Trust me, if I wanted your opinion about my comprehension abilities I would have asked.
Hitler was not a Darwinist - he was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God.
Again, it is totally wrong to define Darwinism within the confines of belief in the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution is the intellectual contribution of Darwin to the world. It is the only biological explanation for diversity of species, the diversity of humanity, the rise of antibiotic resistance, and any number of other biological phenomena.
Perhaps, but the Darwin family's legacy extends much further.
That nutcases on both sides try to make of this simple theory an overarching philosophy of everything doesn’t change Darwin’s central contribution to science or discredit the use of that theory for further discovery fun and profit.
Really? Who are the "nutcases" who tried to stop eugenics?
Do you even know what eugenics is? Do you know who Francis Galton and Leonard Darwin were? What about the Huxleys?
Oh, I see. You are using “Darwinsim” as a catch all for everything Creationists disagree with. Therefore geology is “Darwinism”, archeology is “Darwinism”, physics is “Darwinsim”, and astrology is “Darwinism”.
Taking the lying pronouncements of Creationists for what evolution and science is ‘really all about’ is sort of like taking a Communists’ word for what Capitalism/Free Markets are and what they stand for, believe in, and accomplish.
Darwin's “family legacy” was negligible - the contributions of a scientist to a scientific theory is not abrogated by what his descendants chose to do. Leonard Darwin was a nobody with a famous name - used by some more influential eugenicists because of his famous name and the associations to actual science it would bring.
Anyone who advocates eugenics needs to take a long hard look at a race horse. Sure they are faster - at the expense of just about everything else - long fast legs are prone to breaking - thin heat exuding skin is prone to cracking, etc, etc.
Eugenics is based upon a rather idiotic idea that selective breeding of humans will unequivocally produce a “superior” human being. That is completely contrary to any understanding of actual evolution.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Antagonistic pleotropy, etc.
Eugenics might well produce a taller human, or a smarter human, or a longer lived more healthy human - but at a COST.
Both see a system of an unregulated “market” that is highly responsive and productive.
Both tend to think a ‘central planner’ will predict what the ‘market’ will want far better than millions of independent actors acting upon their own best interest.
There is a good reason why the Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory - it smacked too much of Capitalism - with independent actors acting in their own self interest - a ‘reward’ for ‘individual excellence’ - and no easy way out of the reality of “no such thing as a free lunch”.