.

Read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman

Also read A History of God by Karen Armstrong

Next, learn some actual science. For example - spoiler alert: evolution is true. Visit Berkeley's excellent Understanding Evolution Website.. Or, if you're pressed for time, watch this cartoon.

Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

Learn about the origin of the universe. For example, you could read works by Stephen Hawking

Read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking

Learn about critical thinking from people like Michael Shermer, and how to spot logical fallacies.

Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne (a professor in biology), and The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins (an evolutionary biologist too) outline the evidence for evolution in a clear and easy to understand way, and explain the basics of evolution as well.

You need to learn the theory of evolution as well and not just the evidence for it. The University of Berkley has a great online Evolution 101 short course that you can view here.

Once you understand evolution and see the evidence we have for it, you'll be able to educate your dad on it in an enthusiastic way, and not in a confrontational one.

Hijacked is too strong a word, but I think two points are notable. First, arguably most of the really popular and notable books on evolution released in the last twenty years were penned by New Atheists proper or by authors who basically fit the New Atheist mold but aren't one of the four specific authors. A big part of the reason for that is simply Richard Dawkins. He's a popular writer and a biologist, so it was almost inevitable that he'd pen books about Darwin and that they'd hit the bestsellers lists. And if it were limited to Dawkins, I'd think nothing of it, but there's Dennett and Shermer, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Harris release one before long. Another part of the reason is that a number of the other books about Darwinian evolution that have sold well in past decades were penned by creationists like Michael Behe, so a certain measure of response is, from my perspective at least, welcome. At that point, it's about market share, and we don't want creationists having too big a piece of the market share. Their point of view is, after all, problematic to say the least. If it weren't for my second point, it wouldn't even be problematic that a) popular books on evolution are basically split between creationists and New Atheists, and b) that New Atheists make up such a large share of that market.

But my second point is this: New Atheists aren't just popularizing or "standing up for" Darwinian evolution; they're attaching a political and ideological agenda to that effort, and that runs several risks, the most obvious being that it can polarize people against evolution, as some commentators have warned it might do in Muslim countries. To my mind, the more insidious risk is that, once you've connected a scientific theory to a political or ideological effort, it becomes all to easy for its patrons to see it in those terms even when it has nothing to do with that effort. Without much noticing it, pro-Darwinians may start seeing barely articulated associations as part and parcel of evolution, until evolution is something more than a scientific model. Dawkins, for example, has turned evolution into a theological disproof with the subtitle of "The Blind Watchmaker". The title of Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters" sums up the achievement of evolutionary theory as a form of polemic against intelligent design theory. Dawkins, at least, is close enough to the professional practice of biology that he probably doesn't need reminding that evolution isn't really about atheism, but all of these guys are writing books for people who don't have the continual reminder of working in the field where evolutionary theory is most functional.

I say none of this in defense of the Guardian article, but I do think there's something to be said for the idea that our society stands to lose by leaving it up to the New Atheists to give evolution its popularly received meaning.

If you want something "religion compatible" you could look at Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller. It's not perfect and has an erroneous section on the arrangement of the optic nerve; but, it's a decent read (I completely skipped the religious apologetics chapters). It should be easily digestible by anyone who vaguely remembers high school biology. I'm not sure it really explains evolution, though - it's been quite a while since I read it.

If he'll be turned off by light scientific jargon and criticism of religion you should definitely steer him clear of Why Evolution is True, as Coyne is pretty hard on religion - I mean, I agree with him but I think it occasionally detracts from an otherwise excellent book by straying a bit from the topic at hand.

If you are interested in a religion friendly review of evolution that is 100% on board with the scientific consensus on evolution, I highly recommend Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution"

He is a devout catholic, molecular biologist, and textbook author. He spends the first half of the book explaining why scientific consensus views evolution as a fact, and why they are right about that. He spends the second half of the book explaining why that shouldn't threaten anyone's belief in God.

