Yet quote mining from the ACLU is totally acceptable according to ‘your’ philosophy and you accept this as ‘fact‘ due to a ‘quote mining’ ruling?
Calling me a ‘luddite’ and accusing me of living in a cave while conversing on the internet and knowing nothing about me is beyond sad. You are avoiding questions and shooting in the dark at way too many unseen targets in the hope of hitting a response you desire.
Let’s try this again - How do you separate Social-Darwinism from evolution and philosophy? Are leading critics of id such as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Pinker, Myers, et al. merely cranks that should be exposed.?
What ACLU quote mining? You mean how prevailing arguments are traditionally copied into legal decisions in this county? There is nothing diingenous about that. Judges basically say they rule in favor of a party's arguments, then quote the arguments. This whole article is just typical discovery Institute arguments.
Calling me a ‘luddite’ and accusing me of living in a cave while conversing on the internet and knowing nothing about me is beyond sad.
Then don't post luddite arguments. Even the cave dwelling al-queda types (I'm not equating you with terrorism) use the internet.
Your question makes no sense. Youi align these subject the way you want and then challenge someone to deconstruct something that isn't connected except by you, or someone of like mindedness. No point in answering your nonsense. I personally reject your luddite arguments about science being to restritionist to the observable and testable. The proof is in the pudding. Science acheives and evolution is science in particularly good form.
"Creationsist quote mining is so disengenuous."
Yet quote mining from the ACLU is totally acceptable according to ‘your’ philosophy and you accept this as ‘fact‘ due to a ‘quote mining’ ruling?
I'm sorry, you don't seem to understand what "quote mining" is.
Quote mining is taking bits and pieces of a quote out of context to change the meaning. Obviously the judge did not do that with the opinion.
Quote mining is quite commonly done with Darwin's own writings, because he set out possible objections to his work and then demolished them. By only printing the objections, one can advance the fraudulent impression that Darwin felt his Theory to be weak, flawed or unsupported.
Let’s try this again - How do you separate Social-Darwinism from evolution and philosophy?
Social Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with the ToE.