History does not rest on premises but on analysis and interpretation of the facts. It's pretty clear that Darwinian or Darwinian-inspired influences were all the rage in Germany, and Weikert marshalls a variety of sources to support for his argument. That some of these negative influences can be traced back to Darwin himself does not impact the truth of the rest of his substantial analysis, but it does cast doubt on his capacities as a moral philosopher.
From a previous post:
"That's interesting; that perfectly explains why he formulated his ideas before the release of "On the Origin of Species." It also explains why Lenin and crew employed Lysenkoism, a form of Lamarckian evolution, in place of Darwinian evolution and thus ruined Russian agriculture for years to come. It also explains how ridiculous it is to make an argument using guilt by association. Let's see the popular Reductio ad Hitlerum/Nazium argument:
Person A argues for proposition B
Person C shows that proposition B was favored by Hitler/Nazis (I guess we'll have to include Commies as well)
Thus, proposition B is false.
Let's substitute "evolution" for proposition B:
Person A argues for evolution
Person C shows that evolution was favored by Hitler/Nazis/Commies
Thus, evolution is false.
Do you see how stupid the reasoning is? Let's try "vegetarianism."
Person A argues for vegetarianism
Person C shows that vegetarianism was favored by Hitler/Nazis/Commies (In this case, Hitler)
Thus, vegetarianism is false
Guilt by association shows nothing. Is gravity false because people die when they fall off high-rise buildings? Is germ theory false because people die from diseases and because of chemical warfare? Is atomic theory false because of the bomb?
But, you know what's funny? Darwin never supported Social Darwinism and he distanced himself from it. The people you should really blame are Herbert Spencer, a fair bit of Thomas Malthus, ancient Spartan ideology of infantcide, Plato with his selective breeding of children, Franicis Galton, and others.
But you know what's really funny? It wasn't evolution that guided Hitler's footsteps, if anything, it was his perverted form of Catholicism. Forgotten "Gott Min Us?" It's funny how creationists assert that evolution is atheistic. Let's look at this logically:
Evolution is atheistic (Assumed for the sake of argument)
Hitler supported evolution to use in his fascist regime. (I'll accept that for the sake of argument)
Hitler was Catholic. Hitler used Catholicism to fuel his fascist regime. (This is actually historically correct)
If evolution is atheistic, and Hitler was a rabid Catholic that cut down anything not-Christian, why would support evolution? Methinks that creationists need to make up their minds.
Of course, it was Christianity that Hitler used, not evolution:
http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/index.php?page=Hitler
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/nazis.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
But, of course, what else does one expect from the Discovery Institute. Like creationists they: a) quote-mine b) make use of the same arguments of "gaps in the theory" and even distort the current research c) try to shamelessly invoke Reductio ad Hitlerum arguments or Social Darwinism as if it somehow makes evolution false d) have religious motives apropos the Wedge Document e) they call biologists "Darwinists" instead of biologists.
In summary, the claim is worthless because a) it's irrelevant b) it's logically errant; guilt by association doesn't work and c) it's actually wrong.
NOTE: By creationists, I am referencing prominent IDers/creationists who have indeed been shown to quote mine, distort the research, use guilt by association fallacies, have religious not scientific motives, and call biologists Darwinists. I apologize if you take offense to it."
If anything inspired Hitler, I'd blame Luther, a bit of Wagner, misinterpreted Nietzsche, etc. Religious justification of racism existed for a long time. I don't think and it doesn't seem to suggest that Darwin had anything to do with it.