(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best creationism books

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.

> That's really implausible. What makes you think any of it is true?

That's a great question! I believe in Christianity for reasons including personal experience, the lack of cogent arguments against it (an area I've studied for some time, and that's not meant as a challenge against you or anything, though I'm happy to answer your questions and objections), the historicity of the Biblical documents (archeologically, especially those of the New Testament and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Nazareth), the remarkable ability of theism to best explain a wide range of the data in human experience (such as the possibility of our having reliable cognitive faculties and their deliverances, the beginning of the universe, the existence of objective moral values and duties, the "fine tuning" of the initial conditions of the universe for the development of intelligent life and our exorbitant means of observing the world around us, the fact of widespread religious experience, the implausibility of the development of conscious agents from inorganic matter, the irreducibly of certain instantiations of biological complexity to any naturalistic incremental evolutionary mechanism, the existence of regularity and a bias in nature towards simplicity and aesthetic features (which I am happy to elaborate on), the possibility of change (the actualization of potentials and the nature of hierarchical causal series), and a great deal more that space does not permit me to detail).

> It's also a very anthropocentric way of looking at the universe, which has been around billions of years longer than we have.

I don't think so; rather, I think it is a very God-centric way of looking at the universe. I don't believe we were the entire reason God created the universe, and I do believe that it exists for His glory.

> You're suggesting that God created the universe so that we would come into existence on one planet in it,

No, the creation of the cosmos was not entirely done just so that human beings would wind up in it--that would make it a rather inefficient means of creating us. Rather, God has no shortage of paint, and He exercised His creative power here for a lot more than just humans. Luckily for us, we get to be a part of it and observe the living painting He made and praise Him for it.

> for a tiny fraction of the time, so he could save us from punishments he devised?

This is a caricature of Christian theology. God didn't create everything just so He could "save us from punishments he devised". I commend you to read the Gospels and C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity for a better understanding of the Christian system of thought, because the understanding you've presented is in fact confused in many ways.

God created mankind not so that we could be punished, but rather so that we could participate in the wonderful thing that is life and bring glory to Him by living for Him and enjoying Him and His creation. However, we rebelled and continue to rebel against Him and this purpose and bring evil into the world each and every day--perversions to His creation. It is this evil that warrants punishment, punishment which God has done everything in His power to try and save us from by living a human life in the person of Christ and brutally and tortuously dying after resisting all temptation so that we could be vicariously redeemed through Him. By living a perfect life, He did what no man has ever done and so further warrants the right to say what should happen to those of us (all of us) who fail to do the same (which He, by virtue of living perfectly, demonstrated is possible)--and yet His choice, when given even more right to condemn us, is to show us mercy and save us by allowing us redemption before Himself! Hence, His sacrifice and offer of salvation is the greatest example of mercy and love mankind has ever known.

And so He allows us to choose Him, and loves us enough to respect our choice to reject Him and live apart from Him if we so choose (which is what hell is--separation from Him that is chosen by the individual).

> I don't. Thomas Aquinas died 800 years ago and knew nothing about modern neuroscience or psychology. We have a natural tendency to believe whatever we're taught growing up.

I think it's more than just a "tendency to believe whatever we're taught growing up", because virtually all human beings throughout history and in the modern day have believed God exists. And, when you ask them, they will explicitly adduce to you reasons for their believing in His existence--so attributions of human belief in God to uncritical acts of will or psychoanalytic theses seem to me implausible and uncritically formulated or accepted themselves, for they are conceived of without making any account of the individual's reasoning with respect to the question they purport to answer. And Aquinas's sentiment has been repeated throughout the history of philosophy by the most eminent atheists and theist thinkers alike up until the modern day--not that I think that we should reject the ideas of people in the past out of what philosophers call "chronological snobbery", an uncritical bias in favor of contemporary thought by virtue of its being contemporary.

Thanks for the exchange so far, I hope I've helped you understand what I believe and why a bit more. Please note that I do not intend in writing this to sound condescending, so if it comes off that way my apologies.

I went through almost the exact same thing. After leaving our main church, my wife and I stopped going all together. Several years later, after we moved because of jobs, we started going again. Needless to say, that didn't last long.

My wife and I both come from very strong Christian backgrounds; my wife's father was a Southern-Baptist minister for decades, and my dad went to Dallas Theological Seminary and taught church classes most of his life. So let's just say that leaving wasn't an easy thing.

However, my own search led me to realize the truth. Since my wife and I are very close, I talked with her about these things but was very careful about what I said. I'm still careful. I approach the discussions from the standpoint of "searching for answers" rather than declaring that I've already decided.

My mantra over the last few years has been "If it were possible to know the truth, and one of the possibilities was that God didn't exist, would you really want to know?" Well, my answer is yes. I don't want to be a blind-follower Christian. If God is real, then I want to know for sure!

I recommend approaching it like that. It let's your spouse see that you are truly searching for answers. The truth is all we really want, and we can't use a 3000 year-old book to do it. We need real answers, not mythology.

Be sure to talk about it a lot, and be open minded to your spouse's point of view. Let them know you still care for them deeply.

This sub-reddit has been so helpful and caring, so good job starting here. Also grab some books or find some web-sites that discus these things. Here are a few I recommend:

Sites

• http://new.exchristian.net/
  
  
• http://www.patheos.com/ (you'll find many opinions here. great site)
  
  
• https://richarddawkins.net/
  
  Books
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446697966/
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223
  
  Cheers
  ~Nate

You're clearly well-versed in this subject, I actually wasn't expecting a response that involved knowledge of quantum entanglement and particle/wave duality!

> You haven't even functionally defined consciousness, so how could I possibly explain it?

