Perhaps you could share with me how you managed to cross over from an alternate reality? I'm sure this knowledge would be quite useful.
No one is taking evolutionists out and cutting their heads off.
Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense:"a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." Some theories are proven (which means tested) beyond any rational doubt: the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, the theory of plate tectonics, &c. Evolution is in this category also. It makes me amused when people storm about wanting evolution taught as a theory. Very well, it's a theory, just like those others I mentioned.
However, I very much liked the above article's reference to the accuracy of the history of the debate between Huxley and Wilberforce. A story which surfaces 38 years after an event, recounting a public event differently from any contemporary account, is very suspect. It reminds me of the commonly accepted myth that Marie Antoinnette said "Let them eat cake." That falsehood also only appeared long after her execution, and turns out to be the retelling of a story originally applied to someone else. I think that it became popular because it provided an excuse of sorts for the barbaric acts of the French Revolution, around which a lot of ridiculous and contrived heroism swirls, and which is a disgrace to France. We now know that the young son of Marie Antoinette died through mistreatment of his murderous keepers, and yet the French state has never indicated any sort of remorse, and still flies the flag of the movement which briought so much suffering, and even what amounted to an early world war. The French Revolution stains the history of France and Europe, and shall always darken my opinion of that country, totally aside from the execrable behavior of the French government today.
But back to the issue at hand. The good Bishop Wilberforce, whatever his scientific short-comings, was a man worthy of great admiration, particularly for his successful influence against slavery. For that he should be considered a hero in world history, and does not deserve to have been unjustly ridiculed. Furthermore, his consideration of Darwin's ideas was honest and free of rancor. Darwin's reaction, likewise, was free of personal attack; and he appears even to have admired his opponent's skill. This is the way civilized people should debate an issue, and it shows Victorian civilization in a good light.
I didn't even have to hold my breath very long for the very first personal attack.
Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. For example:
Witness: "I saw X murder the shopkeeper."
Defense attorney: "Isn't it true that you are either ignorant, stupid or insane. Why do you bother the court with this type of tripe?"