“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
— G K Chesterton
Nice short book hot of the press by Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Casey Luskin (Amazon/Kindle).
Gotta love the many human fossil quotes, for example:
Holden acknowledges that “[t]he primary scientific evidence” relied on by paleoanthropologists “to construct man’s evolutionary history” is “a pitifully small array of bones… One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”  According to Holden, it is precisely because researchers must draw their conclusions from this “extremely paltry evidence” that “it is often difficult to separate the personal from the scientific disputes raging in the field.” 
And this funny:
Indeed, the quest for recognition can inspire outright contempt toward other researchers. After interviewing paleoanthropologists for a documentary in 2002, PBS NOVA producer Mark Davis reported that “[e]ach Neanderthal expert thought the last one I talked to was an idiot, if not an actual Neanderthal.” 
And seriously. The earlier part of the chapter lays out the case nicely:
HUMANS, CHIMPS, and all of the organisms leading back to their supposed most recent common ancestor are classified by evolutionary scientists as “hominins.” The discipline of paleoanthropology is devoted to the study of the fossil remains of ancient hominins. Paleoanthropologists face a number of daunting challenges in their quest to reconstruct a story of hominim evolution.
First, hominin fossils tend to be few and far between. It’s not uncommon for long periods of time to exist for which there are few fossils documenting the evolution that was supposedly taking place. As paleo-anthropologists Donald Johanson (the discoverer of Lucy) and Blake Edgar observed in 1996, “[a]bout half the time span in the last three million years remains undocumented by any human fossils” and “[f]rom the earliest period of hominid evolution, more than 4 million years ago, only a handful of largely undiagnostic fossils have been found.”  So “fragmentary” and “disconnected” is the data that in the judgment of Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin, “no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.” 
The second challenge faced by paleoanthropologists is the fossil specimens themselves. Typical hominin fossils consist literally of mere bone fragments, making it difficult to make definitive conclusions about the morphology, behavior, and relationships of many specimens. As the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould noted, “[m]ost hominid fossils, even though they serve as a basis for endless speculation and elaborate storytelling, are fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls.” 
A third challenge is accurately reconstructing the behavior, intelligence, or internal morphology of extinct organisms. Using an example from living primates, primatologist Frans de Waal observes that the skeleton of the common chimpanzee is nearly identical to its sister species, the bonobo, but they have great differences in behavior. “On the sole basis of a few bones and skulls,” writes de Waal, “no one would have dared to propose the dramatic behavioral differences recognized today between the bonobo and the chimpanzee.”  He argues this should serve as “a warning for paleontologists who are reconstructing social life from fossilized remnants of long-extinct species.”  De Waal’s example pertains to a case where the investigators have complete skeletons, but the late University of Chicago anatomist C. E. Oxnard explained how these problems are intensified when bones are missing: “A series of associated foot bones from Olduvai [a locality bearing australopithecine fossils] has been reconstructed into a form closely resembling the human foot today although a similarly incomplete foot of a chimpanzee may also be reconstructed in such a manner.” 
 Donald Johanson and Blake Edgar, From Lucy to Language (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 22–23.
 Richard Lewontin, Human Diversity (New York: Scientific American Library, 1995), 163.
 Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980), 126.
 Frans B. M. de Waal, “Apes from Venus: Bonobos and Human Social Evolution,” in Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us about Human Social Evolution, ed. Frans B. M. de Waal (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 68.
 C. E. Oxnard, “The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt?,” Nature, 258 (December 4, 1975): 389–95 (internal citation removed).
 Constance Holden, “The Politics of Paleoanthropology,” Science, 213 (1981): 737–40.
 Mark Davis, “Into the Fray: The Producer’s Story,” PBS NOVA Online (February 2002).
What am I?
What are you?
Are we reducible entirely to the biological?
Or is there a non-material dimension to humans?
These deeply profound questions are addressed in a couple of lectures by Andrew Fellows.
Last night I was reading a recent Dorling Kindersley book on life on earth aimed at (indoctrinating) kids, and was appalled at the early pages in which creationism was simply dismissed as myth while evolution was introduced as fact, even thought the evidence presented was speculative, laughable and out of date.
Nick Matzke, mentioned in the article below, and others should be honest and admit that no one has any idea how complex life could have begun naturalistically. No wonder many of us, when comparing real sciences like physics and chemistry with goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution, consider this “fairy story for grown-ups” as nothing more than a pseudo-scientific creation myth for dogmatic fundamentalist materialists.
This PDF download is written by Dr. William Lane Craig.
The first section lays out “The Cosmological Argument from Contingency” and concludes:
So what does [Richard] Dawkins have to say in response to this argument? Nothing! Just look at pages 77–78 of his book where you’d expect this argument to come up. All you’ll find is a brief discussion of some watered down versions of Thomas Aquinas’ arguments, but nothing about the argument from contingency. This is quite remarkable since the argument from contingency is one of the most famous arguments for God’s existence and is defended today by philosophers such as Alexander Pruss, Timothy O’Connor, Stephen Davis, Robert Koons, and Richard Swinburne, to name a few.
Just imagine if a Christian wrote a book criticizing biology without interacting with arguments from the leading biologists. I hope no Christian wold be that dishonest in their scholarship.
A couple of other snippets:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument re Dawkins
Now, fortunately, Dawkins does address this version of the cosmological argument. Remarkably, however, he doesn’t dispute either premise of the argument! Instead, he questions the theological significance of the argument’s conclusion.
The ontological argument response re Dawkins:
Dawkins devotes six full pages, brimming with ridicule and invective, to the ontological argument, without raising any serious objection to Plantinga’s argument. He notes in passing Immanuel Kant’s objection that existence is not a perfection; but since Plantinga’s argument doesn’t presuppose that it is, we can leave that irrelevance aside. He reiterates a parody of the argument designed to show that God does not exist because a God “who created everything while not existing” is greater than one who exists and creates everything.47 Ironically, this parody, far from undermining the ontological argument, actually reinforces it.
H/T to The Gospel Coalition.