Were you aware, in your mind ("consciousness") that you were alive and typing this at the time you did? If so, that would make you conscious and not a "philosophical zombie".

Of course I could veer this completely off course and say that I don't even known that you exist, and I could just be playing a game in the only consciousness there is. My own.

Solipsism

> I'd have to argue that it's pretty much exclusively your unconscious mind that takes input from the photo-receptors in your mind. This is not a conscious process.

Correct.

> I would certainly agree with your point about quantum uncertainty, but I fail to see how it relates to the discussion of consciousness.

In my personal opinion, it has everything to do with it. It's the only possible solution to how we can have free-will and are not just unconscious robots ("philosophical zombies"). Without quantum effects, we could not be sentient beings that are free to make our own decisions, based on our own choices.

Not just (input in = input out) ... but (input in = conscious decisions = input out).

This quick search on Amazon will show how many books deal with this very subject.

I've read most of them. Some much more interesting than others. I'd say the best book I've ever read on these matters is by Paul Davies ... The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World. "Biocentrism" was also somewhat interesting, as was Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order.

Your points are all valid, and I won't go over every single one of them.

Should I assume that you believe in the emergent theory of consciousness? Where it arises at a certain neural threshold, for reasons we have no idea?

And where is the "seat of consciousness"? For a while, it was thought it was the pineal gland, then other places. Then we started removing half of people's physical brain matter and that made them better. So exactly where is this consciousness?

If it's emergent, that means I myself as a software developer just need to write a complex enough system. And then, like magic, my creation is self-aware?

For the record, I did really enjoy the movie Ex Machina.

As said by another user in this thread, the "why' is a philosophical question. I will do my best to answer the implied "how."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructal_theory

I am just a layman and all I know is from an extensive reading habit and curiosity about science. I just finished this book: http://www.amazon.com/Design-Nature-Constructal-Technology-Organization/dp/0385534612 , and I think that the Constructal Theory has an interesting take on how animate cells came to exist on earth. I'm going to do my best to summarise the ideas covered by Bejan. Take everything that follows with a grain of salt because -- as I said before -- I have no formal schooling on the matter


In "Design in Nature," Bejan posits that the rise of animate matter on earth is neither a question of biology or chemistry, but a question of physics that is answered by the Constructal Theory (For a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it.)

Take the example of a flow of water moving across the earth, from a mountain spring to the seashore. For a distance, the water would move in a laminar flow from the spring, however, this is not the most efficient way to move the mass of the water to the seashore. Over time, the flow of water would evolve to move more efficiently, by moving from laminar to a more turbulent flow, excavating deeper riverbeds and moving more water farther with less energy expended. As more time passes, the flow system will inevitably vascularize itself into a river delta, creating the most efficient flow system to move the current from the spring to the ocean permitted by the brakes present in the environment (brakes in river systems commonly include temperature, geology of the mountain and river valley, and of course friction.)

Now this next part may take a bit of a conceptual stretch. Imagine the entire earth as a flow system, driven by the heat energy given to it by radiation from the sun. Due to this energy, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics), the elements on the earths surface boil and move in a constant quest for equilibrium in the system. If the earth were a closed system, its oceans and rivers would freeze and its landmasses would dry up due the achievement of said equilibrium. (This will happen inevitably as the sun dies out billions of years from now.)

However, our planet is not a closed system, so the movement of water and other elements across its surface (according to the Constructal Theory) must find better and more efficient ways of moving through its environment as long as the system keeps being affected by outside forces. Bejan theorizes that the rise of a diverse and thriving biosphere on the earth's surface is natures way of facilitating flows of matter (mostly water) across through the environment. After all, what is a fish but a pouch of water able to move under its on impetus?

Thank you for reading my wall of text, and please feel free to criticize and correct, as I have no idea how well accepted the constructal law is in the community.

My suggestions don't really explain the Bible, but they are thought-provoking and fascinating if you like science.

Creation and Time

Beyond the Cosmos (I found this book really interesting.)

The Creator and the Cosmos

The Fingerprint of God

These are all by the same guy, and I really enjoyed them a great deal, so I fully recommend them to you.

I also enjoy Christian fantasy books, for example:

The Dragon King Trilogy: In the Hall of the Dragon King

The Warlords of Nin

The Sword and the Flame

The Pendragon Cycle: Taliesin

Merlin

Arthur

Pendragon

Grail

To be honest, I haven't read the last two, they weren't out yet when I read these books.

I also recommend some classics like Lilith by George MacDonald.

The Case for Christ

Anyway, that's all I can think of at this time. If I think of anything else, I'll update this list.

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?

Seems like a lot of these comments are anti-young earth creationism. So I figure I'll chime in.

First, thanks for being respectful in your approach! I see so many people just being cruel or dismissive when it comes to talking about creationism.

I suppose there are a few ways to approach the subject. I'll go through my reasons.

- The book of Genesis is written as factual, not poetic like the psalms, or prophetic like revelations. I believe it should be read as such.

- When God creates the world, he says 'It is very good', as the world was without sin before the fall. If the world was created over billions of years, with millions of years of death, plague and disaster, it would not have been sinless or 'very good' as God proclaimed.

- The world is made of things that require multiple components to exist simultaneously to function. Complex mechanisms are necessary to support life, DNA, RNA and proteins all require complex mechanisms and each other to function. Cells require that oxygen be distributed effectively and safely around inside the cell membrane to where it is needed without damaging the cell. Simply put, life is complex and requires interdependent parts to function, and as such, would need to be formed simultaneously.

- When it comes to dating methods, evolutionist often make assumptions about the starting conditions of the object they are dating. Potasium-Argon dating, for example, suffers from the flaw of assuming that there was no initial argon trapped in volcanic rocks at the time of their solidification.

