Yeah yeah, guilt by association.  Don't forget the link between atheism and paedophilia.

Then you agree with me that it would be a bad idea to attempt to identify, isolate and remove the "God gene" from the human gene pool?

You do a great impression of an ignorant creationist who doesn't realist that what "is" is not necessarily what "ought" to be and so he think that saying Darwinism leads to eugenics means Darwinism isn't true.

Bravo.

I always thought Dawkins's (?) point was great: compare the Priests of Xianity and the "priests" of Science and see which has more pedophilia in their ranks.

Likewise, lets compare Watson and a few other against the KKK or Jesus.

Although, I am happy to see that RF is trying to fight back. His faith has been under attack and eroded so, like a trapped animal, he is lashing out.

Welcome to the dark side, RF! Feels good to express your anger, doesn't it? 

I haven't read it and don't care. It's not a religion to me and I don't need to justify the opinions of various people when it comes to scientific facts.

Let me be clear: I am praising you for getting dirty and attacking people, to let the dark spirit of anger fill your soul and lash out.  You may be irrational at this point, but you are getting into the spirit.

Now you understand why people attack Xianity: they see problems with it and feel the need to speak out.

I am not making any claims on the validity of either side in this post, I am simply praising you for being skeptical and being like an angry atheist. (After all, there are many posts that say people should respect peoples beliefs, and RF is not letting that phase him.)


Remember, RF, what is good for the Goose....

Social Darwinism is not Darwinism. Actually we may suppose Darwin would be quite appalled at "Social Darwinism". You know, one of my favorite quotes of all time is this:

If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.

It pretty tells much of who was Charles Darwin and what abuse on the word comitted those who called their branch of reactionarism as "Social Darwinism". You may meet the man Charles Darwin further if you read his work "The voyage of the Beagle"... where he clearly states his opinion on issues like slavery. Nowadays Darwin would be a "bloody liberal" and he would be bashed by roughly the same kind of people who bashed him back in 1859, as the world has changed but these people haven't...

Perhaps you missed what I said about Darwin and his kin  Have a look at this part of the article:

After the death of his young daughter, Charles Darwin lamented natural selection's "clumsy, wasteful, blundering and horribly cruel action"; but perhaps man could do better. Darwin did not suggest this step himself, but in the 1930s six of his family were members of the British Eugenics Society, and his son was president from 1911 to 1928. The Galton laboratory at the University of London is named after Darwin's cousin, the geneticist Francis Galton, who coined the term eugenics and advocated perfecting the human race by breeding "those only of the best stock" so that the "feeble nations" could give way before the "nobler varieties of mankind".

I suppose you would include his son and cousin as two that Darwin might have been appalled over.