This booklet is a creation of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Evangelicals. It is an atheist-friendly document because it contains nothing that would cause an atheist or agnostic to get upset. While there are numerous expressions of faith in God, there is no explicit explanation for why God exists and why atheists and agnostics are wrong.
Paley was certainly correct to insist upon the world as ordered, or designed, by God. (location 137, Mark A. Noll, U. of Notre Dame).
Paley argued that God exists because of the complexity of living organism. This argument is atheist-friendly because it makes no sense. The inability of science to explain how life began and descended with modification into the plant and animal kingdoms is evidence that God does not exist because it is evidence that the universe is not intelligible. There is an argument for God's existence based on the assumption or hope that the universe is intelligible: Humans are finite beings. Finite beings need a cause. Hence, and infinite being (God) exists.
One recent neuroscience study shows that our brains change when we are curious... (location 192, Dorothy Boorse, Gordon College).
While there is nothing wrong with this quote, the study this quote refers to contains atheistic pseudoscience:
Before you click those links you might consider how your knowledge-hungry brain is preparing for the answers. (Curiosity Prepares the Brain for Better Learning, Scientific American, Oct. 2, 2014)
Human beings are “knowledge-hungry,” not the human brain. The human brain is nothing but a collection of molecules and does not possess free will nor the conscious knowledge of human beings. Of course, it may be that the brains of animals can explains their ability to see and hear and solve simple problems.
It is common for science and religious belief to be portrayed as being in conflict. That does not have to be the case. (location 212, Dorothy Boorse)
I would bet all or practically all biologists at major secular universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.) promote the pseudoscience that human beings evolved from animals. What evolved from animals are homo sapiens. Homo sapiens are hypothetical creatures without free will and the conscious knowledge of human beings. This is a real and unavoidable conflict because lying is wrong especially when the lie is contrived to justify not having faith in God.
As believers we know of our ‘image of God’ uniqueness from the inspired revelation of God to us through Scripture. Science cannot ultimately confirm or deny this truth. (location 543, Jay Hollman Louisiana State University)
The uniqueness of human beings is certainly an historical fact because slavery is illegal but it is okay to own animals and use them for food. The uniqueness of human beings is also a scientific fact, because it is a scientific fact that free will and the conscious knowledge of human beings are not scientific concepts. We know we have free will because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. We can comprehend free will but we can't explain what the relationship is between ourselves and our bodies. It is a mystery with the understanding that in science there are no mysteries because there is an excellent track record of success with scientific questions. In science, there are only as yet to be answered questions.
The growth of a human from a single cell to adulthood is a carefully coordinated process with cellular multiplication, differentiation, and regression (Location 548, same author)
A mammalian sperm and egg produce a single-celled organism. After conception, genetics produces two identical cells and then four. Soon the cells of a mammal begin to differentiate because of epigenetics. Biologists don't understand what causes the cells to differentiate, nor do they understand how bacteria transformed into the plant and animal kingdoms. Natural selection just explains the adaptation of species to the environment. This quotation implies that biologists understand developmental biology and evolution.
How these signals lead to consciousness will require decades of research and might never be completely understood. (location 553, same author)
The author is talking about the human brain. His reference to "consciousness" makes no sense. Human beings have the conscious knowledge of human beings and animals have the sense knowledge of animals. That animals can see and hear and solve simple problems is a scientific observation. The conscious knowledge of human beings is not a scientific observation. Knowing the sky is blue means more than that light is entering the eye and a signal is going to the brain. It means an awareness of this.
The authors in this book are suffering from cognitive dissonance. They believe that our purpose in life is to serve God in this world to be with Him in the next. But this belief conflicts with the reality that so many educated people with families and honest jobs think that life ends in the grave. This causes the authors of this booklet emotional and mental stress. They make themselves feel better by not antagonizing non-believers.
The reality is that you cannot prove God exists. There are only arguments for God's existence. Also, you cannot even argue that there is life after death because it is a matter of faith. However, you can prove that the human soul is spiritual and that human beings did not evolve from animals. Anyone who denies this is either lying or irrational. The reality is not atheist-friendly.
In the imaginary world the authors of this book live in, the human soul is spiritual by definition and the soul is something human beings possess and survives the death of the body. People that deny this are not liars, they simply have poor judgment. This is usually expressed by saying they have a "materialistic world view." This is very atheist-friendly because human beings most certainly do not have souls. So-called atheists and agnostics on the matter of the human soul are much more rational and intelligent than the authors of this booklet.