- Fossils are found as we would expect them to be had the Flood happened. In fact, the fact that we don't find intermediate forms between creatures in the fossil record certainly lends credence to creationism. Darwin was aware of this and mentioned it as the biggest challenge to his theory, but put it down to the fact that the fossil record was not fully complete. Since then, we have expanded that record significantly and the same problem persists.

- Honestly, the flood is heavily tied in with a lot of stuff about fossils and geology. There are some really interesting books I'll pop at the end that you could read.

- Methods of estimating the the age of the earth or the universe apply assumptions about processes and rates that extend into the distant past, especially with erosion. General assumptions applied universally may seem reasonable but don't really make sense. Catastrophic events and processes can have a massive effect on how 'old' a landscape seems. For example, when mt st hellens erupted, it created an almost scale model of the grand canyon with sediment layers being deposited then suddenly eroded by pyroclastic steam, water and mud flows. The canyon walls now resemble those that are assumed to be of great age, even though we know them to be quite young.

​

Believing in young earth creationism isn't fundamental to faith in God. There are plenty christians out there who disagree with me on this subject and yet I still believe them to be true christians. I do think that believing Genesis as being literal is quite important to faith. The origin of sin and the fall of man are laid out clearly there, and things start to get shaky when you dismiss it.

​

Some reading material:

In six days

A bunch of stuff from answers in genesis

LOL, no.

Micro Evolution is a fact, not Macro Evolution. Atheist love hiding Macro under Micro hoping layman dont looks deep into to find out con.

Stephen Meyers does a beautiful job debunking Darwinian Evolution.

• https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071483
  
• https://archive.org/details/DarwinsDoubtTheExplosiveOStephenC.Meyer
  
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg
  
  The Cambrian Explosion completely debunks the mechanism of the Darwinian Evolution. Tell me how 20 different Phyla with completely different body plans, appear all of the sudden in the Fossil record during the geologically instant Cambrian Explosion with no transitional fossil from the Ediacaran (Late Pre-Cambrian) era.
  
  With new bodyplans you need new novel functional proteins, and to get new novel functional proteins the odds of a Genetic Mutation(s) producing a new DNA sequence to produce a new novel functional protein is 1 in 10^77. For reference theirs only been 10^40 organisms that have ever lived on earth.
  
  
• http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.674.2398&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
  
  Darwinian Evolution is based on random mutations + natural selection over a very long period of time, not this explosion of new information.
  
  Not only that Dr. James Tour one of the top 10 synthetic organic chemist in the world and only one of only a handful who can build nanorobots from scratch completely laughs at the idea of Abiogensis
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

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"

Not sure how helpful this will be, but you might point out that there's evolution and Christianity are not NECESSARILY incompatible, that's there's no real reason for him to be worried about evolution clashing with his faith in god. You could point out that many Christians do believe in Evolution. The Catholic Church actually endorses natural selection so any Catholic that denies evolution is actually committing blasphemy. Lutherans, Methodists, and many other Christian denominations see no inconsistency between believing in the Christian God and accepting evolution.

There's also several books you could point him to. Richard Dawkins's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252038340&sr=1-2

surveys the evidence for evolution, so that would be a great book for your brother to read. Most Creationists demonize Dawkins, though, so your brother might not be receptive to that.

Michael Ruse, a Philosophy Professor at Florida State University, has written countless books on the history of Evolution, the debate between Creationists and Evolutionists, and the history of the conflict between Christianity and Science. Ruse, while an agnostic, IS sympathetic to Christianity, and your brother should find him less offensive to read than Dawkins.

http://www.amazon.com/Can-Darwinian-Christian-Relationship-Religion/dp/0521637163/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252038283&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Creation-Struggle-Michael-Ruse/dp/0674022556/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252038283&sr=8-6

http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Revolution-Science-Tooth-Claw/dp/0226731693/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252038283&sr=8-13

>but every now and then you get a truly beneficial one that does create information.

I'm not arguing there are no beneficial mutations. I'm arguing that the experiments thus showcased did not show an increase in information. Its just scrambled, or deleted. Less information, less variety, less and less options. And the really naughty part about this is the bait and switch - I asked for an increase in information experiment, and I get an article that fallaciously references the Lenski.

>probably reads more than he'd like..

I would suggest this book because he might like to follow his philosophies to their frightful conclusions.

>"evolution is just a theory" makes most of the "arguments not to use"

I didn't ever say this! Please read my statements before shoving words into my mouth. So do you know that there is a difference between science, and a scientific theory? Did you know that speciation has a root word, 'species', that BrunnerPB admittedly agrees that its a non-scientific word? So then, would you explain to me why I have to accept a word as a scientific definition when its root words and concepts are not? A word like 'speciation' is packed full of evolutionary precepts wont be simply slid into usage without challenge.

>Our side isn't even considered a theory, after all.

Am I in crazyland? Do you even know what a theory is? And who are you sourcing in with this statement? Creation theory is alive and viable, defensible, and in my opinion, enjoys much stronger evidence and arguments than the assumptions of evolutionary theory. Might I suggest a book for you sir - In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Its not blind faith that has convinced me in special creation - its evidence.

*edit: formating

Read a book like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223

Try to find a copy of this incredible 3 episode PBS series: http://www.pbs.org/show/your-inner-fish/

Visit a good natural history museum

Watch this 4 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFxu7NEoKC8

Go to a zoo.

Read Darwin's On The Origin Of Species...This abridged audio production is fairly easy to follow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpU8HfUwdmY

It's easy to say 'I can't see evolution happen', but I could just as easily say 'I can't see a tree grow'. I really can't, but walking through a forest and seeing different sized trees should be enough for me to reasonably assume that they do.

