One of the books you should pick up if your not scared about seeing another option without evolution is "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel, a huge very successful journalist who happened to be an atheist for many of years and wanted to know the truth about if theres a God and such and now is a pastor/minister of his own church. One Chapter is about evolution and the interview (he does an interview with one of the leading experts on the field in every chapter to learn the truth) with Walter L. Bradley, PH.D. And unlike some other people who believe in God who say they are PHD's and aren't, Bradely is one.
Walter L. Bradley caused a stir in 1984 when he co-authored the seminal book, "The Mystery of Lifes Origin," which was a devastating analysis of theories about how living matter was created. Eyebrows were raised because its foreword was written by biologist Dean Kenyon of San Fransisco State University, whose book Biological Predestination had previously argued that chemicals had an inherent ability to evolve into living cells under the right conditions. Calling Bradley's book "cogent, original, and compelling." Kenyon concluded: "The authors believe, and I now concur, that there is a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life."
Since then, Bradley has written and spoken widely on the topic of how life began. He has contributed to the books "Mere Creation" and "Three Views of Creation and Evolution," whilehe and chemist Charles B. Thaxton wrote "Information and the Origin of Life" for the book
"The Creation Hypothesis." His more technical articles include co-authoring, "A Statistical Examination of Self-Ordering of Amino Acids in Proteins," published in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, which reflects his personal research on the origin-of-life field.
Bradley recieved his doctorate in materials science from the University of Texas at Austin and was a professor of mechanical engineering at Texas A&M University for twenty-four years, serving as head of the department for four years. An expert of polymers and thermodynamics, both of which are critically important in the life-origin debate, Bradley has been director of the Polymer Technolgy Center at Texas A&M and has recieved research grants totaling four million dollars. He has consulted with such corporations as Dow Chemical, 3M, B.F. Goodrich, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Shell Oil, and has been an expert witness in about seventy-five legal cases. In addition, he is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and has been elected a fellow of the American Society for Materials and the Amerian Scientific Affiliation.
As a scientist concerned with accuracy, Bradley answers questions in careful and complete sentences, making sure to acknowledge nuances and not to overstate his conclusions. He talks respectfully of the evolutionists he has debated through the years, including renowned chemistry professor Robert Shapiro of New York University, who called The Mystery of Life's Origin "an important contribution" and "brings together the major scientific arguments that demonstrate the inadequacy of current theories."
In his many pages long interview about evolution, he goes over
Building Blocks of Life
Assembling a Cell
And theories..
Random Chance
Chemical Affinity
Self-Ordering Tendencies
Seeding from Space
Vents in the Ocean
Life from Clay
Other things as well like...
The Most Reasonable Inference
Reasoning by Analogy
I Build Molecules
and more...
Anyway, he's one of the top in his field of how life began. Heres a small exerpt from the interview of Lee Strobel and Walter L. Bradley. The interviews were taken for this book in 2000 so it's not an old 1984 book with old data and junk either. Heres two of the exerpts...
-"Then what,"I said, "is your own best hypothesis?"
Bradley didn't answer immediately. He glanced over at the stack of research papers, lingering for a moment before he looked back at me. Whenour eyes met he continued.
"If there isn't a natural explanation and there doesn't seem to be the potential of finding one, then I believe
it's appropriate to look at a supernatural explanation. I think thats the most reasonable inference based on the evidence."
That seemed to be a big concession for someone trained in science.
"You don't see a problem in saying that the best explanation seems to be an Intelligent Designer?"
"Absolutely not. I think people who believe that life emerged naturalistically need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there's an Intelligent Designer."
"What prevents more scientists from drawing that conclusion?"
"Many have reached that conclusion. But for some, their philosophy gets in the way. If they're persuaded ahead of time that there isn't a God, then no matter how compelling the evidence, they'll always say, 'Wait and we'll find something better in the future.' But thats a metaphysical argument. Scientists aren't more objective than anybody else. They all come to questions like this with their preconceived ideas."
I quickly interjected,"Yes, but you came in with a preconceived idea that there IS a God."
Bradley nodded,"Sure,"he conceded,"And I've been pleasently surprised, because a lower level of evidence probably would have satisfied me. But what I've found is absolutely overwhelming evidence that points toward an Intelligent Designer."
"So you think the facts point convincingly toward a Creator?"
