Evolutionary biology adopting religious traits

[Esquilax]

The novel I'm currently working on uses the word "the" more times than the Old Testament mentions god too, I'm sure. Does that mean, therefore, that my kinky romance novel is religious toward the word "the"? Or can we all just acknowledge that word usage is not a reliable indicator of the contents of the book, over... the contents of the book?

Reading Darwin's biography is a bit much. Your argument is snark - I don't do that (online).

My argument may have been snarky, but it also served a point; you brought up word usage as evidence that Darwin is viewed like a religious figure in science, and I was able to find a counter-example within my own life to demonstrate that word usage does not correlate to religious fervor. Yes, it was a silly argument I made, but then, the point I was responding to was equally silly. So sorry that I felt the need to have some fun with it.

The author of Darwin's biography was bad at his job by mentioning the subject? A book on Galapagos spends more time talking about the Beagle than the animals? It's very deliberate.

You don't think it's a little unfair of you to call the books you were reading in your college course the "required reading" in your first post, and then spring the fact that it was actually Darwin's biography on me after my response, while acting as though I should have known that all along? I mean, wouldn't the more reasonable assumption when discussing the required reading of a college biology course be biology textbooks?

Usually I think 'hero worship' when a see a historical figure being put on a pedestal and given accolades.

Rather than simply being given recognition as deserved by their accomplishments? Seems more like a problem with you and the way you want to view this, than with the treatment of the historical figure.

The origin of life was spoken of extensively, as it is part of the refutation of God. This isn't a class about evolutionary biology, it's "Darwin was Right, Bitches".

The origin of life shouldn't have been used in that way.

No, I'm going to relate an anecdote. If I were working on a theory, I'd write a paper proposal, not waste my time answering snark.

I didn't say you were working on a theory, I said that if you have a working knowledge of science you should know better than to extrapolate the behavior of whole portions of the scientific community based on a sample size of one.

Okay, about snark. Communication is when two people exchange information, making a deliberate attempt to understand each other, in order to grow and learn. Snark is when people use language in an attempt to demonstrate intellectual superiority. They problem therein is that snark is inherently emotionally immature - even if you're right, you still look like an ass.

Would you like any more well poison? Perhaps another excuse to dismiss what I have to say out of hand?

Look, I'm quite capable of having serious discussions, in fact I like doing that. Unfortunately, what you presented here was patently ridiculous, and lacking a lot of information that you've since revealed in the meantime that might have made me take your claims more seriously. I still think your conclusions are hilariously overreaching, but don't blame me for not taking you one hundred percent seriously based on what little you gave in your first post.