There is nothing in Darwin to justify deliberate extermination, and Hitler never claimed any such justification. (Hitler studied art and architecture, not biology.) Actually, eliminating genetic diversity is almost a guarantee of eventual extinction. Not very Darwinian at all. And attempting to have government actually manage the process is far more like Intelligent Design than Darwin's unguided process of evolution.
Of course, Darwin would have been appalled at such misuse of his ideas. But it is perfectly obvious that Nazism is in many ways a descendant of the Social Darwinism of the later 19th century, in which nations were generally referred to as "races," as in "the expansion of the Anglo-Saxon race."
All Hitler did was add a veneer of (inaccurate) biology to this previously more cultural concept.
If various modern concepts regarding the origin of life and the universe can be referred to as Darwinian, as they often are, despite Darwin's never discussing such issues, then on what basis can similar extrapolations on his work to the "racial struggle" be refused status as Darwinian in type simply because you disagree with their conclusions?
The article is nonsense and philosophically weak, as is to be expected of generic Leftist justifications or twists for social ideologies. Darwinists are categorized as Leftists due to the idea that humans are... well... human. Nothing more and nothing less -- a sort of animal and creature of raw or flawed nature that is in tremendous need of correctional measure. These supposed human animals are considered weak besides themselves, inferior of mind, and in need of the superior "controls" provided by society, whether such controls be to shape the human mindset, or to design yet another "superior" animal through nature. Social "Left" would state that to reach perfection, the unintelligent and weak person(s) is/are in need of the superior scientific corrections provided.
there is nothing in evolution that would condemn it either.
BTW, hilter certainly had justifcation/rationalization of the German scientific community too.
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/profiles/
Did Darwin tacitly state that evolution is "unguided?" I thought he retained at least a modicum of theism. Or did he completely indulge what his current apostles purvey?