Absolutely, I mean the reason for this is that most people are unaware, completely unaware of how much in the way of politics and prejudice exist within the sciences, very much the same as in the area of politics or theology or the arts. I mean, look, let's go back to the 19th century when Darwin was working, OK? So, the question is if you had what was clear evidence in front you, say the intricacies of the cell, would you then still formulate the theory of evolution? Well, I don’t know. Let’s take a look at Westerners and how they reacted to evidence that was clearly in front of them and what sort of theories that they formulated, OK? How about Europe and the West? We clearly had the existence of people that is those of African descent in the United States and the West. But in the United States and the West, they were not counted as full persons, then it was argued in the law with great vigor that they were only a certain percentage of a person. This was contrary to all the evidence right in front of them that this person is born, grows up, has desires, has troubles, has emotions, gets old and dies just like you do. But yet somehow despite that overwhelming evidence right in front of you, thinkers of all types maintained the position that some people were more human than other people. So, with having this evidence in front of him, would that change Darwin's theories? I can't say that it would. Because he was coming at these theories, he was coming at the work that he did with certain assumptions and certain prejudices that impacted the final product. And to understand that those operate within the sciences is extremely important when you try to evaluate this information, it is not unbiased and completely neutral. It comes with opinions and prejudices and I'm sure Darwin had his.