I read Dawkins' book on evolution, "The Greatest Show on Earth" and liked it, but I think Miller is actually more convincing and intelligible on the truth of evolution in probably a third of the space. He also has the added benefit of not being an evangelical atheist or a retarded young earth creationist.

I really enjoyed "Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood", which I don't think I've ever seen mentioned here (I only heard about it myself because it was a local author).

It's been a while since I read it, but what I remember enjoying was how the religious beliefs of our earliest geologists influenced their understanding of what they were discovering in the field. The early explorers set out to find evidence for Noah's flood, so it was amusing seeing them trying to wrap their heads around things like finding mammoths in Siberia, that were obviously washed away in the deluge!

I've not read it myself, but I really enjoyed the Your Inner Fish documentary series and have been reading to pick this one up.

I tend to agree with your assessment. In Richard Dawkins book Greatest Show on Earth He talked about a Fox breeding experiment that was attempted. Foxes that show the most affection and acceptance to humans where graded on a scaled of 1-4 or something like that. Foxes that where the most accepting of humans, where subsequently breeded with other foxes of the same trait. What was shown that the offspring carried more of this trait, till eventually several generations in, almost all the offspring where completely accepting of humans, and show no defensive or natural fear of humans.

Another interesting outcome of this experiment, was that the more docile the fox offspring where, the more floppy their ears got. It seems that docileness gene is directly related a gene that determines the rigidity of the ear, in foxes.

There are definatly genes in domesticated dogs that make them more accepting of humans, that's not to say Wolfs cannot be trained to be domesticated, but the acceptance from birth, was the purpouse of this experiment.

Evolutionary Biology is fucking awesome.

I'm late to see your comment, but you may find this interesting:

Coral produces annual rings and daily rings. If you add up the number of daily rings between annual rings, then you can figure out how many days were in that year.

Radioisotope dating showed that some fossilized coral that had been found was about 380 million years old.

Now, 380 million years ago, days were shorter, about 22 hours long. So there were more of them in a year.

To find out whether the day really was 22 hours long when the coral lived, they just counted the rings (or made a grad student do it).

Turns out that there were 400 daily rings between each annual ring, which correlates to 21.9 hours a day.

21.9 is close enough to 22 to feel pretty good about it. A great example of different parts of science coming together to verify each other.

Source: Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne

1. Have I always been an atheist? No, I was raised in protestant christianity.
   
2. If you have not always been an atheist, what were you before and what changed your mind? First? Learning science and realizing that I could prove that the Bible is fallible through independent analysis of reality, rather than depending on what other fallible people told me was true in contradiction to what I can prove to be true. Second? Realizing that not only is the Bible fallible, but that it is massively self-contradictory ... which led to: Third? Discovering conclusively that the Bible is a hodge-podge of mythological tales that have been edited, redacted, and cobbled together numerous times over the last ~28-2900 years to serve the agenda of men ... which led to: Fourth? Discovering that christianity as it is known today didn't exist some 19-2000 years ago, and that what you currently practice has very little in common to what christians in the first century CE practiced and/or believed ... which led to: Fifth? Discovering with an almost perfect certainty that Jesus never existed as a human being, and that the people that lived in the early to middle of the first century CE never believed that he did ... Paul certainly didn't, and he wrote the first books that were later included in the new testament.
   
3. If today, Jesus Christ appeared to you directly and showed you that He exists, would you be willing to follow Him and His teachings for the duration of your life? Why or why not? Why say "Jesus Christ"? This is as likely as saying that the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Xenu might appear in front of me to demand the same thing, and just as ridiculous a hypothetical. So, let me ask you a much more pertinent question:
   
