I think you saying "so what" means that you don't care that the main works in evolutionary biology are heavily politicized, you apparently only care for whether or not evolution is scientifically valid or not.
No! That is not what it means. I care if some idiot misuses anything. For example, the use of religious ideas that were supposed to say something about loving your fellow man to justify killing is something I care about too.
However, the misuse of an idea does not make the idea wrong. You seem to think that it does in some way. That is what the so what is about. So an idea is misused what does that tell you about the idea itself?
It's bizarre that you implicitly equate evolutionary biology to religion, by asking if there is a religion that hasn't been used to defend racism, in stead of asking if there is a science that hasn't been used to defend racism.
I suppose there has been someone, somewhere who has managed to misuse any of the sciences. I do not equate biology to a religion. You'd have to be a bit thick to get that out of what I posted. The point is that anything can be misused.
I don't accept that something over 20 years old can't be brought in as evidence of evolutionary biology being politicized now. That is a completely ridiculous standard of evidence that noone who has even the slightest amount of honest intellectual curiosity about the subject would ever propose
It was your conjecture that it was "becoming politizied". You have to do better than show that it had been in the past.
In addition, you seem to think that it has some affect on the science itself. For that to be shown you'd have to have the scientists in the field doing the politicizing.
You then make a statement:
"It just so happens that the most influential scientists in the discipline are "guilty" of politicizing much in their work,"
but have yet to offer an example. In fact, you've never backed a thing up.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-14-2003]