on a related note has anyone tried the new quesalupa from taco bell yet?

Yes that's right, Fulham thinks Michael Behe is a legitimate scientist but Darwin was a quack.

I would say its good but It tasted too much like slavery to me. The people who made it were only making minimum wage. which is 8 or 9 dollars. hence not a liveable wage hence slavery. mic drop

Lets be clear on the science naturl selection is in my view the best explanation for the variety of life we have on Earth. Full Stop - Period. Where else to you want to go from there/ let's hear your hypothesis'?

Well lets hear them..............................................

''You're baiting. It's an irrelevant bait. Your claim is about supposedly unsavory logical consequences of evolutionary theory. Clarify and support it or don't bother saying anything.''

Well you ddoged the man of his time debate I see. Can't support it any more?

To answer your question with some examples:

Weikart, R. (2004). From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary ethics, eugenics, and racism in Germany.

Zimmerer, J. (2005). Annihilation in Africa: the “Race War” in German Southwest Africa (1904–1908) and Its Significance For a Global History of Genocide. Bulletin of the German Historical Institute in Washington, DC, 37, 51-57.

Degler, C. N. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. Oxford University Press.

Lindqvist, S., & Tate, J. (1992). “Exterminate all the Brutes”: One Man's Odyssey into the Heart of Darkness and the Origins of European Genocide.

Ah. So, upon clarification, your argument is that a scientifically discredited sociological dogma attempting to moralize early evolutionary theory had negative consequences. I agree with you! So what? (Also, take that first citation and throw it in the garbage; that's all it's good for.)

The real question is why doesn't Fulham throw out Christianity using the same logic, as Christianity was much much more influential among 19th and 20th century racists than Darwinism ever was.The lion's share of Darwinists were liberal social reformers. The lion's share of churches believed in biblical justifications for racism. Also Fulham has been citing that farce of a Weikart book for years now. It's as if he just copies and pastes the points he makes.

https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/discovery-institute-hitler-hitler-hitler-part-v/

Also http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was%20Hitler%20a%20Darwinian.pdf