"Genetics and Molecular Biology", by Robert Schleif, 1993
This is a graduate level textbook used at Johns Hopkins University to teach basic concepts of molecular biology that are extended to many other disciplines. It has a considerable Physical Chemistry and Organic Chemistry component which would make it intimidating for the large majority of biologists, but this subject is really foundational to understanding the molecular foundations of genetics. The book also goes a bit into how this relates to proteins and the various other things that drive life.
I bought this book mainly to test the theory that Darwinism was necessary to understanding biology and that it was an obvious deduction based on the structure of DNA. Getting away from the popular literature, I wanted to know to what extent Darwinism was either driving the theory or derived from the theory at the foundational molecular biology level as an actual graduate level molecular biologist would know. The answer was pretty much what I expected: There were a few, rare, single sentence exclamations thrown in (Holy Darwinism, Batman!), but otherwise, the connect was entirely missing. As I suspected, the modern invoking of DNA and molecular biology in support of Darwinism was merely BS. To further support my contention, professor Schleif routinely invokes factories and computer information concepts (intelligently designed all) to help in understanding the basic concepts, whereas Darwinism is entirely absent.
The next question is why would scientists have deliberately made such false statements about the Darwin-molecular biology link? My hypothesis is that the field of molecular biology is simply not understood by the majority of biologists and thus pretty secure from rational debate by laymen. By claiming that this discipline (which they probably don't understand either) proves Darwinism and that Darwinism is vital to understanding molecular biology, the Creationists can be silenced, humiliated and put in their place by simply invoking superior knowledge. More malpractice?