4. What would it take for you to reconsider your faith in christianity? I can reasonably prove that Jesus never existed and is a historicized mythological construct based upon first century mystery religions syncretized with messianic Judaism (read me). I can absolutely prove that the old testament was redacted multiple times based upon the political and religious views of the time of the redaction/edit (read me). I can absolutely prove that the creation myth of Judaism was based in Canaanite mythology and later was syncretized during the Babylonian captivity (i.e., it's bullshit) and that life evolved through natural processes (read me). I can point to thousands of contradictions, impossibilities, and outright lies in your "holy book" which undermine any claims made by any of the Abrahamic religions (which is a funny title, given the absolute certainty that Abraham never existed ... nor did Moses, or any number of other prominent figures in Judeo-Christian historical mythology). I can point to the faith of members of any other religion, note that it's no weaker than the faith you have in your own, and point out that faith alone in the face of reason proves nothing. I mean ... I could go on forever on this subject, but honestly: you're asking us what it would take for us to believe, when in reality the more important question is what it would take for you to stop believing a tall tale simply because someone told you it was true in the face of actual, verifiable reality.
   
   For my part, I'd believe that Santa Claus was real if I could objectively, scientifically, and reliably demonstrate such a claim. I'd believe that Vishnu, Horus, Odin, or Zeus were real for the same reasons. In fact, I can conjure up any number of fanciful scenarios in which strange, supernatural claims could be verified and "believed" by atheists, because that's how we operate: we believe in reality, however strange it may be. Just because such a fanciful scenario can be imagined, however, doesn't give that scenario any sort of validity. Your claims are as baseless as someone that wants me to believe they have an invisible and undetectable dragon in their garage that will burn my invisible and undetectable spirit FOR ETERNITY if I don't fork over 10% of my income and obey their every incomprehensible and often immoral edict. So put yourself in the position that you so "cleverly" thought you'd put us in: what would change your mind?
   
   Oh, wait ... you don't even want to question your "faith"? That's what I thought.
   
   edit: Watch this, pause, and reflect on your beliefs.

I know you did not say it. It was the link you posted that said it.

What you did say was that if you did not have someone singing then were simply doing it wrong. Which sounds very much like a fact, but is in fact a statement which is very objective. But you forgot to mention that it was your personal opinion.

But I am certain a lot of people has had a very profound and pleasant experience drinking ayahuasca without any shaman songs or songs of any kind around.

What triggers me is this elitist bullshit "well you know.. that's not how the shamans do it..."

The proper way of doing it? What does that even mean? Proper according to who? If someone did it first, then they have the copyright on how do ingest something? That's a great way to never find a better way of doing something.

And they know exactly what they are doing? So in their mind all they do is set the mood with some songs? They don't call out the good spirits and keep the bad ones at bay? In my mind there might be some contradictions going on there, but what do I know? I am uneducated on the subject.

While we are on the topic of books, here are some great ones.

I'll stick to recommending science communication books (those that don't require a deep background on biological concepts):

• On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection - Charles Darwin, bonus points if you can get a 1st edition reprint (before his colleagues made him change a lot of important things); it is a must-read but it might need quite some time to truly understand it, it is a heavy read.
  
  
• A lot of people recommend the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins but that one is one of his most controversial books and if you decide to read it, you should take everything with a pinch of salt; for Dawkins I prefer to recommend the Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution and the Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. Just beware of Dawkins, he's a little dogmatic in his approach.
  
  
• The Dialectical Biologist - Richard Levins & Richard Lewontin.
  
  
• The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Thomas Kuhn, this one will change forever your conception of science as a whole.
  
  
• The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature - Matt Ridley.
  
  
• Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, and the Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History - Stephen J. Gould.
  
  
• The Ghosts of Evolution: Non-sensical Fruit, Missing Partners, and Other Ecological Anachronisms - Connie Barlow.
  
  
• Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? - Frans de Waal, this one is about animal cognition but has an incredible underline of all the deficiencies and prejudges on science.
  
  
• Microbe Hunters - Paul de Kruif.
  
  
• Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution, and What is Life? - Lynn Margulis.
  
  
• The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan.
  
  
• A Short Story of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson.
  
  ---
  
  For books that everyone studying biology ends up reading, my candidate would be Lehninger's Principles of Biochemistry, by Nelson & Cox but that's a textbook.

