steve treats Darwin with the same authority as I treat the bible.

Well, you see, I don't accept "authority" of any kind unless I've checked its authenticity. In order to do that, I need evidence. The only evidence I have about the Bible (and gosh, I have read it, you know, good Catholic boy that am) is that it is incomplete, often of dubious authorship, cherrypicked (gospels of Mary Magdalen and Thomas, anyone?), occasionally rather suspiciously interpreted or translated and, in parts, somewhat replete with strange forms of magic. Along, of course, with healthy doses of misogyny and chosen people. I'm afraid it falls a little short of my "validated authority" test. On the other hand, as a biologist I have also read On The Origin Of Species (unlike you). Over a hundred years after it was published, a time of huge advances in genetics and biochemistry and evidence accumulation, I studied evolution at university. I know all about the evidence, a huge body it is too, and the disputes and corrections and new discoveries made since Darwin. I've done field studies involving natural selection. Taught the stuff in schools for 25 years, keeping myself updated. I know the difference, unlike you, between solid facts supported by evidence and pure speculation. So the reason I treat Darwin with such respect is that I've read him, studied him and watched the follow-up. Done a fair bit of thinking. Unlike you, the lazy master of predigested, prejudiced, received "wisdom" that is actually nothing of the kind.