> Is he scientific enough for you? saalweacher has started to cover why, but I'd like to emphasize a request: never ask this question sincerely again. Darwin

> Is he scientific enough for you? saalweacher has started to cover why, but I'd like to emphasize a request: never ask this question sincerely again. Darwin is a reasonably valid authority, but it's not because he's "scientific". People are not scientific. Processes are scientific. People who enact scientific processes are scientists. Conclusions drawn from scientific processes are science. "Scientific" should never refer to people. I think you and Darwin are probably right. That's a long, long, long way from being proven right, though, and it's a huge mistake to assume so from a bit of poetry that Darwin speculated with.