Why Evolution is True -Great intro to evolution

The Blind Watchmaker- Dawkins' best introduction to evolution book. If it intrigues you have a look at his other works.

Definitely watch this. One of the best and most simple lecture series on Evolution. By none other than Dawkins himself. Very basic in presentation and entertaining series:
Growing up in the Universe

Why dont you take a university class on Evolution? Or just take a bio 101 class which is going to teach evolution briefly in 1-2 lectures.

I just stumbled upon this course. Which is a evolution course at Yale Open Courses that you might want to check out:
http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/

If I may make a suggestion? Ask her to read 50 Reason People Give for Believing in a God. I'm currently reading it to see how well it's arguments are presented compared to The God Delusion. I wanted to find a book to give to my "devout" Catholic wife to read, but I found God Delusion to be too confrontational and condescending (at least to a faithhead's point of view). 50 Reasons is written in a much more understanding and placating tone, and so has a much better chance of sparking doubt than any other piece of atheist literature that I've read so far.

I used sarcasm quotes for "devout" because even though my wife considers herself Catholic, she holds many social values that go completely against the church's official doctrine. She supports gay marriage, safe sex before marriage, and the use of condoms. She knows that she is married to an Atheist, and she's ok with that- even though if the church found out about that she would be excommunicated.
All she needs is a spark of doubt, and I can open her eyes to reason and she'll see that holding on to her faith is a vice, not a virtue- 50 Reasons, I hope, will be an eye-opening read for her.

Hello there,

As an evolutionary biologist, I'd like to extend to you a list of beginner-friendly books regarding evolutionary biology. The first I'd recommend is The Blind Watchmaker . I bring this one up first because the complexity of life astonishes you. Although life is truly complex, this can be explained by diversity-generating processes (e.g. mutation) coupled with non-random replicative success (natural selection). I also understand Dawkins is an acquired taste, personality/TV wise. His science writing is more palatable.

The second book I'd recommend is Why Evolution is True . This book succinctly covers the basics of evolution and gives notable examples.

The last book I'd recommend is a bit nerdy and mathy, but it is a good intro into evolution and genetics. That book is A Primer of Population Genetics (if you do buy it, but it used).

If you really want to nerd out, there are open source (free to read) journals online. One is Ecology and Evolution . This journal is more niche; the other is PLoS ONE which is more general. The provided link will direct you to papers binned under 'evolution'.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

Most of the books that people are recommending on here are great, especially Jerry Coyne's. If you're going to read Dawkins, his best for explaining the basics of evolution is Greatest Show on Earth. If you want to read a book by a devout Christian who does an outstanding job of explaining evolution, then explains how he reconciles his understanding of evolution with his religious beliefs, try Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller. Good luck on your search, and I salute your hunger for knowledge!

I would highly recommend Bill Nye's new book, "Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation." I don't know if you watched Bill Nye growing up but he is extremely smart and relatable.. just an all around great guy.

http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420471445&sr=8-1&keywords=bill+nye

In this book he explains why what science has to say about our understanding of where we came from is so critically important to our place in the world, and also just why hostile attitudes against these facts are very dangerous. Welcome to our subreddit! Come by often, you are always welcome :)

OK, folks may call me a nut, but you might want to try Evolution by Loxton. It's for younger readers, but you could literally jumpstart yourself in an hour.

Then, read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne as well as The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins.

Honorable mention goes to Dawkins' An Ancestor's Tale.

Kind of a combination of things - but in general the age old adage "if it ain't, broke don't fix it" applies here.

See about 500 million years ago the basic body plan for tetrapods was decided upon. From this basic body plan very few modifications have been made. For whatever reason four limbs, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, two kidneys, two lungs, two ovaries/testes, but one heart and one liver worked for it so it works for us.

Its not just humans that have these basic structures - birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and other mammals all have this basic body plan. Yes some have lost their limbs - like snakes, and others have lost an ovary - like birds...but underlying it all is that same basic blueprint. You may be interested in the book your inner fish.

