Niccolo Machiavelli and Charles Darwin got a bad rap... [View all]
Both "Machiavellian" and "Social Darwinist" are terms for people who are far from that of Machiavelli and Darwin.
Let me tell you a story about a King who killed his messengers upon hearing bad news...
Niccolo Machiavelli was a gifted, ethical, moral, intelligent and benevolent man.
He was dedicated to Florentine Republicanism, and was a big figure after they ousted the Medici.
After they took power again, they tortured him, and when released he wrote "The Prince."
He wasn't advocating this, he was just telling the world what power is all about.
And it was ugly.
Classic case of killing the messenger.
Move to Charles Darwin.
The man was dedicated to science. He started off his journey on the HMS Beagle a theist, a scholar and an unbiased observer. He was dedicated to the ethics of the Church of England, love of family and a love of his brother man.
During his journey, he witnessed, first hand, how cruel "nature" can be. The weakest are killed by their brothers and sisters. Only the fittest survive. It horrified him.
He wrote "The Origin of Species" with this in mind.
Yet, there is a classification - ironically, very popular among some Christians - called "Social Darwinism."
Darwin never advocated "survival of the fittest" as a social structure, he was merely telling it as it was, with no checks, no balances, nothing to intervene.
God, if he ever existed or could exist - did nothing.
This is what is most damning about Evolution for Christians.
Darwin tells us how it is, and once again, the "kill the messenger" process happens again.