The More Important The Subject And The

The Classical Argument For Why A Supposedly Decent And Moral Creature Like Homo Sapiens Can Mistreat And Even Extirpate Other Species Rests Upon An Extreme Position In A Continuum. The Cartesian Tradition, Formulated Explicitly In The Seventeenth Century, But Developed In "folk" And Other Versions Throughout Human History No Doubt, Holds That Other Animals Are Little More Than Unfeeling Machines, With Only Humans Enjoying "consciousness," However Defined.

The Origin Of Homo Sapiens, As A Tiny Twig On An Improbable Branch Of A Contingent Limb On A Fortunate Tree, Lies Well Below The Boundary.

All Evolutionary Biologists Know That Variation Itself Is Nature's Only Irreducible Essence... I Had To Place Myself Amidst The Variation.

Creationist Critics Often Charge That Evolution Cannot Be Tested, And Therefore Cannot Be Viewed As A Properly Scientific Subject At All. This Claim Is Rhetorical Nonsense.

Why, Then, Do I Continue To Claim That Creationism Isn't Science? Simply Because These Relatively Few Statements Have Been Tested And Conclusively Refuted.