In my post about the link between biological evolution and genocide, I quickly illuminated the powerful difference between seeing science as a descriptive tool and interpreting it as a prescriptive tool. Science is only ever descriptive. The comments section under that post hosts some gems of information. Tildeb pointed out that we have no evidence that Hitler ever read On the Origin of Species, where we do have evidence Churchill did. With that in mind, Darwin inspired Hitler to commit his atrocities, these would have been second-hand reports. I wanted to find evidence to support Tildeb’s claim, because it is interesting, and I slowly came across many articles on the issue that I implore you to read if you believe natural selection influenced the Holocaust. (I have given you two links on opposing views. Do think critically about them, now.)
Equally, Nate jumped from my trite post to argue that “Social Darwinism” aberrates Darwinism; social Darwinism is a dogmatic ideology supporting a political idea, it was not based on the real scientific idea itself. The danger is ideological dogma and totalitarian ideal. Ubi Dubium took the opportunity to argue that “artificial selection”, which is what eugenics is, is actually inspired by a long history of farmers and agriculture, not the newer idea of “natural selection”.