It doesn't matter that Darwin made no such claim, the evo teachers make the claim for him.
You paint with a very, very wide brush. Since when do "evo teachers" advocate and teach Social Darwinism? I doubt if any but a small renegade fringe of "evo teachers" advocate Social Darwinism.
Such generalizations make a reasonable discussion impossible. But it's about what I've come to expect.
You paint with a very, very wide brush.
***You're right. There appears to be a difference between Social Darwinists and People Whose Theories Derive From Evolution (PWTDFE). Please insert PWTDFE where I said Social Darwinism. If it is too broad a brush, recall that I was mirroring your own words, and that I also qualified the statement as “Before the Scopes trial, one could have said…” If that is still too broad a brush, consider that it really isn't that big of a deal and I can just concede whatever you're trying to say and I still have my experience as well. It's interesting that the post directly afterwards has another example. I think there are a lot of people like me who have had to sit through classes where some teacher in the field of [fill in the blank, unrelated to biology] spouted off on their perspective derived from evolution. Usually one just has to sit & take it.
Since when do "evo teachers" advocate and teach Social Darwinism? I doubt if any but a small renegade fringe of "evo teachers" advocate Social Darwinism.
***Assuming that Social Darwinism is a small subset of Social Theories Derived From Evolution, yes you're right. But my experience has been that teachers from all kinds of unrelated fields are using evo as a backdrop for their favorite PWTDFE philosophy. It would be nice to be in a position to force them to take it to a philosophy class. Kind of like the freeper derogative to Hollywood “Just Shut Up & Sing”, Just Shut Up and Teach.
Such generalizations make a reasonable discussion impossible. But it's about what I've come to expect.
***If someone makes wide generalizations, call them on it, just like you did. How does that make reasonable discussion impossible? If they respond in reason, you have what you want. If they don't, you get to ridicule them, having given them a chance.