"The moral arguments against the ideas of Social Darwinism must be made in spite of the observations, not because of them."
It's interesting, just how many moral equivocations have been made on this thread, in purported defense of amoral science.
Staunch evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith:
The German Fuhrer . . . consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.
Elsewhere, Keith wrote:
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front;" he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people.
Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book. In fact, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the very title itself of Hitler's book ("My Struggle"), was influenced by Darwin's subtitle, "Struggle for Existence," and by the German advocate of evolution, Ernst Haeckel, who published a book, in 1905, entitled, Der Kampf um den Entwicklungs-Gedanken ("The Struggle over Evolutionary Thinking").
In Hitler's Mein Kampf, he spoke of "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of bastards."
In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable."
A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
I'm curious, do you view Gregor Mendel's studies to be in the category of "amoral science" with a "direct line" to Hitler and the Holocaust? After all, Galton's ideas concerning the specific "science of eugenics" (which he so named after Darwin's death) are certainly as much Mendelian as Darwinian, as early 20th American eugenics enthusiasts well recognized.