Anybody wanting to know how the currents that flowed out of evolutionary theory affected the eugenics movement ought to read this book (although it's expensive so you may wish to try a library copy). It's a real eye-opener.

I don't think you have to be an evolution skeptic, or even have an opinion on evolution, to find it highly disturbing that so many scientists drew an immoral philosophy from what was supposed to be an impartial analysis of nature.

They were all Northern European white men.

Well, the horrors of the Twentieth Century are precisely where Darwinism takes us. Without a transcendant moral order mere nostalgia for the "golden rule," or some other warm, fuzzy reach for a reason for man to be other than a wolf to man, we are left with no alternative to Paschenaele or Auschwitz.

What is doubly disturbing about the Darwinian traison des clercs was the childish way they conflated race and culture. Of course this error is with us today.

In those days they wrote of people living on opposite banks of a European river as being of different "races, and constructed a model of struggle borrowed from inter-specific competition.

Peoples who lived on opposite sides of a river would be distinct species, were Darwinism true. It took the Holocaust to make them acknowledge there's no such as species among men. They're still holding out on the other animals...futilely.

The people on opposite sides of the river would only be separate species if they were not able to cross the river and interbreed. the divide of a river has however produced to different types of apes. the chimpanzee and the bonobo are divided by the congo river and as they are unable to swim they are closely related but separate species.
a species is something that is defined by humans and there are many differing definitions as to what constitutes a species.
recently it was found that there is variation between the human population along lines of geographic location, skin colour and ability to digest different food stuffs such as milk. however there is nothing that shows one group of people are more advanced that other groups.
there is no reason that Darwinism should take us to wars and genocide any more than religious reasoning. in fact religion has been responsible for more wars than probably any other idea.
i do not need a god to tell me that it is wrong to kill someone, morality has changed hugely over the centuries and will probably continue to do so. If anything Darwinism promotes greater harmony as no one is excluded as is the case with religions. you don't see Darwinists blowing themselves up because of their believes

rob, you're a brave man!

No, Darwinists murdered "inferior species" by the millions.

Of course, the only reason that's wrong is because Darwinism is false.

But, don't worry, as your confusion about the modern definition of species reflects, you don't believe in Darwinism either.

And which Darwinists and which "inferior species" where these exactly?

I'm not confused about what i consider to be a species- a population that is only able to produce viable offspring by mating with individuals from within that group and not with individuals from outside that group. the problem with this of course is that populations that we have defined as species are able to produce viable offspring. and this is what leads to the 30 or so modern definitions of what defines a species. If anything this confusion is supporting Darwinism because as evolution is decent with modification, every species evolved from a previous species very slowly, there should not be any absolute lines between what counts as species a and species b if they evolved relatively recently.

So if you consider Darwinism to be false, what is your explanation for the diversity of life.

Exactly. You're not confused about what you consider to be a species. Your belief just contradicts Darwinism. Don't worry, your skepticism becomes you.