Incorrect assumptions... if you read Darwin you find that the survival of the fittest is not a passive thing, but an aggressive act. Though he did not support the killing of weaker beings, he clearly believed that the act of doing so was part of evolution itself. He also pointed out in great detail the inferior and superior qualities of humans based on race, sex, health, handicap and physical abnormalities.
And along with this, he made it clear the proper way of nature was to eliminate the inferior to promote the strong.
If you wish to qualify his statements as something more or less you have to employ spin, selective memory or revise history.
You are welcome to offer specific quotes, by Darwin, in context, to justify your position, but I will not do your research for you.
As for the theory of evolution, it is a methodologically repeatable observation, based on clearly understood logical principles. In this it is the essence of a "passive thing," as you put it. It's very nature, however, prevents it from being an "aggresssive act" because it cannot act.
Eugenics, however, is indeed "an aggressive act," as it literally describes the process by which mass murder takes place.
You also write: Though he did not support the killing of weaker beings, he clearly believed that the act of doing so was part of evolution itself. He also pointed out in great detail the inferior and superior qualities of humans based on race, sex, health, handicap and physical abnormalities.
Thank you for making my point - his observations were of evolutionary process, which he formulated into a theory of operation (thus his detailed examination of things that influence reproductive ability in plants, animals and humans, such as "race, sex, health, handicap and physical abnormalities." HOWEVER: His non-support of killing weaker beings is his rejection of eugenics principles.
Firefighters study fire, and reduce it's operations into scientifically testable theories. But that doesn't mean they go around starting fires (though they can). Military people study war, and reduce it's operations into scientifically testable theories. But that doesn't mean they go around starting wars (though they can).
You call my objections "spin, selective memory or revised history," but they are merely observations of your lack of critical thinking. But I will show you what spin is - your careful use of the word "proper" in your summation phrase: And along with this, he made it clear the proper way of nature was to eliminate the inferior to promote the strong.
"Proper" is a value judgement Darwin did NOT make, precisely because - as YOU pointed out - "he did not support the killing of weaker beings." But "proper" is precisely the kind of value judgement word a eugenicist uses to justify his invocation of evolutionary principles for mass murder. Your use of such a loaded word, out of context, as a summation, therefore, amounts to a very deft spin on your part, which you actually denied the truth of yourself.
“...if you read Darwin you find that the survival of the fittest...”
If YOU read Darwin you will not find the phrase “survival of the fittest”. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s always best to remain silent.
“And along with this, he [Darwin] made it clear the proper way of nature was to eliminate the inferior to promote the strong.”
Where did Darwin make it clear that this is the “proper” way of nature?
Do you agree or disagree with the idea that in nature it is survival of the fittest?