Replies

I'm not in the least offended when anyone describes the way in which racists and eugenicists have used their readings of Darwin to evil ends.

Good. It seems a lot of people are though.

I am offended when someone asserts that those uses are in any way relevant to the question of whether or not natural selection is a scientifically valid theory.

Very few would argue that "natural selection" is a valid scientific theory. The controversy is about the more ambitious subset of that theory called common origin. The doctrine that all life on earth descended from a single common organism. Indeed, folks like Dawkin are elated and rejoice in such a doctrine, and are more then a little anxious to have it confused with the former.

I'm not sure if you meant "common origin" or "natural selection". To clarify, I use the term Darwinism to describe the philosophical doctrine of "common origin" rather then the verifiable scientific theory of natural selection.

Also, I'm assuming you don't really mean "in any way". Obviously that is literally untrue, because both are related to human experience, moreover the impact Darwinism has on philosophy is certainly tied to anything that bears on its veracity -- or its perceived veracity. Which certainly has something within the realm of "any relation" to "whether natural selection is a valid scientific theory".

So I'm left unable to make logic sense of your position.

I used "natural selection" as a placeholder based on the title of Darwin's book and his own comparisons of his theory with Wallace's. I'm quite happy to use "common origin" or "common descent" as an alternative.

Can we agree that Darwin's theories would be equally valid (or invalid) if eugenics and Nazism had never come to pass?