The real world is the loose cannons. I had them in school (billions and billions of years ago).
Huh? How are references to well established, extensively tested and universally accepted (aside solely from a subset of strict Biblical literalists) ages, such as the approximately 4.6 billion year age of the earth, examples of denying God and promoting atheism? Why would the subset of strict biblical literalists who reject such ages get to speak for all Christians, let alone all theists, such as that incidentally disagreeing with them is denying God?
If you have read the science blogs and journals
As noted previously blogs are irrelevant. And as to the later, I seriously doubt you can find a single example of a scientific research journal, particulary any important one, that any an remotely affirmative manner has used evolution in an antitheistic argument.
The billions and billions of years ago was a joke. Since you don’t seem to get it, it’s a play on a famous line attributed to Carl Sagan, implying that I’m very old, while also referring to the disconnect and need to translate that that those “Biblical literalists” and their children experience daily.
Now, you and I may firmly believe that the earth is very old. But, if we’re so smart that we can understand more than the “Biblical literalists,” we should be able to explain our facts without calling names such as “Creationism’s Trojan Horse.”
You may believe that the bloggers don’t repeat what they say on the ‘Net when they’re teaching. However, I’ve had my teachers tell me that there’s no need for a God to explain the origin of the species and I’ve read it even more often in letters to journals and in books by Dawkins and Sam Harris. These last two are quoted all over.
It’s difficult for me to agree with you that blogs are irrelevant. I’ve been involved in conversations just like this one with Dworkin, Myers, and (Lord rest his soul) Stephen Gould. Dawkins doesn’t respond to the responses he gets, but he posts his articles and has a forum similar to FR.
As for the scientific literature, take a look at the assumptions in the titles of articles (and the weak assumptions, at that, for anyone not exposed daily to the significance of the minutiae that support the conclusions that are made) in the free articles from Science News: