You ask what should be included in the book. An example:
One of the most often heard criticisms of radiocarbon dating is that it "relies on assumptions." The assumption most often pointed out is atmospheric variation caused by changes in cosmic rays or the earth's magnetic field or some such. Actually that problem was identified in 1958, shortly after the radiocarbon method was developed. A calibration curve has been worked out to account for these changes, using tree-ring dating and annular information in such things as corals, spelothems, and glacial varves to mention a few. These diverse methods have been used to create a calibration curve that is remarkably consistent from material to material, and has no more than about a 10% variation at any point.
In other words, radiocarbon dates can be correlated with a wide variety of other annular indicators, which shows that the method is quite accurate.
The important thing to note in your book is that all of the objections, such as atmospheric variation, above, that creationists come up with have long-since been thought of and taken into consideration by the various scientists who deal with this field. We want the most accurate dates we can get! Dates that are wrong are worse than useless.
Take a look at the links I provided and let me know if you have any questions. I am sure that one or another of the posters here can help you out with the answers.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.