"Evolution" caused the death of Millions of people. Agree? Disagree?

Question

In the 20th century, Social Darwinism (Something Darwin never foresaw) was interpreted in three major schools of thought:

1. Communism - survival of the fittest social class
2. Nazism - Survival of the fittest genetic group
3. Unbridled Capitalism - Survival of the fittest individual

It moved thought to; I can suppress therefore, it is not only my right to suppress, it is my DUTY to suppress. Combined, all three accounted for the deaths / mass murder of over 100 million people.

Evolution may or may not be good science. Social Darwinism unquestionably was the terror of the 20th century.

Thoughts?

Answer 1

From an online encyclopedia:
Social Darwinism is a term used to describe a concept in social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution of biological traits in a population by natural selection can also be applied to competition between societies or groups within a society espousing variations in ethic and underpin a political ideology with success determined by shifts in the number of adherents to a particular ideology.

Sounds rascist and idealogical to me.

I'll be glad when the simple perfect life under Christ's Kingdom gets here. That's all we need to think about.

Answer 2

The construct of Social Darwinism may help you "make sense" of the events/movements you describe, but I suggest that its use is simply an effort to justify actions that have been occurring across the centuries. Social Darwinism is an intellectual game that has nothing to do with evolution. Oppression happens with or without evolutionary theory (witness the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, whom I doubt based their conflicts on evolutionary theory). Any time that one group thinks it has "one-up" on another, if its cultural values allow it, that group will find a way to assert dominance, sometimes to tragic results.

Oddly, contrary to Social Darwinism, evolutionary theory asserts that there is no SPECIES that is higher or lower than any other. (Humans don't represent a pinnacle.) Instead, in order to survive each species has adapted equally well to its environment. Individuals within species are the most successful when (in spite of environmental pressures) they continue to pass along their genes and have their offspring survive long enough to do the same.

Social Darwinism speaks of cultures. As such, it is more a metaphor, perhaps a theory, and much less supportable in fact than evolutionary theory in biology. (If it were true, the much maligned Jews would have long ago gone extinct.)

Answer 3

Wow! You offer me the chance to answer this both here and there...

My computer is slow today and I imagine a hundred people have come up blaming Christianity for a million atrocities.

In this case, it's the same idea both ways. It's what's called an ad hominem argument - that you cannot discredit an idea by discrediting what humans do with the idea. Atomic knowledge is of great benefit to us and it's good that we know the workings of atoms. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are terrible, terrible crimes, but that doesn't mean atomic science is terrible.

The main reason why science and religion have to be kept at arms' length is that science is by definition amoral - how things _are_ is completely different from how things _ought to be_. Morals and ethics should exist, but a scientist's pursuit of truth ideally should exist independent of that. A scientist should never withhold his findings because he's uncomfortable with the moral implications of them.

It is a truth of nature that those individuals which are better suited to their environment and thus able to pass on their genes to their offspring are more likely to flourish. This is true whether or not we like it - whether or not it is aesthetically pleasing to us. Yet the mistake of social darwinism was taking that from a neutral fact to an ideal - that, you see, is not science. It's a distortion. Dr. Richard Dawkins - more important in fact to modern evolutionary biology than Darwin himself - says that humans are the only species equipped to overcome the pressures of natural selection. This we do every day when we help a disabled person, for example. We as humans have compassion within us, and this ability can be used to distinguish ourselves from the blind mechanical logic of natural selection.

Compare it to this: our bodies require certain proteins most easily available in animal meat. You could say that eating animal meat is ethically wrong, but you can't blame medical understanding of our metabolism for this - it merely _is_. Medical scientists didn't _create_ our need for proteins; they simply discovered it. Medical science is also uniquely able to develop supplements that now allow vegetarians to remain healthy and follow their morals.

Human progress does these things all of the time. To say that natural selection exists is not to say that we are bound to it. It certainly does not say that we should glorify it - and kill millions of people because of it.

Hitler and Stalin would, I believe, have killed by the millions whether or not Darwin had ever set foot on the Beagle. All 'Social Darwinism' is is a pseudo-scientific way to justify atrocities.

Atrocities can never be justified, and if Hitler happened to have named you personally as an inspiration for his genocidal dreams, I would have the courtesy not to blame you for it.

Answer 4

Um, the theory of evolution and social darwinism are two different animals, completely.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory used to explain the ways species change over time. It is nothing to do with how we should manage our societies.

Social darwinism has to do with some humans thinking that they can and should try to control the process of evolution, biologically or culturally, in the human species.

One does not logically lead to the other.

Answer 5

Evolution has NOTHING to do with Social Darwinism! You have obviously not learned anything about science or the difference between science and social science. They are separate and have little to do with one another.
Once again another has fallen into the Fundie trap of evolution is bad; the creatinists what to make science and evolution something that they are not.

Answer 6

Sure the Social Darwinism stuff created problems, some gigantic horrors, but Social Darwinism does not equal Evolution. as you understand.

so why ask a question that tries to equate the 2?

Answer 7

Social Darwinism and Evolution are two entirely different things. Evolution is a sound scientific theory backed by mountains upon mountains of evidence where Social Darwinism is sociological, not scientific.

Answer 8

Can you imagine a society where there is no suppression at all? I don't want to suppress anyone, but maybe i am doing it unintentionally. Do you think if I am a teacher and have my dustbin emptied by a dustman it is suppression? Maybe suppression is not the most important question in a society. What about sharing jobs and responsibilities?

Answer 9

the idea that i am better than you (arguement) is hardly new.

My religion is the only true religion
My tribe is better than your tribe
My skin colour is better because..
My country is superior..

You just gave some recent examples of this happening, and they used some of the ideas darwin expressed to back up their argument, but its not a fault with social darwinism or evolution

Answer 10

Science and knowledge has no good or bad status. What people do with them is what you tag the knowledge with.
So I do not agree. I think if it was not for Evolution it would have been something else. The human race like to kill each other and will invent the excuses he needs for it.