Replies

You jumped into a thread I was having with another person (which is fine) - looks like you may have not attacked Wells personally - but you certainly are not trying to address any of the positions in the article.

I've raised questions about at least one of his conclusions on this thread, but will re-interate for your benefit.

If Darwinism (TToE) is indeed "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then the logical conclusion is that the author(s) of the theory intentionally constructed it for that purpose. If that is the case, then he's implicitly accusing the author(s) of the theory of intentionally construting a fraudulent theory with the specific intent of destroying religion. He's further accusing the vast majority of the scientific community of either being unable to recognize a fraudulent theory when they see one or being complicit in the deception. I seriously question the basis upon which he is able to meke this determination, and find nothing in the article to support such a conclusion.

If Darwinism (TToE) is indeed "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then the logical conclusion is that the author(s) of the theory intentionally constructed it for that purpose.

That is not a logical conclusion.

Using you logic:

The Beatles intentionally told Mason to kill people because Mason said (paraphrased) "first and foremost the Beatles' records told us to kill"

How something is used has no direct connection to how it was made.