@Ron: Ron, ” It seems to me that creationists are being beaten back, …

Comment on Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull by AzGranpa.

@Ron:

Ron,

It seems to me that creationists are being beaten back, little by little. ”

I believe it is the other way around, as the Darwinians are forced to outlendish excues when the data does not match their dogma.

“Disclaimer about limitations of evolutionary research,” the trade secret is explained:

While we would certainly agree with the statement that “nothing in glycobiology makes sense, except in the light of evolution”, we must also realize that evolution only occurred once and that evolution does not follow well-defined rules.

There you have it. The obligatory, utterly non scientific, secret handshake (“nothing makes sense except evolution … blah, blah, blah”) is always needed before any disclosure of the embarrassing, contradictory facts.

Evolution doesn’t make sense, therefore it simply “does not follow well-defined rules.” In other words, anything goes. Evolution must be true, no evolutionist can deny the prime directive. But they haven’t the slightest idea, beyond endless tautologies and speculation, how that could be.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/

Recent Comments by AzGranpa

Tennessee Bill Allows Creation in Science Classrooms
Tenn Law

Why the law

a survey of Louisiana teachers showed:

•48% of teachers were afraid that “teaching controversial material could affect [their] … tenure, salary, promotions, or job security.”

•50% did not feel free to critique evolution.

•55% felt “intimidated regarding the teaching of the controversy surrounding origins

La Times take;

David Zucchino
Los Angeles Times

Dear Mr. Zucchino:

In your article entitle “Creationism discussions are now OK in Tennessee schools” from April 11, 2012, you wrote:

“The measure will allow classroom debates over evolution, permitting discussions of creationism alongside evolutionary teachings about the origins of life. … The state’s teachers are not allowed to raise alternatives to evolution but, under the new law, would be required to permit discussion of creationism and other beliefs if they are raised in class.”

The real story;

. You can see the actual Amendment here:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Amend/SA0901.pdf

The language is quite clear. It repeatedly states that the new law does not introduce new material into the existing curriculum, and is instead restricted to “scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education.”

Furthermore, it goes even farther in avoiding any confusion with creationism as it states: “This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine.”

In addition to your erroneous description of the law, your article was also heavily slanted toward the opposition, even including Barry Lynn, a well known partisan on this issue. Unfortunately all of this simply feeds an on-going cultural myth that really needs clarification rather than reinforcement.

Will you be issuing a correction to the story?

Sincerely yours,

Cornelius Hunter

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/here-is-response-from-los-angeles-times.html