Many believe that naturalistic macroevolution is how complex life began here on earth. It's taught as a scientific theory. There are many reasons why this cannot be true. These are explored during the book in a non-confrontational, "rational" way. I want the reader to understand where the theory falls short, see how science deals with these issues, and how advocates of the theory address or avoid the issues (sometimes craftily through logical fallacies). We have all wondered how we got here. Is the scientific theory of naturalistic macroevolution bad science? I invite you to join me in looking honestly at why this could be true. Many scientists insist on sticking to only natural laws. Scienctific explanations must, therefore, rule out miracles. And even though many steps in the naturalistic theory of evolution require miraculous events, it is allowed because we have theories that it happened without miraculous events. Rational thought cannot be held to purely naturalistic explanations when they fail to explain. I invite you to take any willful blinders off and look at this rationally. This book differs from others because it does not try to convince anyone to be for or against the theory. It does not attack anyone for what they believe. It is a refreshingly honest look at the theory with a determination not to avoid or over-apply any part of it. This book looks at the subject holistically. Given such a clear view of their own theory presented in this book, it would be hard for an atheist to maintain their belief in atheism.
