Quote
Well, considering that most of darwins' theory of evolution' is not scientific that would be very difficult. Most current 'science' does not agree with darwin's ideas, there are no real scientific studies based on them in that respect. The Nazis tried, but look where that got us. I guess that all speaks for itself too.
Wrong, most of Darwin's theory is considered scientific. Support for my statement is that most of the scientific community accepts evolution as the most well supported theory for the diversity of life on this planet. If you want anyone to accept your assertion that most of his theory is not scientific you should provide some evidence in support of that assertion.

So, when Hitler claims in Mien Kampf that the Jew's should be eliminated for the cause of Christ, he actually meant that they should be eliminated for the cause of Darwin? It is surprising that Hitler confused the two.

Quote
However, you'll find plenty of non-scientific attempts. Darwins ideas fail a scientific method, they've never been proven. But needless to say they have been very influential.
Perhaps I am not well versed in the scientific method or Darwin's ideas, because I can't see where they fail the scientific method. In fact, my observation shows just the opposite.
Could you provide a simple scientific analysis of one aspect of Darwin's theory showing how it fails the scientific method?

Again, even if Darwin was a card-carrying KKK member, that changes nothing about the truth or falseness of the theory. Saying evolution is false because Darwin was a racist is like me saying that the Bible is false because Ted Haggard is a homosexual hypocrite. It is an ad hominem attack and a logical fallacy.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke