Thoughts on a Presentation by Andrew Snelling

Ah, so then this "revival" of which you speak was the creation of "creation science" in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas (1968), which led to the striking down of the "monkey laws" that had banned the teaching of evolution in public schools since the 1920's.Before this "revival", creationists, secure in having defeated evolution decades before, compiled and published their "scientific evidences" for their literalist beliefs (ie, young-earth, Noahic Flood, no evolution) for their own consumption. As such, these works were filled with blatant fundamentalist Christian wording and Biblical references, as one would expect.But Epperson vs Arkansas changed all that. Now it was no longer lawful to ban the teaching of evolution for purely religious reasons. So the creationists created "creation science" (AKA "scientific creationism") as a deliberate deception to circumvent the courts. They took those blatantly religious "pre-revival" writings and superficially changed them by removing all the explicit religious references and presented them as "purely scientific" and thus claimed falsely that they were opposing evolution on purely scientific grounds and for purely scientific reasons.So this "revival" was simply the start of the "creation science" deception.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Then you have no comment, as evidenced by your non sequitur.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Do you always use non sequitur? You must be rather desperate to avoid actual discussion.