So when supposed Christians do bad things, it's because they haven't lived up to the message, but when supposed Darwinists do bad things it's because of the inherent mores of the theory.

Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the strongest, the ones most able to destroy others, it is not a modern version of Might is Right. Fitness can mean, for example, that a group does better in bringing offspring to healthy adulthood because the members work well together and support each other. If some have interpreted it to mean that because they have the power to beat up their neighbours, perhaps through being physically bigger and stronger, or perhaps through happening to live on generous deposits of coal and iron, this is justified by evolution, they are just as wrong as de Montfort wiping out a whole city in the name of God.

You have to use the same criteria in the assessments.

Ruanda was partly carried out by ordained Christians who would almost certainly have rejected evolution with regard to human beings.

Slavery was justified from a biblical episode involving Noah's sons, and the consequent belief in the inferiority of black people was held to until quite recently by Mormons on Biblical grounds. (I know there is some disagreement about their inclusion as Christians, but they certainly used the Bible, and neither their book, nor evolution as the basis for their belief.)

Bad people will be bad, sadly. They will justify themselves any way they can in identifying others as inferiors. Black people - the Bible, Darwin. Women - the Bible, the Qu'ran. Jews - the Bible (some in the US who oppose evolution also find Jesus being identified as Jewish a bit difficult to believe.) That doesn't invalidate the material they use.

Does it?

Penny