I'm sorry to say it, but your arguments are based on ignorance. Please take physics/biology/chemistry classes. Anyway (I'm going to quote you, because there are multiple questions per point):


> the big bang theory. as it states, it is a theory, yet people take it as truth.

Yes, and with reason. There is scientific evidence for the big-bang theory. Please note that 'theory' and 'theory' are two completely different words.


> In no way has it explained how, from "nothingness" became everything.

No it hasn't. Does your god explain it? I don't think so. And although science can't explain what exactly causes nothing to be something, we do observe it. Remember: the total energy of the universe is zero.


> if a big bang really did occurr, why is the matter in the universe clumpy, not evenly distributed?

Matter pulls matter together. Please take a physics class or read this.


>why haven't the laws kept on evolving?

Why should it?


> no-one has ever been able to produce heavier elements,

Of course we have. Please see the periodic table.


> to make the heavier elements you need incredible heat and pressure(stars) but to make the stars you need heavier elements.

No, stars are made up of Hydrogen which fuses into Helium. You don't need heavy elements to form stars. As a matter of fact, stars only form when light elements gather. When stars die, heavier elements form. These explosions are called supernovas.


> nobody has any idea how you would create a star, not even the slightest.

Again, ignorance. See this page.


> if it were any older, it would have been so close to almost touch the earth.

Sunday school fairy tales. The moon moves away from us with a speed of 3.8 cm a year and is positioned 363,345 km (minimum) from us. Thus, it could be 10 billion years old. And no, we're not sure how the moon formed, current theories seem very unlikely. Anyway, this isn't a reason to believe in a genocidal deity.


> jupiter has moons that rotate both ways, right-hand and left-hand. nobody has any idea why is it like that.

Evidence, please.


> life started from nonorganic materials and somehow became living. no-one has ever observed this happen, neither have they ever been able to reproduce the aminoacids(building blocks of life) needed to build life in a laboratory.

That has nothing to do with evolution. Next.


> species start having offspring that are not like the parents. have you ever seen a dog produce a non-dog? sure there are different dogs, but in the end they are dogs. it has never been observed that birds start suddenly hatching lizards.

You're trolling, right? Please, read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.

Oh, and btw; I'm sorry for my fellow-atheists are calling you names. Please, not all of us are like that.

Oh boy, great questions but the answers can be really long and (again) belong under science moreso than philosophy. I think I'll link some resources and you can read at your leisure.

• The ID page on Wikipedia, particularly the Criticism and Kitzmiller Trial sections.
  
• TalkOrigins.org Index of Creationist Claims, with responses of course.
  
• TalkOrigins.org Evidences for Macroevolution.
  
• Why Evolution Is True (book) by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, and his website of the same name.
  
• The Greatest Show on Earth (book) by Richard Dawkins. It's all biology, unlike "The God Delusion".
  
• Your Inner Fish (book) by evo-biologist Neil Shubin, and this excellent talk by him.
  
• Science blogs like Sandwalk and Pharyngula can have great info (warning, the latter is very hostile to religion, but I've linked just the evolution articles).
  
  TL;DR - Biologists document lots of awkward features that develop in a tedious or haphazard manner that no sane designer would ever bother, plus we're missing tons of obvious features that any competent designer would probably include (hello, drowning sucks, gills would be nice). And their work is strongly supported by genetics and its underlying chemistry.

Many things can be explained better with evolution. Evolution is a theory, in the scientific sense, and that means it's veracity is tested by current and emerging evidence. If it didn't have the explanatory power for most of the evidence then it wouldn't be so popular. So it certainly doesn't explain everything, it just explains the data we have so far. There are countless things we simply don't know yet.

If you're open to understanding the core aspects of Evolution, please read:

Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Why Evolution Is True

As for freewill, it depends on the atheist. Some believe in free will, while others don't think we actually posses it.

