[johnnyb_61820]

"The difference is that "social darwinism" is a proactive approach, based upon the faulty notion that a scientific theory prescribes action."

Somewhat yes and somewhat no. Scientific theory should be actionable, but can only be actionable given certain premises. What I was pointing out was that social darwinism is not contrary to darwinist principles. It may use them differently than someone with different assumptions, but it isn't contrary.

For example, if I follow the theory that ice is cold, and I want to be cold, it is not misusing the theory of ice to use it to get cold. Likewise, if evolution says that the best way to preserve the species is by removing the "lesser" ones from the procreative population, and my moral code is based on survival of the species (as is most materialistic philosophies), then Hitler-esque tactics would be an appropriate use of the theory.

Although unsourced, Stalin was thought to have said that killing masses of people was equivalent to mowing the lawn.

[Dimensio]

What I was pointing out was that social darwinism is not contrary to darwinist principles.

Neither is eating pizza on tuesdays. Science isn't about correct or incorrect behaviour, it's about describing how the universe works.

For example, if I follow the theory that ice is cold, and I want to be cold, it is not misusing the theory of ice to use it to get cold.

True.

Likewise, if evolution says that the best way to preserve the species is by removing the "lesser" ones from the procreative population, and my moral code is based on survival of the species (as is most materialistic philosophies), then Hitler-esque tactics would be an appropriate use of the theory.

Except that you're first stepping beyond science by assigning a moral value to anything, then you're asserting that you know what is best for the continued survival of the species. Your actions won't occur in a vacuum. It's entirely possible that your attempt at wiping out a 'genetically impure' segment of the population will remove a specific gene sequence that would have given humanity a decisive advantage following an unexpcted environmental change that suddenly hit the planet. It's also possible that you'll end up triggering a massive war that will result in the entire annihiliation of the species. Suddenly, your attempt to apply "darwinism" to social order in an attempt to preserve the species has backfired, because you couldn't see that evolution isn't the only thing guiding events within the universe or even on Earth.