It does take work. And that's why, having chased down a few of his "quotes," I'm confident that my opinion of his track record is justified. His posts are rubbish. Purest creationoid trash. And like a typical 'noid, he learns nothing, and never apologizes for his errors. No need to bother with the rest of his "quotes." Or with any of his future postings. I'm familiar with the type.
In truth, I've read enough of Darwin's writings to know that he wasn't the beast these creationoids claim he was. That's why it's so easy to spot a garbage "quote" when it shows up.
Darwin was, of course, a Victorian Englishman of his class, and I'm sure he had some of the opinions common to such men. As they traveled the world, and compared distant lands to their England, how could they help but have a high opinion of themselves?
But as someone else said recently, either in this thread or one of the others ... so what? Edison was probably as biased as any other American of his generation. Newton was undoubedly as creepy (to our sensibilities) as any other well-bred Englishman of the mid 1600s, and probably creepier. We're talking about their work, not their private lives.
The 'noids, however, in their endless confusion, imagine that Darwin is the founder of a cult, which they term "Darwinism," so they think that if they can -- by any dishonest means they can find -- show he was flawed, the cult topples. Right. And if Edison were a rapist, suddenly all our electric lights would cease to function. Sheesh!
Just like tracing DNA relationships by the viral infection scars, you can trace the "scientific" basis of creationist scholarship from the bloopers in the stuff they crib off each other. I'll have to look for that pairing of "The Descent of Man" and "Preservation of Favored Races" in future posts.
My other favorite is "... the boy from Tukana ...," where "... the boy from Turkana ..." occurs in the Lubenow original. (Turkana being a lake in Africa and Lubenow being a creationist.)