[r9etb]

The problem with this silly screed being, of course, that "Social Darwinism" was called that for a specific reason, and one of its chief aims was a eugenic approach to improving the human race. Whether or not Charles Darwin intended it to occur, people did (and do) attempt to apply his theory to human development.

The Nazis were not alone in this -- Margaret Sanger was another notable devotee -- but the Nazis did have their "racial theories," and they attempted to put them into practice.

I've been reminded many times that the theory of evolution has no moral implications. But of course -- like any scientific theory -- it does. And as the nastier aspects of "Social Darwinism" have made clear, the moral implications of evolution can be rather uncomfortable.

[steve-b]

I've been reminded many times that the theory of evolution has no moral implications.

Have you also been reminded many times that two plus two make four, and have you failed to learn that fact as well?

[Quark2005]

I've been reminded many times that the theory of evolution has no moral implications. But of course -- like any scientific theory -- it does. And as the nastier aspects of "Social Darwinism" have made clear, the moral implications of evolution can be rather uncomfortable.

Should we pretend, in spite of the evidence, that evolution never occurred because its moral implications are "uncomfortable"?

Good science doesn't try to cater it's outcome to what might be comfortable to us, it does quite the opposite - attempts to reveal the truth, in spite of what we are comfortable believing. How society decides to deal with the outcome is another problem entirely that has no bearing whatsoever on the science itself.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Hitler was an embodiment of bad science and bad theology who found a willing audience to practice both.