I have a few suggestions for your viewing and reading pleasure:

• The first is by an atheist, Richard Milton.  He wrote a book called Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, and that’s exactly what it does.  The author is not opposed to evolution, per se, but he is opposed to how it is currently taught, being that it is more pseudo-science than actual science.  Plus, he is not a creationist trying to bury the proverbial axe.

Now, keep in mind that these books I am mentioning are for the introductory reader on this subject… however, if you are a college student taking courses in a particular scientific field, let me know and I will offer a more technical manual.

• The next book I recommend is by Ralph Muncaster, and is called, Dismantling Evolution: Building the Case for Intelligent Design.  He is a Christian, but the book is written for the irreligious, for the most part.  

These two books, one by an atheist, the other by a Christian-theist, would be great – positive – places to start from.  I also realize that documentaries of the quality close to, say, The Learning Channel, or the Discovery Channel, would help bring what these books mention to a three-dimensional life.  The two DVD’s I will offer for your investigation into this matter are:

• The first is a short (30 min) film, but is packed with a large punch.  It is called, From a Frog to a Prince, and is well worth the money.  The other DVD documentary is called, Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design.  Both are well done and deserve an honest hearing in front of your viewing pleasure.

These four suggestions will allow you to, over the course of, say a year, if you took your time, to get some of the positive input by doctorate holding scientists and professors in their special fields of science on this matter.  This is not me changing someone’s mind, but allowing said person to make up his or her own mind in light of all the evidence.  This is all I wish for people. 

Based on Sufficient Reason

(See an excellent article at The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

P1) A contingent being exists.

1. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another.
2. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible.

P2) Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence.

P3) That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a non-contingent being (necessary) being.

1. If 3, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so onto infinity.

P4) Therefore, that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being.

P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.

P6) Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists!

Based on the Principle of Existential Causality

1. Some limited, changing being[s] exist.
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.
5. This first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable and one.
6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition

A mix of both

1. Something exists (e.g., I do);
2. I am a contingent being;
3. Nothing cannot cause something;
4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being;
5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being;
6. But I am personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities);
7. Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy;
8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction;
9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way;
10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings);
11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (=infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists;
12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God;
13. Therefore, the theistic God exists.

What about agnosticism, does the belief that one cannot ultimately know anything about God hold up to rational and logical thought? *Before going any further, I should define the two different types of agnostics:

• Agnosticism: The state of not-knowing whether there is a God or not. *The humble [soft] agnostic says that he doesn’t know whether there is a God. *The less humble [hard] agnostic says that you don’t either… [and] thinks that we can’t ever really know (Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies. Chicago, Illinois: IDG Books Worldwide (1999), p. 238.)

I am mainly dealing here with the “hard” agnostic. *The “soft” agnostic is open to receiving information about God from others and then tests these claims by the rules and science of logic, history, and experience. *An example that bears striking similarities to the “hard” agnostic is that of a conversation between a teacher and her student:

Teacher: “Welcome, students. This is the first day of class, and so I want to lay down some ground rules. First, since no one person has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students. Second… Elizabeth, do you have a question?”

Elizabeth: “Yes I do. If nobody has the truth, isn’t that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions? What’s the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don’t you agree?”

Teacher: “No, I don’t. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn’t that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?”

Elizabeth: “Not at all. Rather I think it’s dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that no single person on earth knows the truth. After all, have you met every single person in the world and quizzed them exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know truth and would like to share it with you, why wouldn’t you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone’s opinion.”

Teacher: “This should prove to be an interesting semester.”

Another Student: “(blurts out) Ain’t that the truth.” (Students laugh)

(Francis J. Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly In Mid-Air. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (1998), p. 74.)

The hard agnostic dismisses the argument even before hearing it. *This type of agnosticism is refuted by the associate professor of philosophy and government at the University of Texas at Austin, J. Budziszewski (Ph.D., Yale University):

• “To say that we cannot know anything about God is to say something about God; it is to say that if there is a God, he is unknowable. *But in that case, he is not entirely unknowable, for the agnostic certainly thinks that we can know one thing about him: *That nothing else can be known about him. *Unfortunately, the position that we can know exactly one thing about God – his unknowability in all respects except this – is equally unsupportable, for why should this one thing be an exception? How could we know that any possible God would be of such a nature that nothing else could be known about him? *On what basis could we rule out his knowability in all other respects but this one? The very attempt to justify the claim confutes it, for the agnostic would have to know a great many things about God in order to know he that couldn’t know anything else about him” (Norman Geisler & Paul Hoffman, editors, Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (2001), p. 54.)

Agnostics basically claim that nothing can be known about reality (or, Reality). *Norman Geisler points out that “in its ultimate form [agnosticism] claims that all knowledge about reality (i.e., truth) is impossible. *But this itself is offered as a truth about reality” (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson (1999), p. 637).

Instead of thinking of Christianity as a collection of theological bits and pieces to be believed or debated, we should approach our faith as a conceptual system, as a total world-and-life view. Once people understand that both Christianity and its adversaries in the world of ideas are worldviews, they will be in a better position to judge the relative merits of the total Christian system. William Abraham has written:

“Religious belief should be assessed as a rounded whole rather than taken in stark isolation, Christianity, for example, like other world faiths, is a complex, large-scale system of belief which must be seen as a whole before it is assessed. To break it up into disconnected parts is to mutilate and distort its true character. We can, of course, distinguish certain elements in the Christian faith, but we must still stand back and see it as a complex interaction of these elements. We need to see it as a metaphysical system, as a worldview, that is total in its scope and range” (An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, p. 104).

