[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Here's the evolutionary answer, from The Evolution of Man by Wilhelm Boelsche...

Oh please. That's not "the evolutionary answer"--that's one crank's century-old fever dream. "Bölsche, Wilhelm...had no scientific training but an enthusiasm for Darwinism, positivism, and determinism, which he conceived as the basis for a new harmonious, non-religious, scientific world....Bölsche had not the mental equipment for a profound work on this subject..."

http://www.answers.com/topic/wilhelm-b-lsche

[Fichori]

“Oh please. That's not "the evolutionary answer"--that's one crank's century-old fever dream. "Bölsche, Wilhelm...had no scientific training but an enthusiasm for Darwinism, positivism, and determinism, which he conceived as the basis for a new harmonious, non-religious, scientific world....Bölsche had not the mental equipment for a profound work on this subject..."”

So Bölsche is not qualified to speak on Evolution because he had no scientific training?

If he had graduated from seminary, would that have qualified him?


If not having scientific training disqualifies one from speaking on Evolution, it seems to me that Rev. Charles Darwin was completely unqualified to write so many books on the subject.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Oh please. That's not "the evolutionary answer"--that's one crank's century-old fever dream. "Bölsche, Wilhelm...had no scientific training

Boelsche was Ernst Haeckel's disciple. He helped Haeckel found the Monistenbund. Germans learned evolution from Haeckel and Boelsche. Hitler probably read Boelsche too. Is he qualified to speak on evolution? He's about as qualified as any number of other charlatan evolutionists, like Haeckel, Sir Arthur Keith, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, Karl Pearson, Francis Galton, Herbert Spencer, Thomas Huxley, John Baker, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Charles Davenport, Eugen Fischer, Samuel Holmes, Edwin Conklin, and Richard Dawkins. Which is to say, in good company of the qualified.