[VadeRetro]

... by using ad hominem ("idiot") you diminish your credibility with everyone other than moral relativists and / or the intellectualy dishonest.

But the argument that evolution cannot be a historical process because supposedly* wicked men have embraced it seems to be worth making. Such statements on a thread about whether evolution happens would be what fallacy?

* One of your "wicked men" is a foaming-at-the-mouth antievolutionist. The others are just Victorian Englishmen whose view of race was no worse than, and generally the same as, that of their society and their time.

[Matchett-PI]

"But the argument that evolution cannot be a historical process because supposedly* wicked men have embraced it .."

I make no such argument, and you know it. You aren't able to answer valid arguments so you set up strawman and drag red herrings across the trail hoping to distract those capable of falling for it.

What are your disagreements with Darwin and macroevolution?