The case for or against Christian theism should be made and evaluated in terms of total systems. Christianity is not simply a religion that tells human beings how they may be forgiven, however important this information is. Christianity is also a total world-and-life view. Our faith has important things to say about the whole of human life. Once Christians understand in a systematic way how the options to Christianity are also worldviews, they will be in a better position to justify their choice of Christianity rationally. The reason many people reject our faith is not due to their problems with one or two isolated issues; it is the result of their anti-Christian conceptual scheme, which leads them to reject information and arguments that for believers provide support for the Christian worldview.

Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992)

The most prominent objection that is ever raised against a form of cosmological argument like this consists in asking, “Then what is the explanation for God’s existence?” This is most effective when done with a smugness of tone and deliberate emphasis of the word “God.”

The objection usually means to imply here that the cosmological argument will generate an infinite regress of explanations. To explain the existence of God, by the reasoning just used, it would seem that we need to postulate the existence of a Super-God. But then that being’s existence would need explaining by the activities of a Super-Duper-God, and so on, ad infinitum and absurdum (to infinity and absurdity).

This objection seems to just assume that God’s existence does not have a scientific or personal explanation, then it is unintelligible. But it should be by now what a defender of the argument will say to this.

The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence. This was the claim that the ontological argument made about God. God cannot fail to exist. God exists necessarily. It is God’s essential nature to exist. And in this regard, God is very different from anything in the universe. God’s existence logically follows from God’s essence. No other explanation for God is either necessary or possible. Thus, we don’t have to worry about postulating (theoretically supposing the existence of) other deities in an infinite regress (or infinite mess) of explanatory postulations.

God, as the ontological argument told us, is fundamentally different from the universe. The very concept of God, it contends, precludes God’s not existing. So we cannot even imagine God’s not existing and know with full detail what we are imagining, without contradiction. But we can with the universe. It does not seem to be at all the sort of thing whose essence is to exist. Its concept does not logically imply its reality in all sets of possible circumstances. And that is different from the concept of God as a greatest possible being.

Notice that the conclusion of this version of the cosmological argument is not “Therefore there is a God.” it is just that, if we are rational, we should believe that there is a God. But this in itself is a surprise to many people who associate religious belief not with rationality but instead with the irrational side of life. This argument contends not just that it is rational to believe, but that it is irrational not to believe.

Excerpted from Philosophy for Dummies, by Tom Morris, p.253.

Creationists are often accused of trying to oppose science on purely theological terms. The argument usually contains a strong warning to remember the persecution of Galileo by the theologians of his own time. It continues, “History has proven that Galileo was correct and that the dogmatic religious authorities who opposed him were wrong.” With one simple illustration, scientists warn that any interference in scientific ideas by religious people is tantamount to religious persecution.

The historical account of Galileo’s struggle for acceptance is not, however, a black and white issue. In fact, it is one of the most interesting and complex historical events recorded. Galileo’s trial was not the simple conflict between science and religion so commonly pictured. It was a complex power struggle, fought upon the foundations of personal and professional pride, envy, and ambition.

The stage for this tragedy had been set a few years earlier during what is commonly referred to as the Protestant reformation. During the reformation, the Catholic Church’s authority had been called into question. Priests and laypeople had judged Rome as having forsaken true Christian beliefs. The reformation shook the Church at its very foundation of authority, causing it to lose much of its world power and influence. Eventually, at the council of Trent, the Catholic Church formed an index of literature which was forbidden to Catholics throughout the world. Included in this censor were any books that challenged traditional interpretations of the scripture.

Ironically, the traditional beliefs that Galileo opposed ultimately belonged to Aristotle, not to biblical exegesis. Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings during the time of Augustine. Therefore, the Church’s dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible. It may also be noted that Pope Urban VIII was himself sympathetic to Galileo but was not willing to stand against the tide of controversy. In reality, the majority of persecution seemed to come from intellectual scientists whose monopoly of educational authority had been threatened. During Galileo’s time, education was primarily dominated by Jesuit and Dominican priests.

One of the most important aspects of Galileo’s “threat” to education is that he published his writings in Italian, rather than Latin, which was the official language of scholarship. Galileo was attempting to have his ideas accepted by common people, hoping that they would eventually filter into the educational institutions. Thus, Galileo was regarded as an enemy of the established scientific authorities and experienced the full weight of their influence and persecution.

In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo’s conflict, only with a reversal of roles. In the sixteenth century, Christian theism was the prevailing philosophy and the Catholic Church dominated the educational system. Those, like Galileo, who dedicated themselves to diligently search for truth found themselves at the unmerciful hands of the authorities whose theories they threatened. In the twentieth century, however, the philosophy of naturalism has become dominant, and science occupies the position of influence. Again, we note that the majority (regardless of whether it is right or wrong) will persecute those who dare to dispute their “traditional” theories; today the questionable theory of evolution is being challenged.

The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. We must hold strongly to Biblical doctrine which has been achieved through sure methods of exegesis. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon philosophic traditions.

Ref: What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo? | See also: Geocentrism: History and Background