You don't need to be a biochemist to see similar proof for evolution. It can be very clearly inferred from all sorts of things around you right now.

EDIT: Thanks for the gold /u/rjkardo!!

From a text I've been reading recently:

>Such surveys failed, however, to disclose the great diversity of opinion among those professing to be creationists. Risking oversimplification, we can divide creationists into two main camps: "strict creationists," who interpret the days of Genesis literally, and "progressive" creationists, who construe the Mosaic days to be immense periods of time. But even within these camps, substantial differences exist. Among strict creationists, for example, some believe that God created all terrestrial life--past and present-- less than 10,000 years ago, while others postulate one or more creations prior to the seven days of Genesis. Similarly, some progressive creationists believe in numerous creative acts, while others limit God's intervention to the creation of life and perhaps the human soul. Since this last species of creationism is practically indistinguishable from theistic evolutionism, this essay focuses on the strict creationists and the more conservative of the progressive creationists.

This one won a Pulitzer Prize, but I'm afraid it is non-fiction

If you need it to be fiction, here's one of the best plays ever written about a trial on the same subject

I also agree with KosherDev - go see a real one.

Edit - to add another link....

I would start with the classic Some mistakes of Moses, by Robert Ingersoll.

There is a short book called Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God, by Armin Navabi, that is also a nice read.

One that I recently finished reading and enjoyed very much is The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, by Aron Ra. The book is not exactly about atheism; it's Aron's rebuttal to many creationist arguments, but Aron is a widely known atheist activist, and the book is very enjoyable.

I usually listen to The Thinking Atheist podcast, from Seth Andrews (a podcast I highly recommend, by the way). There are some book he suggested in his podcast that I haven't read yet, but which I included in my to-read list:

• A Manual for Creating Atheists, by Peter Boghossian.
  
• God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction, by Dan Barker.
  
• [The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture] (https://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-Religion-Infects-Culture/dp/0970950519/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486982921&sr=1-1&keywords=the+god+virus), by Darrel Ray.
  
• Sacred Cows: A Lighthearted Look at Belief and Tradition Around the World, by Seth Andrews himself.

> .....is it?

Yes.

> Or is it "intelligent design".

Nope. Just evolution by artificial selection, as everyone has already explained.

I'd like to encourage you to read up on the topic. A good place to start might be Evolution for Everyone by David Wilson. It would at least give you a working knowledge of the topic so that you might be better equipped to dispute it (or alternately, have you not want to dispute it).

Alternately, if you have no desire to learn about what you're disputing, you might be interested in checking out these Christian anti-evolution websites on why your argument is fucking retarded invalid:

• Answers in Genesis' explanation
  
• Creation.com's explanation

The responses you've gotten here are not all terrible, but their tangental to what you're looking for at best. Luckily, there is a book, written by experts who were former creationists and specifically addressing this subject. It's called God's Word or Human Reason?: An Inside Perspective on Creationism. And here's a review of it by a palaeontologist.

Many references are to dragons which would be the equivalent to the generic term of many varying types of creatures resembling the came characteristics that we now label as dinosaurs... a term which was coined less than 200 years ago to describe the same creatures.

There are at least two dinosaurs referenced by name, "behemoth" and "leviathan"

Though there are many more, here's a handful of references:

Job 40:15

Job 41:1-34

Isaiah 27:1

Psalm 104:26

Job 41:1-34

Isaiah 51:9

Ezekiel 29:3

Jeremiah 51:37

Isaiah 34:13

Psalms 91:13

I actually just recently finished a great book on this subject. If you're interested I would definitely recommend it.

> If anything, more people working on a theory that's wrong would not do anything but expose it as wrong that much faster.

Agreed, however this is not the only possibility.

> Take, for example, the distribution of fossils in the geological strata...

I've always found the concept of index fossils to lead to rather circular evidence for the arrangement of fossils in the geological column.

> Of all the mountains upon mountains of evidence we have, 99% of it supports evolution.

I can't argue about this because I think this is largely perceptual. For instance, my perception of this mountain seems to be rather different to yours. Actually, the more I look, the less obvious the mountain becomes (which was unexpected for me personally).

> Just out of curiosity, what are some of these "holes" you speak of?

I don't buy into a lot of the necessary assumptions, like uniformitarianism or progressionism. They're not unreasonable but I think they limit the scope of potential discovery.

I'm also bothered by the tendency to conveniently sweep away outliers which appear more surprising than could be explained by experimental error alone. As a result they never accrue a significant enough mass to stand in the path of established theory.

The latter BTW is not a problem I think is unique to evolutionary biology, but I do think established theory tends to be guarded with greater fervor here by supporters (and attacked more strongly by detractors) because of the non scientific implications the theories have for all involved parties.

If you are interested in specific examples of things that bother me I highly recommend the 2nd edition of Bones of Contention. It deals with homonid evolution and compares a lot of established papers on the topic (by scientists even you will respect ;).

It also has a refreshingly low amount of Creationist propaganda (I mean the stuff that tends to distract away from the science, thought not entirely absent of course).

> Yeah, I'd like to read it

Cool! Let me know if/when you start, maybe a few of us here can read it together and discuss.

> I'm going to see if it's on audio so can listen at work

You can! Amazon has it on Audible. :)

> What interview are you referring to?

I linked it here.

I'm going to take what you wrote on face value and answer honestly:

Some places don't deserve it. I'll use the example of a book I was given, and why I chose to apply what you're claiming is a genetic fallacy.

