The Three Failures of Creationism. Walter Fitch

of evolution has frequently been cited by various people to support their economic and political goals. I will refer to this group, loosely, under the rubric of “social Darwinists.” This is a loose and imprecise term, because the goals and positions of those who have been called, or called themselves, social Darwinists have differed greatly. In this work, I refer to “social Darwinists” as those who profess to determine an ethical ought from an empirical is—that is, those who claim to know which ethical path is best for society from contemplating nature and the theory of evolution. Such social Darwinists profess to “help nature along” by speeding up the time needed for “progress.” They have professed to know which economic system is best with the “certainty of the principle of gravitation” (David Ricardo). They have professed to know which people in society ought exclusively to reproduce (Francis Galton, Harry Laughlin, Margaret Sanger) and which races are superior.

      Accordingly, they have advocated the sterilization of the unfit, opposed state aid to the poor and state support of education, and advocated permitting unrestrained business and commerce. Such beliefs have used evolution and nature to justify racism, colonialism, slavery, and Nazism. Sir Francis Galton wrote, “What nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction.” This citation of nature's actions as a basis for our own is an excellent example of the naturalistic fallacy, which we covered earlier. It is also an abuse of analogy arguments. Moreover, even if one wants to improve the human condition, nothing in the theory of evolution indicates that it would be helpful to turn the strong against the weak.