>well, frankly, you make it sound
>as though i'm not aware
>or in control of what
>i believe, and that by
>believing in the basis for
>something i unwittingly accept as
>gospel anything that may have
>ever been attached to it.

I dont think I made any such insuation. I only advocated that the basis of the things that you admit to believing are rooted in the flawed and demeaning science of charles darwin and charles lysle. Im not saying YOU arent in control of what you believe but Im reminding you that the root of those ideas that you believe has been out of control for a very long time and while it may bring great benefit to the further properties of evolutionary science they also undermine human integrity and the nature of our social order.

I understand your belief in evolution and science but you urge me to separate it from darwinism. Well if Im to do that then Darwin is only left with a few presumptions and theories that wouldnt be tested out for some time after his work (he was laughed at from the start) and one major theory that would breed racism and destruction throughout the world. He wasnt a scientist- and judged on the merit of his scientific claims velodragon said this... "His work was horribly flawed from an objective scientific point of view," Without the weight of further and contemporary evolutionary science (because you sugested I separate the two) to substantiate him Darwin's theory as it relates to race and this topic demonstrates his idea that the fittest of any environment survives and all others are rightfully dominated- I call him an idiot because he presumed that "caucasians" were somehow more fit and in many cases thats just not true.

> why haven't the found
>the missing link? because
>there is no missing link,
>koala. there aren't one
>or two species, there are
>dozens. i believe that
>man evolved from a lower
>primate. i also believe
>that biologically french canadians and
>central africans are essentially identical;
>neither is more "evolved" than
>the other. i can
>believe both, and i can
>also separate evolution from darwinism.
> why on earth can't
>you?

your boy answered this question best "His work was horribly flawed from an objective scientific point of view," but both of you admit that the same work was the foundation of evolutionary science. as such how CAN I separate evolution from darwinism- you guys just said it was the root. If I did separate it from evolutionary science then what is Darwin left with?

K