I'm simply examining your premise (that Darwin should not be considered a scientist because he studied theology, and did not have degree in a biology). Before I adopt that criteria as being a valid test of whether someone should be considered a scientist or not, I want to examine it on it's merits and see if it holds true. If it does not, then I have to ask why you've chosen to adopt it, and why you think I should. Celmak note.....nail, jello, wall.....