That makes no sense.
The proof is in the pudding: the most accomplished evolutionists were and still are strong advocates of abortion and/or eugenics.
People who misused a scientific theory and didn't even bother to read all of Darwin's works. If you believe eugenics is Darwin's fault, then a logically consistent position for you to take would be to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of criminals who commit crimes using guns.
No it’s not because the general problem with evolutionist thinking is that you can use it to explain anything you want and its opposite.
“That makes no sense.”
It is a theory based on rhetorical argument as opposed to other theories that are based on mathematical equations (for example f=ma, e=mc^2, etc). Since it is not based on any firm structure, we are told to simply trust the scientists who support it. But what if they can’t be trusted?
My goodness, the fascinating insights one misses, when relying upon the "Articles" tab instead of the "Comments" tab.
So, how do we go about determining the level of criminality, here? Was Hitler merely guilty of skimming, an historic example of the horrors of Cliff Notes writ large, or was he criminally Darwiniac?
And, what would be the proper venue for trying such an offense ... the Hague?
The mind boggles. Who are some of the living examples of this criminal use of Darwin? Peter Singer? He hasn't actually killed anybody though, not to my knowledge, not yet.
You've provided much food for thought, here. Thank you.