"Mr. Shaw is equating pete's taking offense to taking Jesus' title in vain to his own offense at pete "taking Darwin's name in vain."

Doesn't that indicate to all that Mr. Shaw is demonstrating a religious attachment to Darwin?"

Wrong again mate.

Mr Shaw, as you prefer to call him (presumably to indicate that he is beyond your personal "pale") is merely pointing out that my misusing the name of Pete's sacred character, in whom I do not believe, is just the same as Pets's dismissive references to Darwinism, whose work he constantly derides.

It is a matter of mutual disbelief, not of equating beliefs.

Steve is of course correct. I don't share Pete's religion, so why would I respect its mythical characters, in fact, why SHOULD I?

If Pete ever shows the minutest respect for any of the honest, hardworking scientists who have gathered evidence in support of evolution, I might change my attitude, but since he never has I surmise he never will, so he can take his comments on my language, roll them up into a tight cylinder and ............well, mustn't be argumentative, eh Jack?