For noting that mutations can confer physical attributes which enhance an individual's chance of survival?
You don't understand.
Darwin wasn't the only game in town. There were other theories of evolution:
* Progressive Creationism
- Basically a combo of creation and evolution. Humans never evolved from monkeys (the idea of progressive creationism is that there is same track evolution, that is humans are specific branch of primate), but they got here over millions of years of evolution.
* Punctuated Equilibrium
- We basically evolve due to crises, usually all at once. (Seems to also be called Catastrophism
* Theistic Evolution
- God basically made up in his lab, and we evolved from there.
- Living things differ from nonliving in that they have a sort of vital force.
- Living beings have a tendency to change (teleological or goal-directed)
- This has actually borne out in epigenetics, but when I was a kid, they scoffed at this guy as a lunatic. They simplified his theory as a giraffe that kept extending its neck for high branches, so his children or grandchildren got long-necked. But he actually did study stuff, and found that when there wasn't a need (bats and sight, for example), certain traits atrophied.
- Animals evolve due to mutations.
* Genetic drift
- Evolution due not to natural selection but from foreign alleles (Where do these alleles come from? Well, viruses carry DNA, among other things (sex)). For example, a mutant blackbird that has white feathers mates with a blackbird, whose children in turn mate with alot of birds, spreading the change.
For reference, I'm a Lamarckian and a Catastrophist.
But only Darwin demanded that people, plants, animals, etc compete with each other for survival. In other words, he was a dick who saw people as two classes: those who are fittest ("essential") and get to drive nice cars and have nice houses and have twelve children, and those who are not fittest and are told that population is out of control (bye bye children, according to the state), that we need to care for the climate (bye bye car), and that immigrants need housing (sorry guy, you'll have to share or move out). By the way those who are not fittest work themselves into an early grave and die without issue in Darwin's ideal universe. He's a prick.
Yes, ostensibly he is speaking only about bacteria. But you haven't been paying attention of you think that.
Scientists and political activists during the past century have drawn on Darwinian theory to promote one utopian crusade after another, including forced sterilization, scientific racism, euthanasia, and an ever-expanding government justified in the name of the “evolving Constitution.” The typical response of Darwinists to this record of coercive “Social Darwinism” is to deny that it has any genuine connection to Darwin or his theory of evolution. But when one examines the historical record in detail, the effort to disentangle Darwinism from “Social Darwinism” is hard to maintain. This can be seen most clearly in the case of eugenics.
The eugenists’ underlying fear was articulated by Charles Darwin himself in The Descent of Man, where he criticized modern society for undermining the natural “process of elimination” by building asylums for the mentally ill, homes for the handicapped, hospitals for the sick, and welfare programs for the poor.
Darwin is NOT a researcher of biology here. We can see his true colors. He's a snob
who wants to put down the sick, the poor, and the handicapped.