And the second ammendment only allows bearing of arms within a Militia with Regulations.
You need to apply how the language was used at the time it was written to grasp the meaning.
I would disagree with you on your analogy as to the first clause of the second amendment not meaning what it says. The problem with the first clause of the 2nd amendment is not it’s plain English meaning but rather that it gives sophists some wiggle room to build a deceptive argument around.
In any case your point is that I am not understanding Darwin’s meaning on that phrase (in regards to “favored races”. I’m not closed minded to that possibility so please educate me on the meaning.
FWIW I’m marginally invested in the evolution debate at best...I do think that Darwinism arrives at conclusions that require a materialist philosophy as a starting point (rather then being some sort of evidence for materialism). That the species that existed on the earth changed over time I think is well supported by the fossil record and that natural selection occurs is supported by observation, however I think that idea that speciation is caused by natural selection of “random” mutations is not supported without a philisophical bias.
In the bigger picture I think it’s irrelevant to the question (that most people involved are concerned with, that is) in regards to the existance of a transcendent Creator. I think there are more important scientific and philisophical areas to explore in regards to this question (such as the Big Bang theory as well as the Hard Problem of Consciousness in philosophy).
At any rate I do believe it is clear that the eugenics movement was inspired by “enlightenment” thinking and materialist philosophy with Darwin’s theory being no small part of that.
If I have in fact misunderstood Darwin’s meaning then it appears that the eugenecists did as well. So what was the meaning?