[Dimensio]

Darwin was not a scientist, but an atheist bent on the destruction of all religion masquerading as a scientist.

I believe that you have confused declaration with demonstration. The author assets that "Darwinism" is a "myth" and a "weapon against science", but offers no credible evidence that this is the case. Moreover, your claims about Charles Darwin himself are not only also without evidence, but are also not even a logical conculsion of accepting the claim of the excerpt that you have quoted as factual.

[tacticalogic]

I believe that you have confused declaration with demonstration. The author assets that "Darwinism" is a "myth" and a "weapon against science", but offers no credible evidence that this is the case. Moreover, your claims about Charles Darwin himself are not only also without evidence, but are also not even a logical conculsion of accepting the claim of the excerpt that you have quoted as factual.

Sorry, I guess I should have included the sarcasm tags. As far as it not being a logical conclusion of the claim, I'll argue that. If it is "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then it was conceived and constructed for that purpose from the outset.