[b_sharp]

"Aside from being a ship of fools, evolution is a ship of ingrates. The victory over the adherents of these ideas was not achieved with super weapons, but was purchased with an ocean of American, British, Canadian, Australian, and Russian blood. Those people laid down their lives and asked very little in return other than that we conduct our own lives in such a manner as to occasionally justify the sacrafice. There is no rationial way in which adopting the same idiologies which were the foundations of the Nazi and fascist states may be construed as doing that."

Let's see. Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859. Hitler was born in 1889. Hitler, according to you, used some of the ToE to justify his hate. So if we adopt the ToE we adopt Nazism.

There is pretty major error in logic there Ted. Think you can find it?

[Fester Chugabrew]

The foundations of an ideology need not be equated with the ideology itself in order to be seen as mendacious. Few people are so logically deficient as to suggest or believe that one adopts Nazism by adopting Darwinism.

Or dost thou protest too much? Maybe you can point out the faults in Hitler's thinking as it relates to racial superiority in a world where progress (i.e. a transition from amoeba to whatever biological entity man is eventually destined to become) is governed by the scientific principle of "survival of the fittest." At what points does Hitler not square with Darwin?

But then, I've not been a fan of guilt by association as an argument for or against an argument based upon facts. The facts bear out diverse life forms for as long as science has been observing, recording, and quantifying life. It is only by suggestion and implication that these diverse life forms are the result of a history entailing developments from the simple to the more complex.