OH MY ..... ISN'T HE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A DEGREE IN THE STEM SUBJECTS? Or Is That Claim Just For Blog Rat Purposes?

Perhaps it's considered outré in the smart set, the transitive law of mathematics and logic, but in my primitive rural school, we were taught:

If a = b and b = c then a = c.  

Darwinism  = natural selection (by definition) and natural selection = survival of the fittest (also social Darwinism, by definition) (Darwin, editions 5 and 6 of On the Origin of species). 

Therefore Darwinism = "social Darwinism". 

The history of that claim that there is a difference between Darwinism and social Darwinism is something I looked into but not extensively, if it didn't originate after WWII and the need to rescue St. Darwin from his and his theories association with the atrocities of the Nazis, it gained currency in that period up till today.  The lie is ubiquitous among allegedly educated people though a lie exposed by that one thing that they oddly don't encourage for St. Darwin, reading what he wrote, in full and in the context of his own citations. 

That eugenics was founded on Darwinism is not only a matter of reason, because the invention of eugenics would have no motivation and make no sense at all if natural selection were not assumed, it is confirmed by the ultimate of authorities in the matter, the inventor of eugenics, Francis Galton.  That is confirmed, again, by Darwin's citation of Galton's earliest works in eugenics (again, on the authority of Francis Galton identifying them as such), his support for his son George's eugenic articles and his own promotion of eugenic ideas, though he favored the method of extermination of the "savage races" at the hands of the "civilised" murderers who would prove their superiority through that act of killing off their rivals to more benign methods of eugenics.   Charles Darwin was firmly opposed to contraception because he thought that if women could have sex without risk of pregnancy, they'd enjoy it and slip around a bit.  

It would help if you actually read what your idol, your man god, your plaster St. Charles Darwin had actually said instead of what people have lied to cover that up. I can give quotes and citations and, in fact, have, over and over again, to the same idiots who refuse to read what their atheist idol said. 

I am kind of fascinated by the phenomenon of easily refuted lies which are sold and bought through the venue of English language education, at least in the United States and Britain, though my experience online is that it is common to Australia and Canada, as well.   That the towering figure of Charles Darwin is "known" through falsifying what the man himself said, through people, today, who never met the man contradicting what his own children, his closest professional colleagues said about him is a window into just how much secular, materialist, scientistic, atheist mythology is passed on by people who claim to own fact and evidence based knowledge, disdaining unevidenced belief .   

Quite a bit more of it than should be allowed is complete and utter lies and bull shit.  And yet they wonder why people don't believe them on important things, like man made climate change.