Replies

However, it seems to me that when in order to defend the theory of evolution you have to attack the founder, the originator, the person who laid the basis for the whole theory and who set its parameters, then I think that maybe, perhaps, it can be argued that it is the theory that is the problem and not the originator?

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. If you argued this, you would be guilt of "ad hominem". A fallacy. So no, you can't credibly say that.

There are many, many, cases in history where people credited with brilliant ideas were raving nutters of one sort or another and said or did stupid or absurd things. Isaac Netwon wasn't entirely right in the head and wrote a lot of books and treatises that were nonsensical gibberish, yet it turns out that some of his tangential meanderings in math and physics were brilliant. Albert Einstein became a crank when he got older and asserted many things of dubious credibility that he should be embarrassed about. Noam Chomsky and Roger Penrose are two modern individuals who are arguably very smart in their narrow fields of specialty yet utter fools the second their brains wander outside these very narrow fields. This is a very common pattern among brilliant folk. Not universal, but very common to the point of being cliche. The hard part about dealing with brilliant people is filtering the brilliance from the raving nonsense, both of which are often spewed forth in abundance. History does a very good job of this, even if their contemporaries do not.

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. If you argued this, you would be guilt of "ad hominem".

The old evo switcheroonie. My post was in answer to balrog's silly statement that "In my experience, "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" as a term". You added to the attack on Darwin by saying that " Darwin isn't a religious icon, he was just a dude with some ideas." Sounds like a putdown to me.

The whole point is that evolutionists are ashamed of Darwin both as a person and because he was so wrong in his theories. Problem is that both the theory and what is despicable about the man are indelibly intertwined. His promotion of the bracycephalic index as proof for his theory that some human races are inferior both shows his racism and the need for evolution to show that there are some which are 'more human' than other. His eugenics is an attempt to keep humanity from avoiding survival of the fittest through Christian charity. It was also scientifically wrong. As genetics has taught us, it is the parents of those with genetic defects which are the carriers of the bad genes so his proposal to kill (or prevent from procreating) those who had such defects would not have solved the problem. The man was not a scientist as he had absolutely no reason for these views which science has conclusively refuted. He just made stuff out of thing air because it helped his agenda. He did not bother to question or test the stuff he was promoting. He was willing to have people killed without having the vaguest scientific idea of how genetic diseases were transmitted. The man was a monster both as a human being and as a perpetrator of total unscientific garbage upon the public - and you cannot separate the theory from the man no matter how hard you try.