Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?

That's entirely correct. Evolution is not about the age of the earth. How the planet started out and how the cosmos started out, are two quite different matters. Don't confuse them. As a university professor (and mathematician), I can assure you that I found nothing disrepectful in that comment. Indeed, mathematics is not a science. Nobody is denying the value and importance of mathematics. However, it just so happens that it is not a science.

This is so vague, that we cannot tell what you are talking about. Likewise, this is far too vague to be useful. This is wrong. As one example, Darwin based his original account on a Lamarckian view of inheritance, which is now known to be wrong. The current theory of evolution is based on Mendelian inheritance.

No, that was me, not Charles Knight. He partially disagreed, with "This isn't quite correct." Darwin did assume Lamarckian inheritance, but Chiroptera correctly points out that the theory depended very little on the details of inheritance.Incidently, Chiroptera wrote "his theory of evolution was independent of any particular theory of inheritance." You misquoted, and have the wording backwards. Use cut-and-paste with your mouse so that you can get the quotations correct.I won't comment on the rest of your post, since that consists of responses to other people. You might find it better to write several short responses, one per post, instead of combining responses to several post in one reply.

I live in Illinois, and that shows on my posts. It seems that hoaryhead, who declares himself "an accomplished grammarian of the English language" is unable to read carefully enough to tell who wrote what.

The name at the top left is the author (the handle of the author) of that post.The name at the bottome should be self explatory. The text says:This message is a reply to
Message 136 by hoaryheadThere can also be additional lines of the formReplies to this message
Message 137 by nwrIt's a way of identifying which message is being replied to, and what further replies exist.

Who is the "We" here? I haven't been flooded with propaganda. Can you cite the particular law that establishes this? Brian was describing common usage, and he documented that it is common usage. That's not obvious to me. I suspect that you are wrongly ascribing goals to Brian. Brian is communicating quite well. Regrettably, I cannot say the same about you. There isn't any definition of what is legal. Languages evolve over time.

We are way off topic for this thread. I have responded in a new thread in the coffee house Message 2Let's allow this thread to resume its normal on-topic discussions.