[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm sorry if my points aren't totally clear. I'm bouncing around some ideas for an MA in which I want to examine how Darwinism, as an ideology, fits in with the tenets of New Left ideology.

I'm not familiar with what exactly the tenets of new left ideology are. Regardless, if the standard definition of "Darwinism" is accurate, I don't see how it can be even considered an ideology:

A fairly current definition I encountered in the Gage Canadian Dictionary:

"Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, that in successive generations all plants and animals tend to develop slightly varying forms. The forms that survive are those which through natural selection have adapted themselves to their environment better than the forms that become extinct."

According to OED:

"1. The doctrine or hypothesis of Erasmus Darwin.
2. The biological theory of Charles Darwin concerning the evolution of species.

It should be noted that in the Oxford English Dictionary, uses of the word "Darwinism" are very old; all of them predating the twentieth century.

There are probably ideologies that appear to encourage comparable economic and social results to Darwin's theory of natural selection in the biological realm. But some similarities does not mean there is a relationship at all between them and Darwin's theory.

Originally Posted by peter12

In regards to your points... we don't live in a relativistic world, some philosophical enterprises fit better with human nature than others. I think that Darwinism struggles to provide intrinsic value in each human being. Darwinism was certainly twisted to fit Nazism, but from a social perspective, the processes of Natural Selection put the same value on human life as National Socialism.

Even if it is true that "Darwinism" struggles as you say it does—and I would argue that it does not, so what? Science is not at all concerned with intrinsic value. Period. On the contrary, it is actually my opinion that a clear understanding of evolution would in many instances increase one's perception of humanity's "intrinsic value". Does it not spur us on to do our best to preserve our own species through discovering new and meaningful ways of coping and sustaining our own beneficial environment? Furthermore, a proper understanding of evolution ought increase one's understanding of her/his place in the world, in her/his environment, her/his relationship with all of nature, and the critical importance for maintaining a harmonistic existence within this environment.

Originally Posted by peter12

...When people are viewed simply as material organisms, instead of say... being made in the image of God, then socially, people are less valued.

This is patently not true. If it were, than every naturalist would show a clear pattern of the kind of behaviour you would expect from a sociopath. In fact, most do not, so how can you make such a claim regarding the connection between evolutionary theory and the valuation of human life?

Originally Posted by peter12

...Now, I'm not being so ridiculous as to say that Darwinism is responsible for moral decay, merely to say that it should stay within the realm of science and not be allowed to venture outwards.

But you did just claim that viewing people as material organisms somehow devalues them. You have made this statement and followed it up with something about how "Darwinism"—for which you still need to provide an acceptable definition—should not be allowed to "venture out" of science. Before making these sorts of generalizations, you need to make a case that there is indeed a relationship between an adherence to Darwin's theory of evolution and the valuation of human life.