mormonsandscience

I'll give you marks for being inflammatory.

Your choice of Stalin is an interesting one. It turns out that the Soviets weren't all that fond of Darwinian natural selection because they didn't like what they thought were capitalist implications. They also thought that Mendelian genetics was too deterministic and would clash with their plans to improve human character. So instead they went for Lamarckism, which was incorporated into communist philosophy. With T.D. Lysenko promising to make improved varieties of wheat, "Stalin allowed Lysenko to begin a purge of the Russian geneticists, and all research in that area was forbidden. Geneticists were forced to recant their support for their 'bourgeois' science or were exiled to Siberia, where some simply disappeared." (Talk about being expelled--that's almost like what has happened to ID proponents.)

Anyway, don't let such complications get in the way of the roasting Darwin so richly deserves.

(Source: Peter Bowler, "Evolution: The History of an Idea.")

Wow, this is kind of like roasting the Book of Mormon because Ted Bundy, Jeff Lundgren, and William Jeffs may have had good words for it.

Which brings up the million dollar question, have you ever actually read the book?

"Marx, Stalin, and Korihor patterned their life's work after doctines (sic) akin to those found in Origin of Species."

Do you dispute the "survival of the fittest" in nature? Do you dispute that those organisms best suited to their environment tend to survive and reproduce, while those not well-suited don't?
Darwin saw patterns in nature and made sense of them. His book was one of biology, not human behavior. He did not embrace social darwinism, nor did he see why evolution would need to clash with God. The greatest tragedy in his life was the death of his favorite daughter, who was not one of the "fittest."
Evil people often use excuses (religion, science, etc.) to justify their behavior. This does not mean that the religion/science/etc. is false.
"But as any true scholar knows, most of us judge original works by secondary sources, which is where I got my information on evolution from."
Funny. The antis on my mission told me the same thing. They insisted that they knew what we believed, and refused to listen when I told them we believed otherwise.

Perfect! I've been looking for an example of the Guilt by Association Fallacy for my Philosophy of Biology Class. This will become standard reading.

"No, I have not actually read the book Origin of Species." No news there.

Oh, never worry that I will be the one accuse you of letting the facts get in the way of what you already believe :)

Seriously though, Darwin constructed OofS as "One long argument" if you are going to attack the assertions made by evolution though natural selection you really should know what they are.

Reading OofS is one way to understand a bit how evolution works.
There are other ways to understand it too. Those include reading an actual textbook, attending an evolution class, etc.
I think SteveP recommended reading OofS because he realized that many people commenting here have no idea what's actually in it, and they likewise don't have much understanding of how evolution actually works.
Ken Miller, a Catholic and a biologist, tells about reading it for the first time as a teenager...everyone keeps telling him that it's an evil book (although, of course, they've never read it), but as much as he wants to read something scandalous or evil, he just can't find it in OofS.

Good post, Dave. Whether he meant to or not, I can't think of anyone who has contributed more to the spread of atheism and Godlessness than Darwin through his book and its implications. "By their fruits ye shall know them" is exactly right.