Biologists virtually all agree that life on this planet has evolved over a period of about 3.7 billion years and that humans and modern fish share a fish-like ancestor (and a single-celled ancestor, for that matter). They have reached these conclusions because they're the best explanations for the evidence we see in the fossil record and in our DNA, among other things. Creationists deny these conclusions because they're not very well-informed or because they're unwilling to let go of a Genesis-based explanation for the existence of life on this planet.

I'm not trying to bash you; it sounds like you have an open mind and that's good. But the "battle" you describe isn't really a meaningful one. The people who know the most about this sort of thing consider the question settled.

I'd encourage you to read up on the subject if you're curious. Richard Dawkins recently released a book full of evidence for evolution. And although I don't recommend it as wholeheartedly, Finding Darwin's God was written by a Christian for Christians to make the case for evolution.

First, I'd start with PBS's Nova and their fantastic documentary on the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School in which Michael Behe was a prominent witness for the Defense. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Behe's claims are destroyed by Kenneth Miller (a biology professor, Catholic, and outspoken critic of Creationism): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller and he even wrote a book about it: http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669/ref=lp_B001JSEEXQ_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1335384565&sr=1-5

Next, read Judge Jones' final ruling which covers why Behe's claims are NOT science and clearly support a "Creationist" agenda to influence public education under the support and guidance of The Discovery Institute. This case is a fantastic primer for folks interested in a condensed lesson on evolution vs creationism.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Enjoy!

If you find you like reading Dawkins ... and you're curious to read some awesome layman biology I would also recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" - Richard Dawkins.

It is mind blowing. I had no idea how really developed and nuanced the evidences for biological evolution are. And how misunderstood it is by the general public. Great book!

You said in another comment below that others were treating you as a troll or an idiot. I don't think that's necessarily the case: many of us are just trying to present the facts, and may be a little bit frustrated due to how YECs typically react. For example, my earlier comment about how creation science does not count as science, and how Geocentrism is incorrect, I did not set out to treat you like an idiot (and if I did, I'm sorry). I did treat you as ignorant, which isn't as bad as it sounds. I'm ignorant to a lot of things. Everyone is. But I love to learn, because I love to expand my knowledge.

Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity can't. We encounter wilful ignorance a lot, and it gets very frustrating, so that colours what we say.

If you're genuine about your desire to learn more, I'll drop some suggestions for further inquiry. Some of the language may be abrasive, but please keep an open, skeptical mind:

• AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, a 17-video series just shy of 3 hours in total.
  
• potholer54's Our Origins Made Easy, 14 videos, about two hours. Includes the history of the universe, origin of life, the age of our world, natural selection, human evolution, and more.
  
• AndromedasWake's Creationist Astronomy Propaganda Debunked, just over an hour.
  
• Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing
  
  I'll give you fair warning on this next one: it may have a profound effect on you. At the very least, it will help you understand our philosophical position better as atheists.
  
  
• Evid3nc3's Why I Am No Longer A Christian, 22 videos, 3 hours and 45 minutes. Describes his journey from an evangelical Christian to atheist.
  
  For reading:
  
  
• Jerry Coyne: Why Evolution is True
  
• Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True
  
  Hopefully that gets you started.

If the (in)compatibility of science and religion interests you, I recommend following the following blogs:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/

http://choiceindying.com/

The problem is not evolution itself, so much as it is Adam and the fall. The nature of the fall of man is crucial for Christianity to be in any sense true.

For a decent intro from the Christian perspective, see the June 2011 cover story of Christianity Today.

In the past year, professors have been fired from Christian universities for just bringing this controversy up.

Science is caustic to Christianity. It's not really caustic to deism. For this reason I am an agnostic atheist. I'm pretty sure that YHWH and other proposed theistic Gods are non-existant, but whether a deist god exists is unknowable at this point.