"Convincingly is to mild a term,"he replied. "The evidence is compelling. 'Convincing' suggests a little more
likely than not; 'Compelling' says you have to really work hard not to get to that conclusion."
"But that sounds so...,"I said, stumbling a bit while searching for the right word,"unscientific,"I finally said.
"On the contrary," Bradley replied, "it's very scientific. For the past one hundred and fifty years, scientists have used arguments based on analogies to things we do understand to formulate new hypotheses in emerging areas of scientific work. And that's what this is about." Pg-108-109
-The analogical method was described in the ninteenth century by astronomer John F. W. Herschel, who wrote, "If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, that cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous casue in the other, though not so obvious in itself."
"How does this apply to the origin-of-life issue?" I asked Bradley.
"If the only time we see written information - whether it's a painting on a cave wall or a novel from Amazon.com - is when there's an intelligence behind it, then wouldn't that be also true of nature itself?" Bradley said in responding.
"In other words, what is encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living creature is purely and simply written information. We used a twenty-six-letter alphabetin English; in DNA, there is a four-letter chemical alphabet, whos letters combine in various sequences to form words, sentences, and paragraphs. These comprise all the instructions needed to guide the functioning of a cell. They spell out in coded from the instructionsfro how a cell makes proteins. It works just the way alphabetical letter sequences do in our language. Now, when we see written language, we can infer, based on our experience, that is has an intelligent cause. Therefore, this means life on earth came from a 'who' instead of a 'what'."
Undeniably, it was a powerful and persuasive argument. Bradley seemed to reflect on it for a few moments before offering an illustrationthat would clinch his point.
"Did you see the movie Contact?"
"Sure," I said. "It was based on Carl Sagan's book."
"That's right" he replied. "In the movie, scientists are scanning the skies for signs of intelligent life in space.
Their radiotelescopes just receive static - random sounds from space. It's reasonable to assume there's no intelligence behind that. Then one day they begin receiving a transmission of prime numbers, which are numbers divisible only by themselves and one. The scientists reason that it's too improbable that there would be a natural cause behind a string of numbers like that. This wasn't merely unorganized static; it was information, a message with content. From that, they concluded there was an intelligent cause behind it. As Sagan once himself said, 'The receipt of a single message from space would be enough to know there's an intelligence out there.' That's reasoning by analogy - we know that where there's intelligent communication, there's an intelligent cause."
Bradleys eyes bored in on me as he delivered his conclusion.
"And if a single message from space is enough for us to conclude there's an intelligence behind it, then what about the vast amounts of onformation contained in the DNA of every living plant and animal?"
he said, his voice rising in emphasis. "Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn't the random product of misguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer."
It was an argument without an answer. "Then," I said, "the origin of life is the Achilles heel of evolution."
"That's right. As Phillip Johnson said, 'If Darwinists are to keep the Creator out of the picture, they have to provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.'
"Lee, they haven't been able to do it. Despite all their efforts, they haven't even come up with a single possibility that even remotely makes sense. And there's no prospect they will. In fact, everything is pointing the other way - in the unmistakable direction to God. Today it takes a great deal of faith to be an honest scientist who is an athiest." Pg-109-110
Pick up the book if your interested in it even alittle bit. Theres many more things about evolution in there as well as the top questions people ask to why there is no God and other stuff like that. Here are the Chapters in case your even thinking about buying it or something. A 298 Page Book With....
CONTENTS
Introduction: The Challenge of Faith
On the Road to Answers
Objection #1 : Since evil and Suffering Exist, a Loving God Cannot
Objection #2 : Since Miracles Contradict Science, They cannot be True
Objection #3 : Evolution Explains Life, So God isn't Needed
Objection #4 : God isn't Worthy of Worthip If He Kills Innocent Children
Objection #5 : It's Offensive to Claim Jesus is the Only Way to God
Objection #6 : A Loving God Would NEver Torture People in Hell
Objection #7 : Church History Is Littered with Oppression and Violence
Objection #8 : I still have Doubts, So I Can't be a Christian
Conclusion: The Power of Faith
Appendix: A Summary of The Case for Christ
Notes
Index
Acknowledgments
About the Author
This isn't my only source either of this sort of thing. However, if you still cling to your beliefs that you so willingly believe in nomatter who says otherwise, then good luck in the future and I'm glad your open minded. And yes, I am open minded as I studied evolution too. I look at both pieces of evidence. You should choose the same course if you want to know the truth. Piece.
™ Version 4.2