[John H K]

Well, the problem with the interpretation of the article is creationists sort of project themselves on to evolution...that is, creationism is based entirely on the painfully literal interpretation of some exceedingly old religious writings, with not a scrap of actual evidence since (other than a handful of fraudulent pseudo-scientists with an agenda, like the Center for Creation Research or whatever it is.)

So they actually tend to over-focus on Darwin and the minutia of his various beliefs...much more so than actual evolutionists today. They assume that evolution, like creationism, is simply based on one old (but not nearly as old) book that they imagine is taught in schools and universities like some sort of religion or received wisdom. REAL evolutionists are too busy running around observing animals and digging up and dating thousands of fossils and putting together clear and obvious sequences of transitional fossils to spend all of their time examing Darwin. Darwin is respected, of course, for the original idea, but the science has moved on. Evolution is now based on immense stacks of fossils and data from the field, not Darwin..it's not "fossilized" like Creationism.

Thus, looking at Darwin's personal morality, philososphy, political beliefs is completely and utterly irrelevant to the evolution debate. He had an idea about evolution which has since been supported by the work of thousands of biologists, paleontologists, etc. in the field.

If Darwin had advocated raping and strangling all babies, or if it is discovered that Darwin's secret hobby was raping and strangling babies, it means Darwin was an evil sicko but doesn't mean jack squat for evolution or that the evidence for evolution is any less clear-cut.

[Torie]

Yep that is all true. The problem with the article is that implied without really being explicit, that the bad odor of social Darwinism discredited the theory of evolution itself, which yes is itself evolving. I can understand why the article was not explicit. If it had been, it would be totally absurd. But the author was more clever than that. He is not without skill in agitating for his agenda.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thought you might like this. It made me laugh out loud :)

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/dave_williams.htm

[Zorobabel]

Your view that the theory of evolution is universal among reputable and eminent scientists is a bit premature. Here is a list of quotes on the subject by many distinguished and published cosmologists, biologists, paleontologists, and "pro" evolutionists. In Their Own Words

[Phaedrus]

Well, the problem with the interpretation of the article is creationists sort of project themselves on to evolution.

Where in the article do you find any mention of creationism? The true problem is that the Darwinists will not stand on the evidence. They must find "creationists" behind every tree, which is a game, a sham and a dodge. Science speaks for itself: ergo Darwinism is not science.

[Skywalk]

Damn, if it weren't for Darwin and Harry Potter the world would rejoice in the Lord's name, and the lion would lay down with the lamb.