I got given a book about why creationist science is true and evolution is actually a religious belief. https://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414

Thing is I'd looked at the subject quite a bit already, and just doubted it was worth my time. But I opened it up all the same, flicked through a couple of pages, and quickly found an argument that I'd seen disproven many times before. I also saw lots of claims, and arguments, that I hadn't seen before.

It takes work to disprove these things, propaganda from the KKK or anti-vax or even (something probably much less harmful) like Flat Earthers, is actually pretty hard to pull it apart bit by bit. Their arguments/propaganda can be really refined, really subtle, really damn time-consuming. Insidious. Just saying "only idiots believe it" is way over valuing our intelligence.

That example from the book? It was a claim that I'd spent an hour or so reading about previously. I didn't have the time, or desire, to fact check every claim the book would make.

So I came to this conclusion "this is the sort of book which publishes lies." and I chose not to read the book.

SECTION | CONTENT

--|:--
Title | Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design | Jonathan Wells, PhD
Description | Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism - Jonathan Wells talked about his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, published by Regnery Publishing. After his presentation he responded to audience members' questions. Buy Wells' books here: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design: https://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Darwinism-Intelligent-Design/dp/1596980133 Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About...
Length | 0:27:21






****

^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)

I think one of the hardest humps to get over is the fact that the majority of scientists believe in the theory of evolution. But are still a very significant number who don't. 1 Same thing with global warming. Many scientists do not subscribe to it and of course they are ridiculed and many lose their careers. It is incredibly difficult and strange to say that something that seems so supported by a consensus could potentially be wrong. It's in line with being a conspiracy theorist, someone who says that corporations are the real controllers of America, and that the top 1% have their interests ahead of everyone else. It's as strange as saying that the global intellectual elite believe that the earth is overpopulated and that if we do not drastically reduce the population, the human race would destroy itself and become extinct, and that as a result, they must choose the lesser of two evils, and do all that they can to reduce population, even if the methods seem less than humane. All these things would be simply insane to say. How can it be possible that the majority is wrong?

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

How can thousands of geologists and paleontologists and doctors and scientists simply be wrong? I think that is the largest hurdle to get over. If there were more of a debate for instance, and evolution were not the status quo, more would be willing to consider the opposite side of the coin. In a sense, it is somewhat like the story of the emperor who wore no clothes. These men claimed to be dressing the king with outrageously beautiful clothes, and no one could see them, but they dare not spoke lest they be ridiculed and laughed at. And it was not until a child in the crowd yelled that the emperorer was naked, that all the rest of the crowd stepped in, and spoke up, and laughed. A bystander effect in a sense. It is a difficult bias to overcome, and requires an open, thoughtful mind. Even if you listen to the other side just to ridicule and laugh at them, at least you hear their case before giving them judgment. Most who learn in academia never hear the other side.

But consider the evidence. Watch creationists and evolutionists debate in a civil, friendly, respectful manner on youtube. Scrutinize every detail. But don't prejudge until you consider the evidence. Both sides have the same evidence, the same fossils. Here's some written stuff if you prefer it, but I highly recommend the videos: 2

I didn't do so well, but really enjoyed that. Thanks for posting.

I took a hit on Darwinism. I don't think simple Darwinism explains natural selection. But I don't think natural selection didn't happen either. Even Darwin had his doubts, as referenced by Stephen Meyer.

I would like to point you to the theory of intelligent design, and an excellent book by Stephen C Meyer. The origin of life, and how new body plans have arisen is not actually a problem that has been solved by the scientific community. There are excellent purely scientific reasons to doubt the theory of Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution from the combinatorial inflation problem, to the absurd wait times to produce a single gene in idealized populations, to the fact that random mutations are practically guaranteed to either kill or seriously cripple an organism on the macro level, or seriously degrade and cause proteins to no longer work on the micro level. Another note is that the bible is very often not literal, especially in books like Genesis. Be conscious of what gene of book your are reading is, for this determines interpretation. Genesis is written as a saga, so it's non literal, while books like the gospels are historical accounts. On an even further note, understand that the presence of a natural mechanism or law does not disprove the existence or actions of God, for how did those mechanisms come to be and how did they come to function with such incredible specificity and regularity that the universe appears designed? Just as the programmer and engineer use laws and mechanical processes to design an engine or program, the existence of the processes and laws that the program and engine use do not disprove the existence of the engineer or programmer.

​

edit: grammar

I know this is a long shot for anybody looking at this picture but I just started reading this books regarding patterns and design in nature. figured someone else might be as interested as I was on the subject.

enjoy!

http://www.amazon.com/Design-Nature-Constructal-Technology-Organization/dp/0385534612/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330725112&sr=1-3

Well one of my favorites is Bill Nye and this book is a very easy read and makes a strong argument... But he is not an expert in climate science, only a scientist who has looked at the argument. How about anyone on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

or NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

It's pretty much all around you. Whether or not you choose to except that or don't is up to you. If you like science and are not really biased to the point of willful ignorance, read some of these:

• http://www.evolutionnews.org/
  
  
• The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism Michael J. Behe
  
  
• I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Unabridged) Norman Geisler
  
  
• Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (Unabridged) William Dembski
  
  
  
• Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong (Unabridged) Jonathan Wells
  
  
• The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Unabridged) Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Richards
  
  
• The Myth of Junk DNA
  
  
• http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm
  
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071475/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372549628&sr=1-1&keywords=stephen+c+meyer
  
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372549648&sr=1-3&keywords=stephen+c+meyer
  
  
• http://www.arn.org/
  
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372549727&sr=8-1&keywords=slaughter+of+the+dissidents (Read this one more then once)
  
  
• http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/links.php
  
  
• http://discovery.org/
  
  
  Etc...
  
