[Quila]

You may not like my calling Darwin by those names, however they are accurate and I have given proof of their truth.

I have no problems with attacks on Darwin in themselves. He was not the greatest of men and clearly, as you've shown, had his faults. It is trying to attack his theories by showing his character that is out of line.

It is also quite interesting that you equate an attack on Darwin as an attack on the Bible.

The only reason for the Bible mention was that those are people you admire, and the Bible is the source for your creation myths. If evolution can be falsified by showing Darwin was a bad man, then the Bible can be falsified by showing those characters were also bad.

Darwinism is your religion.

I have no religion. If people were to propose "Darwinism" to me as a religion, on religious precepts, with only Darwin's written words as the absolute truth, I would reject it too.

[gore3000]

" He was not the greatest of men and clearly, as you've shown, had his faults. It is trying to attack his theories by showing his character that is out of line.

You are quite wrong on that. The examples given were from his published works. His mysoginism, racism and immoral barbarism are part of the theory of evolution. Darwin catered to the lowest instincts in man - that is the reason for its popularity.