Welcome to Gaia! ::

I didn't say it did. Evolution is believing that one species can evolve into something else, ape to man for example. Both are separate species and the ape is concidered primitive to man. Evolutionary change takes vast amounts of time. If the human race was to evolve to species x, then the human race would be primitive to species x. In order for this to take place. Some desirable mutation would flourish while others would be condemned until the point a human reached species x.
For short, selective breeding to insure the survival of the species. How is that not racist?

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

Small correction, but apes are primates, but not monkeys as only members of cercopithecoidea and platyrrhini are considered "monkeys". Apes are distinguished from monkeys by their lack of tails, decreased reliance on smell and arm position (apes have greater range of motion than monkeys, monkeys walk more like cats or dogs)

Ooh, look; I can drop links, too!

Evolution myths: Evolutionary theory leads to racism and genocide

I especially like how the second sentence in my link reads "The claim is often made that the theory of evolution leads inevitably to eugenics and to atrocities like those perpetrated by Hitler"... which, of course, is pretty much the exact thing you said.

Also, your talk elsewhere about how humans are "more evolved than apes" shows just how little you understand what evolution is about. Nobody says that one group of sparrows are "better" than another because their beak is a different shape, or that lactose intolerant people are "less evolved" than those who can eat ice cream. I'm pretty darn sure that this sort of thing has been explained in this thread elsewhere at length.

Your oft-repeated Evangelical characature of evolution is nothing more than a Straw Man used to poison the well against science. Genuinely educating yourself about it would alleviate this problem of yours, and I suggest you do so to avoid future misunderstanding. You don't have to accept* it, you just have to know what it actually does (and doesn't) say.

*One does not 'believe in' science; that's not how science works

Darwin’s ideas have been invoked as justification for all sorts of policies, including some very unpleasant ones. But evolutionary theory is a descriptive science. It cannot tell us what is right and wrong.

Actually, On the Jews and Their Lies is exactly what he thinks it is. It represents Luther's evolution from a Christian diplomat with regard to the Jews (consider That Jesus Was Born a Jew from 1523) to his full-on antisemitism during the mid-1530s. Lies was written in 1543.

Lies is Luther advocating ghettoisation of the Jews:

-Destruction of their synagogues and schools;
-To deny them property ownership;
-To burn their religious texts; (you know, except for half of the Bible);
-To deny free exercise to rabbis;
-To deny them protection from highwaymen;
-To take away their wealth unless they became Christians;
-To limit their professions only to manual labour.

And that's only part 11, after 10 parts of expounding on why Jews are literally Satan's s**t and how his particular Christianity is awesome. As for World War II, Lies was one factor in German antisemitism in general; and certainly affected the NSDAP directly. If you bone up on the history of the Nürnberg rallies, this will be illustrated for you.

-----

As for evolution being used to justify whatever, that doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory. If you think it does, you should rethink your own position as well. 3nodding

Actually, it's a refutation of your attempt to invoke the NSDAP as evidence that "evolution theory promotes racism," and in direct response to your reference to Luther's book (which you did to defend your use of Hitler.)

Evolution does not promote racism; a misunderstanding of evolution (eg, the ladder of creation model) can, as can the extremely narrow and misguided view that one can "optimise" a given gene pool without negative consequence.

In the case of eugenics, you're proposing an inverted causality. It's not that someone can look at evolution and reach a conclusion of "racism is good." Rather, the racist has already committed to racism for some other reason - upbringing, revenge, or whatever. Misapplied concepts from evolution might sound appealling to some of them - but generally not. Either they'll fall into one of the previous traps, or they'll do something weird like say "those others were evolved, but we're better because we're created specially."

Evolution isn't inherently compatible with "us and them" mentalities either. It describes changes in populations due to changing environments over time.

No, I'm saying it's a good source for understanding where interbellum German racism came from, and why your contention that evolution caused or promoted that racism is groundless.