  
  
  

Here are a few books which explore the science-religion relationship through history. The first two are more academic books, while the last one is a more popular level book.

God and Nature is a great book on the history of the science-Christianity relationship. It's fairly even-handed - it gives a lot of credit to the Catholic Church for their promotion of education in the Middle Ages, but also criticizes it for its anti-heliocentric stance in the 17th century.

The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages by Edward Grant: talks about medieval (proto-)scientists, and shows that both Christians and Muslims were heavily involved in the origins of science.

Galileo Goes to Jail - each chapter in the book debunks a myth. These include both common Enlightenment myths (e.g. Christianity caused the Dark Ages, the medieval Church thought the earth was flat) and Christian apologist myths (e.g. Intelligent Design is taking seriously by scientists today, Einstein believed in a personal God).

That's a very tortured reading of just one of the stories of a post-resurrection appearance.

I was thinking about what you said about us deserving more proof. Frankly, I think we've got far more than we have any right to when compared to previous generations.

In Jesus' day, only a few thousand people saw him work a miracle. Only a thousand at most saw him after the resurrection. In all of human history, seeing the supernatural has been confined to a relative handful of people.

Today, though, every single person in the developed world has access to

• scientific proof the universe began at a finite moment in time
  
  
• solid evidence of intentional design in the fabric of the universe, our planet, and biology
  
  
• documented evidence of miracles
  
  
• documented evidence of a non-material aspect of humans, some would even say of life after death
  
  
• solid evidence that the gospels are trustworthy
  
  
• and evidence that whether the gospels are historically reliable or merely "religious stories", Jesus really did rise from the dead.
  
  No, we don't get to see Jesus in the flesh -- walking on water or otherwise -- but we've got more than any generation since his has had. Far more. And we're going to be held responsible for what we did with that privilege.

Isn't this the politically correct guide? Advocating a positive/neutral understanding of socialism is more of a taboo in more anglophone western contexts. Politically incorrect isn't about being conservative. It is about being offensive or taboo on a politically or socially sensitive topic.

Looks like yet another hack job by someone who doesn't understand the topic. Just like "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design", from the same series, advocating intelligent design (or their book suggesting a climate change conspiracy). Neither is offensive or taboo. Just a poor showing of apparently conservative values.

https://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Darwinism-Intelligent-Design/dp/1596980133

>Why Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is headed for extinction

Where to start, there is so much to choose from, so many books, videos, images, documentaries, interview testimony. This is your own journey, if you want to know the truth, you’ll find it. Maybe look up how our sciences have been controlled, corrupted, and suppressed to start, like the 5,002 classified patents. Maybe something easy like the book Darwin Devolves would be sufficient for you to understand that macro evolution is a failed and totally disproven theory, and science needs to catch up. Maybe Lloyd Pye's work. I don’t know how someone so entrenched in scientism dogma starts, but I hope you will.

> Darwinism

It's a common term used by everybody. Richard Dawkins uses it: "Darwinism encourages precisely the opposite values." Likewise, Leading French biologist Didier Raoult wrote a paper titled The post-Darwinist rhizome of life.
Prominent agnostic atheist philosopher Michael Ruse wrote papers titled Darwinism defended and Darwinism and its Discontents, as well as Can a Darwinian be a Christian?.

First, it's ok that you aren't up to speed. It isn't your fault.

The book I recommend is Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism by Aron Ra. He explains what evolution really is and why/how creationists get it wrong. I listened to it on audiobook and it was superb.

Not really current as it's from the 90s but this is the book my physics teacher gave me that got me well & truly hooked:

Fire In The Mind

This is an excellent book that deals with the subject. Highly recommended.

I am not defending what he did, but imagine you walk into a library and see this. This series is comprehensive, try to find a book of these about a subject you like, science, litterature, environment, History, read the cover at Amazon and not be mad. I get mad just by doing this, though I wouldn't destroy a book in a library.

Dr. Wilson has a few books out that you might enjoy, I'd suggest this one for starters!

Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert Pennock

I checked this book out from the local library a month or so back and would highly recommend it.

Pennock goes over multiple topics, including atheism, divisions within creationism, counters to creationism arguments, and how to deal with creationist fears of science undermining their faith. He was also an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case that proved intelligent design was nothing more than creationism in fancy rhetoric, and not allowed in science classrooms of public schools.

How about the Bible?

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design

What would make you believe in God?

God or Atheism - Which is more rational?

If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists

I assume you haven't read this book then.

What do you suppose that social evolution is based on if it is not biological evolution? I.e. how did we get to be a social species?

One's culture certainly determines what god/s is/are ingrained, just like it determines what language is spoken. However, the culture does not determine whether or not the normal person will have the capacity for religious belief anymore than it determines the capacity for language.

See if you can find any culture that does not have gods. If people don't have gods they invent them. I watched this happen with my grandson who was being raised home schooled in an un-religious household that didn't talk about religion one way or the other. He invented space alien ancestors, reincarnation, and a sort of rapture (his alien relatives were coming to get him.)

Certainly he took elements from his surrounding culture to invent his religion, but he was not instructed to invent one nor to not invent one.

A link to the book Darwin's Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong for anyone who might be interested in reviews of the book.

Darwin's Pious Idea by Conor Cunningham is very good, although it approaches the topic through biology, not physics.

Other books people might be interested in that deal with this reconciliation:

Finding Darwin's God, by Brown University cell biologist Kenneth Miller (for a scientific perspective)

Darwin's Pious Idea by Conor Cunningham (For a theological perspective)

This has nothing to do with the show, but he has done some very well written books recently.

Bill Nye has a good book. He read the audio book too.

