[bvw]

Stalin may have outlawed the label -- he applied the whole of Darwinian ideas. Just as you later-day Darwinians now do. The world is not safe for Darwin unless all alternative theories are brutally repressed and outlawed. Sounds like communism to me.

[Junior]

Do you have an alternate "theory?" Does it have any positive evidence (observation, testing)? Can you use it to make predictions? Until you do, you don't even have a dog in this hunt. Please note (this is for the lurkers because I know you won't understand it), creationism is not the default hypothesis. If evolution were overturned tomorrow, creationism would not automatically be accepted. However, I have yet to see any evidence put forth by the anti-E crowd to support an alternative to evolution -- and arguments from astonishment (i.e., I cannot figure out how this could evolved, so, golly gee it had to be zapped into existence by God) do not count as evidence.

[Dimensio]

Stalin may have outlawed the label -- he applied the whole of Darwinian ideas. Just as you later-day Darwinians now do.

Uh, no. There's no method for 'application' of Darwin's ideas. Evolution happens. It's not something that can be applied on a societal level. Only complete and total idiots assert that Darwinian evolution can be turned into some kind of social policy.

You've been here long enough to know that.

The world is not safe for Darwin unless all alternative theories are brutally repressed and outlawed.

What "alternative theories"? The problem is that a bunch of morons claim that there are "alternative theories" and try to shoe-horn this teaching into science classrooms, yet not one has actually come up with one of these "alternative theories".

Sounds like communism to me.

Uh, no, that's not. At least learn what communism is before badmouthing it. Yes, it deserves to be badmouthed, but only if you can get the concept right.