If you want to know why I'm not a Christian anymore (I left the faith after 20+ years), the best overview is 50 Reasons People Give For Believing in a God. Many similar thoughts come from a Bishop in Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

Did you know that the sidebar contains a link to recommended reading? https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/recommended/reading There are a couple of good Bertrand Russell books listed there, though the titles are a bit obvious. Nevertheless, they're easy to read (Russell was the recipient of the 1950 Nobel Prize for Literature).

​

You didn't state anything about creationism vs. evolution; Nathan Lents' Human Errors pretty much demolishes any idea about so-called "intelligent design". Adam Rutherford's A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived is another one. Both are available via Amazon Prime Reading.

​

As far as MAGA, etc., there are the classic "George Orwell" (pseudonym for Eric Arthur Blair) books 1984 and Animal Farm. A combined volume is also available on Amazon Prime Reading.

​

A. C. Grayling has a number of books: some with obvious titles, some not so obvious.

​

You can also find a plethora of books on critical thinking, which isn't directly related to religion or politics, but which can lead people away from blind allegiance to religious dogma and political rhetoric. A good easy-to-read classic is Schick and Vaughn's How to Think About Weird Things, but it can be pricey unless you can find a used edition or older edition in good condition. [And you could underline passages and annotate them with the word THINK :-)] A similar sounding, less expensive but lighter-on-principles book is Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things.

​

Addendum:

>Google is of no help, it mostly suggests pro-Christian books (and the big names like Harris/Dawkins/Nietzsche).

You need to train Google: start with https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=critical+thinking and https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=debunking+christianity (Andrew Seidel's The Founding Myth should show up there) and https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=humanism. Follow lots of relevant links, and after a while Goggle will start showing more relevant suggestions.

Of the four, I'd probably recommend Harris. Given the freedom, I wouldn't recommend any of them if you're trying to expand a theist's mind.

Suggestion 1 from me is Guy Harrison's "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God". He goes through the 50 most common reasons people gave him when he asked, and explained why an average skeptic/atheist doesn't find those reasons compelling.

Suggestion 2 is probably a volume on naturalism (for example "Encountering Naturalism" or Carrier's "Sense and Goodness Without God"). Firmly establishing a coherent, complete worldview that doesn't require gods can be a valuable step.

Coyne's book is fine for a quick read, but I think the best recent overview is Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. If you're looking more for philosophy than biology, Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life is an excellent read even if it is 15 years old now.

Generally speaking, when portions of a species live apart long enough, through genetic drift alone, they become different. Leave them apart long enough and they become incompatible, which then creates a new species. There are absolutely some exceptions to this, but that's largely where the line is drawn.

Look at humans. We came out of Africa dark-skinned, but through subtle changes became Caucasoid and Mongoloid as well. Given hundreds of thousands or millions of years of isolation, these very well could've produced three distinct species of human, but because none of these populations were isolated - and we can now go around the world quickly - humans can never really become a new species despite how diverse we've become.

Think of language. Settlers came to what is now the British Isles with French and German and the result is modern British English. Twist it a bit further, isolate it, and you get American English and subsets like Ebonics. French and German are derived from their own sources as well.

If you'd love to know more, check out Jerry Coyne's excellent book "Why Evolution Is True". http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649

The study of the origin of life is an ongoing process in the scientific community. A reddit comment is hardly the place to summarize an entire area of ongoing scientific study and research.

If you'd like to know more, wikipedia has a page on it which delves into the many competing and conjoining theories on the origin of life as we best understand it now.

There's also the Miller-Urey experiment concerning the so-called primordial soup specifically. That established the kind of conditions in which simpler organic compounds form more complex ones, and how that relates to early earth conditions. It's all really interesting to read about.

Also that's different than evolution. And if we're having an argument as to whether evolution is a real thing, I don't even know where to begin with that. The evidence for it, available from a wide variety of sources, is so voluminous that anyone wanting to seriously learn about the scientific study of the evolution of life can find an abundance of literature discussing evolution of creatures both small and large. Richard Dawkins discusses much of what that is in his book The Greatest Show on Earth.