Undeniable

You may be interested in the constructal law, as explained in this book (a science book, not a religious book). There is some relationship there. When Jesus says "Apart from me you can do nothing", and John says that all things were made through him (John 1:3), I think it's being quite clear that God is present in all of creation. The problem is how we disconnect from this process through sin.

I would check out this book from amazon. It sounds like exactly what your looking for. http://www.amazon.ca/Darwins-Pious-Idea-Ultra-Darwinists-Creationists/dp/0802848389 It's essentially about how God and evolution can make sense.

I for one struggle with contraction in that in Genesis, death did not exist before the fall of man. Yet God would have to have used death to use evolution as a tool for creating life on earth. I have not read the above book but would like to on my Kindle in the near future.

I don't think you're going to get too far with this one.

This person literally thinks that legendary tales of dragons is proof man and dinosaurs walked the earth together and is proof of Young Earth Creationism.

Here is their recommended reading on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Dinosaurs-Darek-Isaacs/dp/088270477X

Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

> When Charles Darwin finished The Origin of Species, he thought that he had explained every clue, but one. Though his theory could explain many facts, Darwin knew that there was a significant event in the history of life that his theory did not explain. During this event, the “Cambrian explosion,” many animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record without apparent ancestors in earlier layers of rock.

Slightly above grade-school level, but God's Word or Human Reason explicitly sets out to debunk the creationist narrative from both christian and non-christian perspectives, both by laying out the evidence and by emphasizing a scientific way of thinking.

Edit: Formatting

Going to college (even to a proudly conservative Christian institution) and reading Gregory A. Boyd's The Myth of a Christian Nation helped immensely with that issue.

While I'm here, Hugh Ross's Creation and Time, while I don't agree with everything in it, was the first time I remember being introduced to the concept of old-earth creationism, and that there's no dichotomy between "believe the Earth is 6000 years old" and "risk going to Hell."

So I guess what I'm saying is reading books on my own helped me with issues.

[This book] (https://www.amazon.com/Bones-Contention-Creationist-Assessment-Fossils/dp/0801065232) might be worth a look.

This link should explain:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/equivocation.html

There's also the PRATT list by AronRa (specifically the second one, fallacy of false equivalence)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMKnaxEzgOPup9WKlNPZwiJN

And, if you want more depth and arguments against religion in general i'd recommend : The foundational falsehoods of creationism :

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

(also available in book form)

https://www.amazon.com/Foundational-Falsehoods-Creationism-Aron-Ra/dp/1634310780

An earlier version of this diagram appears in this volume about creationism vs. evolutionary theory: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Word-Human-Reason-Perspective/dp/1629013722

If you want sources, talk to them.

I've thought and read about Evolution and the Big Bang for years, and struggled as a Christian to understand how these ideas interact with my Christianity. For me, I reject the claim that the universe and life came into existence through natural causes (I think both were supernatural events).

Evolution is such a big term that I have to clarify myself a lot to people. Sure I think Animals can adapt to their environment and that random mutations are preserved or eliminated due to survival of the fittest. Those are observable facts.

Science ends, however, when what is being discussed cannot be observed or experimented upon. I can honestly say, having examined the evidence, that there is very little cosmological, paleontological, or geological evidence that urges me to accept the grand narrative of Evolution. A lot of it is (good) speculation and hypothesis, but it's not impossible for me to reject because I have an alternative narrative that is just as plausible.

Here are some of the books that influenced me:
http://www.amazon.com/Bones-Contention-Creationist-Assessment-Fossils/dp/0801065232

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368641836&sr=1-1&keywords=Darwin%27s+black+box

> PhD scholars

I have a book full of essays by scientists, arguing in favor of creationism.

I keep it displayed on my bookcase to remind me that even those highly educated in fields I respect can believe stupid things.

Maybe you should read his book Undeniable.

https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223

Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives by David Sloan Wilson.

The simple answer is Skeptics Annotated Bible as far as spotting contradictions to know beyond any doubts that the Bible is one giant fairy tale.

If you want to go further, also recommend:

Aron Ra Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism For a preview of Aron Ra Biblical Absurdity

Bart Ehrman Forged: Writing in the name of God

There's also this fabulous presentation by Richard Carrier: Did Jesus Even Exist?

and anti-evolution BS in the Science section. Books-A-Million does this and it pisses me off.

He's being interviewed by Eric Hovind so I doubt it's a spoof. And, you know, the book is real, unfortunately.

The theory of evolution isn't the only "scientific" theory to explain the formation of human beings. The theory of evolution has "flaws" and does not explain everything satisfactorily. Some of these questions have remained unanswered by the theory of evolution since it was initially proposed by Darwin. The scientific community is just as dogmatic as the religious one with regards to the theory of evolution among other things. I would suggest checking the following material and similar material also from the scientific community.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0089LOM5G/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

https://www.amazon.com/Heretic-Scientists-Journey-Darwin-Design/dp/1936599503/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=heretic&qid=1574584576&s=books&sr=1-1

https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3CKSTFGSKWOXW&keywords=darwins+black+box&qid=1574584922&sprefix=Darwins+black+bo%2Caps%2C291&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061472794/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=uslimkeptic-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0061472794&linkId=166be51886e107227843bc81a6f6cf02

We know exactly how it did. We do it all the time with artificial selection.

If you want proof, look no further than your dog or an ear of corn.

Here are a couple of compelling examples:

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1194281/Darwins-evolution-moth-changes-black-white-thanks-soot-free-skies.html

Really, I feel silly even arguing this.

I highly recommend Bill Nye's Undeniable:

http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1451618364&sr=8-3&keywords=bill+nye

I assume the evangelist in question interviewed leading evo-biologists for their views on the subject?

