But that is not how he represents himself on ENV. There appear to be over 200 posts relating Darwin to Hitler. I haven’t foind any qualifier yet.
AND I haven’t rushed to promote him. I have written that Weikart seems to be lying by omission, omitting important information necessary for understanding. I am not the only one of this opinion. Quoting Gilboff:
Weikart tries to argue that no ideology as coherent and destructive as Nazism could ever have developed as long as ethics stood on unquestioned Christian foundations, which upheld the sanctity of every individual life. He seems at times to picture a halcyon pre-Darwinian past, when the absolute theoretical foundations of ethics made a real difference in practice. However, as Weikart does acknowledge, there were many ethical lapses before Darwin, too. One might reasonably doubt whether Western civilization was significantly more corrupt after its intellectuals took the naturalistic turn, but Weikart does not. He argues–incredibly, for someone who likes his morals absolute–that things like racism and slavery were less bad before Darwin, because Europeans still had Christian values and were moved to send missionaries to Africa as well as slave traders (pp. 103, 185).
– SOURCE
Darwin did not invent Social Darwinism, this became an outlet for previously existing prejudices. Weikart could easily insert brief reminders about the deep roots of racism, but he chooses not to do this in his public media for the DI and ENV. This is the public face Weikart has chosen to present, why should I doubt him?