It's ironic that the opponents of scientific Darwinism are often the most enthusiastic enablers of social Darwinism. Ben Stein's not a bad example of that.
Stein's response to the Larry Craig case according to wiki:
Yeah, that sounds super fascist.
Oh, I have no doubt as to Stein's social liberalism. Social Darwinism has little, or nothing, to do with gay encounters in men's toilet stalls. (And I agree with Stein, btw, and Arlen Specter on Craig.)
Social Darwinism is the notion that the strong survive. Those who can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps survive. Those who have no boots to strap up are sh**t outta luck. Another way of phrasing it is, "I got mine, Jack. Now root, hog or die." That's a classically Republican, Ayn Rand kind of thing and it flow right from the Darwinist concept that only the strong survive and are, therefore, worth saving. It's a perfectly understandable position to take and lots of really intelligent people have embraced it, in varying degrees, over the last 150 or so years.
The irony I see in all of this is that a significant portion of those who wish to completely ban or at least marginalize scientific Darwinism (which has, at the very least -- SOME basis in fact) are usually the most eager to advance the cause of Social Darwinism. Say what you will about William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial. But Bryan's primary concern was less the preservation of Theism in the teaching of science and more the impact scientific Darwinism would have on the poor, the needy and those at the margins of a cruel, Gilded Age society.
While I accept scientific Darwinism as the most likely explanation of the origin of the species, I fail to see anything Christian, compassionate or even particularly conservative (at least when taking the long view) in social Darwinism.
But I do realize everyone's mileage varies. And those who say "root, hog or die" have as much right to vote, express themselves in the public square and hold office as anyone else.