I gather that philosopher Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell is the most advanced case to come from the "intelligent design" crowd (it certainly has caught Thomas Nagel's attention), and I also gather that the evo-bio crowd thinks he just gets a lot of the science mistaken, perhaps subtly, perhaps glaringly. What I think is needed for this debate are proponents/opponents who specialize in both philosophy and biology, so as to sift the noise from the signals. Unfortunately, tons and tons of noise is being fed into the mainstream public debate. It's like people debating political philosophy with no one reading Rawls and Nozick; i.e., the pitiful state of political "dialogue" in mainstream America today. :-(

I suggest you vary your reading. Odd Jackdaw has just given you are reading list of extremely biased sources (wikipedia editors in particular are extremely hostile to anything not in keeping with atheism or evolution. )


For balance you can begin with these sites


https://evolutionnews.org
https://uncommondescent.com
https://blog.drwile.com (one of the few YEC sites I read)


For Books


Stephen Meyer's books are pretty good ( and hated by adherents of Darwinism)


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002C949BI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent-ebook/dp/B0089LOM5G


and the ever loved Michael Behe


https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves-Science-Challenges-Evolution/dp/0062842617/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=michael+behe&qid=1562441940&s=gateway&sr=8-3

I went to Alpha when I was still a Christian, but when doubts were starting to form. They invite you in by sharing a meal together, watching Gumbel's presentation, and having discussion. The video segments are made up of the same old arguments stating that people are basically bad and need to be made right by the blood of Jesus. It's an effective tool on those who aren't able to or aren't trained in logical/cognitive fallacies.

> I've tried to respectfully challenge her on a couple of things, but she feels that I'm attacking her new found faith.

IMO this is a red flag. Being defensive usually doesn't allow for an open mind. Be wary.

> Are there any good books which help explain non-literalist Christian beliefs to someone who came from a literalist background?

I wouldn't keep pointing in the direction of belief, but rather point in the direction of truth (Plus, we were taught to hate Rob Bell in church):

• Why Evolution is True By Jerry Coyne
  
• Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation by Bill Nye
  
• Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality by Eliezer Yudkowsky
  
• The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
  
• The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan
  
  Pointing in the direction of religion, yields more bad philosophy.

I can't recall who, but someone did write a book on this type of idea. Reviews were meh, but several harsh reviews pointed out anecdotal / causation pseudo science.

Source: not a physicist.

Edit: www.amazon.com/Design-Nature-Constructal-Technology-Organization/dp/0385534612

He also wrote this book where he all but decries hereditary genetics, blaming disproportionate IQs on biased testing and cultural/environmental issues, all of which has been disproved many times before. Unfortunately, he's more of a pop star than a scientist. I've said it before but I'll take an E. O. Wilson over a Bill Nye any day.

EDIT: Downvoted by people who couldn't tell you who E. O. Wilson is.

In the first place, I don't need to demonstrate design of the hands of a deity, all I need to do is demonstrate that there is a rebuttable presumption of design, and at that point, there would be hard evidence for the notion that the existence of a designer is possible, which may or may not be a deity. Goodbye atheism, hello agnosticism. If the design hypothesis is not refuted, that is the only explanation we are left with, through a process of elimination. Once the design hypothesis is shown to be plausible, we can then go into scientific evidence extant for further confirmation that would exclude any other hypothesis (some of which is in the PDF; see Challenge 16), and once that is done, the identity of that designer. But first things first!!

Yes, it is easy to conclude the appearance of design, Richard Dawkins himself has done that, which is the entire point of my video. The whole idea of the "blind watchmaker" thesis is that biology is constantly providing the appearance of design, which of course leads to a design inference. This is a rebuttable presumption of course, and that is the point of Dawkins' book, that he is able to rebut the presumption. Unfortunately, he confines himself to one level of the argument, evolution, and even though he fails there, he barely attempts to address the origin of life problem, which is in fact the sole locus of the problem, if you accept the notion of the universal common ancestor.

There are even more peer-reviewed articles, and if you want them put together, check out the Meyers book:

http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421927648&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+cell

Here is the bibliography from the book, you'll find lots of peer-reviewed articles there!!

https://www.scribd.com/doc/253395869/Signature-Bibliography

The problem with atheists is that they spend so much time reading the works of other atheists and only conversing with other atheists, that they don't spend the time they need to get the facts of the matter that have been developed in the last decade.

You used the terms "zero" and "in it's entirety". They are absolute terms. No exceptions. So if I provide one exception to each will essentially make your facts faulty. No matter what you are debating, absolutes are extremely difficult to support, and you can't support your assertions.



You asserted two things using absolute statements:


1.) “…there is ZERO evidence of genesis being literal …”


2.) “… the entirety of science is in complete opposition to it.”


Statement 1.) You may say there is zero evidence you accept, but you cannot say there is zero evidence. Zero is an absolute, but with a simple Google, you will easily have a list of organizations and websites dedicated to offering evidence that Genesis is literal. (Yes, I understand you consider the evidence: horrible, weak, wrong, bad and circumstantial – but you cannot say it isn’t evidence.)


To support statement #1, you must unequivocally demonstrate that there is ZERO evidence. You can’t do it. There is in the very least one piece of evidence. (Yes, I understand you consider the evidence: horrible, weak, wrong, bad and circumstantial – but you cannot say it isn’t evidence.) You can’t support the absolute term “zero”.


Statement 2.) To prove this statement faulty, all I have to do is provide one example of science not opposing a literal Genesis:


Scientist alive today who accept the biblical account of creation.


Scientists at Answers in Genesis


Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation