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?
But the argument that evolution cannot be a historical process because supposedly* wicked men have embraced it ..They should not be listened to, nor should their ideas be taught to impressionable school children.I make no such argument, and you know it.
The dance goes on. On a thread about whether evolution happens in nature, you interject that material and then scream about ad hominem arguments. Then you have the nerve to deny what is there for all to see.
You, too, are doing creation science at about par. Then again, no creationist is below par.
What are your disagreements with Darwin and macroevolution?
Virtually none with Darwin and macroevolution is not seriously deniable by sane people familiar with the evidence. I do not espouse his views on race, but he was not a racist as 1859 London would have detected it. For similar reasons, I do not know or care what Isaac Newton's views on race would be, either.
Darwin gets a few details wrong, mostly in The Descent of Man where he gets into the kind of specifics that go out of date. I thought I saw a mistake or two in Origin, but forget what or where exactly.
He pretty well nails it, even anticipating punctuated equilibrium rather more than Gould or Eldredge seem to have credited.
They are true believers and have no disagreements. The reason for this is that they know the theory is true. When believers know that strongly that something is true they don't question it. (Notice how absolutely no proponent of evolution here, ever questions even one little thing about it.)
And "when you don't question it, you're living by faith, not by science."(Ian Stewart, quoted from Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos)
For these people here, few of them scientists, mind you, they are defending dogma