If you'd like a source from a less controversial figure, Prof Jeffrey Coyne (an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago) has a good book: Why Evolution is True.

Natural selection is not defined as "survival of the fittest," that's just a colloquialism to help people understand the basic idea. The basic idea is that there is some process by which organisms who are more fit than others will reproduce more often, outcompeting those who are less fit. Natural selection is simply the mechanism that takes genetic mutation and environmental conditions and outputs organisms that succeed. It also outputs organisms that don't, hence the idea of 'out competing.'

I'm on mobile, so here's an ugly link to a good definition and high level overview:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

The phrase "survival of the fittest" reduces the idea down by trimming away the details to make a nice, intuitive catch phrase. However, that loss of information does lead people to misunderstand what natural selection really is.

As for your link, I'll respond with one of my own, if you're interested. I'm not an expert and don't keep the details of evolution handy. The book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne goes into great detail about why the Theory of Evolution does make predictions and that those predictions are testable and verifiable. That will suffice as my rebuttal to Dr. Henry Peters' forced "tautology." After all, wouldn't you rather hear it from an expert than some internet stranger?

There are plenty of other books like Dr. Coyne's that would do just as well, however. I was able to check out his book for free at my local library, but here is the Amazon link ($14), so you have the details:

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649

You should pick up a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, by Richard Dawkins. The chapter where Dawkins talks about dogs should help you understand better so that you can easily explain to your friend in terms he can understand.

This is referring back to:
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

I do not believe I was created; therefore, I find the evolutionary progress of all life astounding. Instead of thinking that god put animals here for my amusement or consumption, I take the time to appreciate life’s ability to survive the ages.

You should read this book: Your Inner Fish!

"Science Fiction" is a pretty big umbrella -- The Giver is actually sci-fi, if it's the first one in the search results! Doesn't have to be all spaceships and technology to qualify. You might find The Electric Church interesting; the blurb doesn't really do it justice.

Easy reads, hmm. Dragonsong is very readable as straight fantasy, and if you like it there're a lot of books in the series. You might like Pollotta's Bureau 13 series; light, fast-paced action adventure with supernatural and magic elements. Or Elrod's Vampire Files -- the adventures of an undead detective in the thirties.

For straight action-mysteries, I'm going to suggest Travis McGee because one, I love it, and two, it gets progressively more difficult as you go through the series. You could also try Rex Stout.

For non-fiction, Why People Believe Weird Things.

As far as developing reading as a hobby, well, I think the key is to be as eclectic as possible. Read a book. Read a book by an author who has a blurb on the cover of the first book. Read a book you see linked to at the bottom of the page on the second author's book's Amazon page. Hit used bookstores and spend $10 on a bunch of books out of the quarter pile. The only rule is "you don't have to finish it, but at least try it".

At least that's how I grew my collection into what it is today.

(Edit to fix a link and add one)

Here, read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/067001883X

The author is a devout Roman Catholic and evolutionary biologist who addresses claims made by various creationist and intelligent design advocates, including the claim that adapatation =/= evolution. It's a well written book, and includes a section on why evolution does not deny us our humanity or our unique place in the universe.

I think you'd appreciate it. You're wrong about splitting hairs over adaptation and evolution, as adaptations are simply the driving force behind evolution, but this book would help with that!

Regarding the 'finches': yes, they had adapted to have different beak shapes on different islands. Island populations are a classic case of evolution in action. These birds are, in fact, classified as different species, and their genetic similarity arose from a common ancestor.

What is your proposed alternative to evolution? If it's a supernatural power of some sort, why would that supernatural power go to so much trouble to make everything look like it occurred by evolution?

Big Bang Theory and Evolution are not really related, so I don't think you'll find a book with both, but, to answer your question:

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins is a great book on evolution.


EDIT: You wated the Kindle version KINDLE VERSION

Here's my story: http://personman.com/religious-autobiography

And my favorite book on the subject so far: http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Give-Believing-God/dp/1591025672

Good luck and please feel free to contact me.