Reply #100: I read your article, and..

[JBoris]

the bulk of each the other five. Again and again the author fails to grasp what evolution is, what scientific debate is, fails to separate science from scientists, and fails to separate social misconceptions of the theory from the theory itself, as do you.
You have accused me , several times now, of being close-minded. I ask you instead to consider the possibility that, while well written, the article is dangerously naive. Information is important. Understanding basic science is important. These are the the same types confusions that people exploit to deny that Global Warming is real, or that smoking is bad for you. And these are the same arguments that Creationists use (yet you blame me for noticing that). These tactics are used to deny the overwhelmingly agreed upon truth, with arguments that have been answered time and time again... and people still want to debate them as if its something new.

If you want to debate Social Darwinism, please separate the science of evolutionary biology from it. You cannot blame me for focusing on the science, when you refuse to separate evolutionary science from a social debate. Why not just educate people about the failings of Social Darwinism as a philosophy, instead of implying that we need to invalidate a scientific theory because of public misconceptions, and individuals' abuse of science?

Again... I agree with what you are arguing, just not the way you are throwing a scientific theory into your argument.

PS... There is no part of the "natural selection" that says success has to be at the expense of others, that is an atavistic misinterpretation of it. Another example of blaming science for people (the ones blaming their behavior on the "natural order" of things) failing to understand basic scientific ideas.