I noticed in our evolution threads that some of those that are pro evolution, don't know what they are talking about. They have the attitude Science=good, without having a good idea of the science they are defending. In particular, there is the problem of how evolution works. Many people here credit Darwin with the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics. This would upset Chuck because he spent the first third of Origin of Species explaining how this concept was wrong. And others who are closer to correct jump on the concept of "Survival of the Fittest." Which also would upset Chuck, because it presumes evolution has a value judgment, which being a blind process, it does not care about. A better frame for the theory is "Survival of the best fit." Lions live in hot places because they fit best in hot places. Polar bears live in the arctic not because they are better than lions in any intrinsic manner, they just are better designed for the cold weather they live in. Lots of really cool animals are extinct. Cockroaches and ants can survive anything and thrive. This does not mean they are the best, it just means they are best equipped. Both of these scientific mistakes lead to dangerous conclusions. That we can alter the human animal closer to our hearts desire, either by changing the environment, somehow changing the way humans react to each other by fiat, or by getting rid of the 'unfit.' Evolutionary theory has moved on a long way from Darwin's time. Much of what he believed and wrote has been proved off kilter or downright wrong. Even though his basic insight that large populations have the members not suited to the environment selected out still stands. Evolution is a very useful tool for understanding the way things work. But in the wrong hands it can lead to bad results. It is better to drink deep of the perian spring, than to make assumption from shallow understanding.