Although the quality of books written by those who do not believe in evolution varies significantly, some of the books below are unarguably solid, well researched and scientifically accurate.  In fact, some of them are written not by creationists but by evolutionists and ex-evolutionists who question evolution’s merits after having been staunch evolutionists themselves.

Darwin's Black Box.,  Dr. Michael J. Behe
Explores one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin of the complexity that permeates all of life. Behe, a professor in biochemistry who is not a Biblical creationist, comes to the conclusion that at a biochemical level, scientists have no option but to believe in intelligent design.  Dr. Behe is a highly respected biochemist from Lehigh University.
http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/Behe.htm
http://www.lehigh.edu/%7Einbios/behe.html
http://atheism.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html   (interesting….atheism.org.  I wonder how unbiased they are….)

Darwin on Trial,  Phillip E. Johnson.
Phillip Johnson is a law professor at the University of California- at Berkeley.  He is a graduate of Harvard and the University of Chicago.  In his book, he takes Darwinism and puts it to logical and scientific tests.  He talks about the evolutionists’ flaws regarding the rules of Science, the fossil problem, the molecular evidence, the problem with pre-biological evolution, the mutation problem and many others.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/johnson.shtml

What is Creation Science?  Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker
Scientifically accurate treatment of the scientific evidence for supernatural creation without any Biblical or religious arguments. Foreword by Dr. Dean B. Kenyon, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University and former prominent evolutionist.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Dr. Michael Denton
This book by a non-creationist is hard-hitting, factual, and objective. It does not argue in favor of Creation, but is a clear, balanced, responsible, and scientifically accurate account of the ever-growing crisis in evolutionary circles.
Bones of Contention, Marvin Lubenow Thorough examination of all the supposed pre-human fossils that has been published, with thorough refutation of all evolutionary inferences that have been drawn from them. Lubenow is both a scientist and a theologian.
Many other thinkers in the fields of mathematics, astrophysics, geology and other sciences have written scientifically accurate articles and publications in reputable journals.  I would be glad to send you hundreds of links and names of these men and women.

Professor Prerogative-Student Prerogative (from a humble 1L)

1. To call evolution a "theory" says nothing about its ability to accurately explain facts observed in the world.  Gravitation is a theory.  The sun-centered solar system of Copernicus and Galileo is a theory.
Stephen Jay Gould popularized this line of reasoning and analogy in his article “Evolution as Facts and Theory.”  Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan have also gone to great lengths to say that evolution is “fact” and not theory.  The analogy between gravity and evolution seems flawed.  We observe directly that objects fall when dropped.  We do not observe a common ancestor for modern apes and humans.  Evolution is a theory that cannot be reproduced and observed, as is normally required by scientific methods of analysis. Is this not the basic tenant of science? It also flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. That is, if things tend to migrate towards disorder, how can increasing complex life forms ‘evolve’?    Furthermore, Darwin himself called evolution simply a “theory.”  Why should we argue with him?

2.  Evolution is the central theory of biology.  It is a powerful tool for explaining the presence of millions of fossils and other observations about the origin of life forms.
However, evolution has yet to be proven.  If it is a tool, then should we still not call it a theory? No evidence has ever been found for macroevolution.  While many fossils exist, no transitional life forms have been found in the fossil record-ever. If evolution were true there would be Millions, if not billions, of transitional life forms.  The fact is that none exist outside of microevolution. The supposed “links” have all been proven to be false, including “Nebraska Man,” and “Lucy.” These two are only referring to the ape-human evolution, not to mention the endless missing links between vertebrates and invertebrates, impossible odds in organization of DNA, or life in the very first cause…was there oxygen in the atmosphere?  If not, evolution is shot from the beginning.

3. Evolution is not considered to be inconsistent with the religious beliefs of most Christians or Jews.  Most mainline Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and many other religious faiths accept the teaching of evolution.
This doesn’t prove anything either way. You have do some pretty fancy footwork to justify day-age theories, gap theories, theistic evolution and some of the others “systems” that have been adopted by scholars from these faiths.

4. There is not a single first-rate biologist in the United States who does not believe that life on earth has developed through the process of evolution, starting with single-cell organisms.
Once again, it depends on how “first rate” is defined.  If first rate means teaching at a big name school and being respected in their field, then these guys are not “first rate.”? Where is the cutoff point?   http://www.icr.org/abouticr/faculty.htm.  They are all creationist.  Many more out there.  Seems like evolutionists like to build straw men and knock them down by insulting and/or trying to discredit anyone who may remotely disagree with them.  Seems like they are the ones giving off the same type of intolerance they once received and decried from those who didn’t agree with evolution.  Quite a role reversal here.  Is anyone who does not teach at Harvard, Yale or Stanford a “second rate” professor?.  I would hope not.  This neither proves nor disproves that their theories are right or wrong.

6. It took over 200 years, but eventually the Catholic Church accepted the scientific evidence that the earth revolved around the sun.  Eventually, most Fundamentalists will come to accept the theory of evolution as well--whether in 20 years or in 200 is hard to say.  But it will happen. Facts are stubborn things.
The Catholic Church was not alone in its initial rejection of Copernicus' theories.  Most of the “secular” people of his day wanted nothing to do with his theories either!  “Fundamentalists” such as Pascal, Newton and many others throughout the ages were not only some of the greatest scientific minds in history but also deeply religious individuals.  It’s a bit unfair to characterize those who are “fundamentalists” as being closed minded and unthinking obscurantises.  Granted, there may be some yahoos out there, but there are also many respected thinkers, scientists and educators who do not buy the evolution line and have logical well-reasoned arguments and data to support their views.

As to facts being stubborn things, I agree!  So many scientific, statistical, and logical facts are stacked against evolutionary theory that it may take more faith to believe in it than it does to believe in special design

For what its worth, I think that creation (with no specific religious bent) and evolution should be taught equally at the schools.  Students have brains and if they really care to find out more, they can make up their own mind without having either theory shoved down their throat at school.  I grew up in a system where evolution was forced down my throat until high school.  After reading some of the books above, I’m just simply not convinced that evolutionary theory is “fact” by any stretch of the imagination.

My purpose in sending you this email is by no means to be contentious.  I’m sure you’ve researched the issue extensively and an email from a 1L is probably not going to change your views.  I believe the books above at least give a fair and reasoned perspective from thinking individuals who may disagree with you and have very solid reasons to do so.

Respectfully,
[Name withheld by request]