There have been many erroneous scientific theories in the human history, such as the phlogiston theory, the geocentricism, the aether theory. Before discovery of truth, there had always been some incorrect theories, truth has never been discovered overnight. The road of discovery of truth is one to correct mistaken theories.

The theory "The Sun Moves Around The Earth" Has No Moral Implication

The theory “The Sun Moves Around The Earth” Has No Moral Implication

However, the erroneous theory rarely had any moral implication, and did not make people perform anti-human act without feeling guilty, except the Darwin theory, which can be said to be the only “scientific theory” with the function, as the theory is a very special one which influences not only in biology, but also many aspects of the society,  such as history, politics, philosophy, medicine, economics, religion, etc. it also tells people what right and wrong are, what people should do and should not do.

Ninety years after Darwin published his book “Origin of Species,” there were two World Wars, during the period Darwinism and social Darwinism were very popular.  The extent of the brutality during the wars was unprecedented. Darwin himself proposed the theory as the mechanism of biological evolution, Herbert Spencer, a British philosopher, strongly advocated application of the theory in human society. He did not use the term social Darwinism, in stead; he used “evolutionary progressivism”. Spencer believes that evolution by “struggle for existence” should be applied in the human society, which is nothing new if ones accept Darwinism, as human is a biological organism. I discuss only a few aspects of the practice.

1. Un-human Capitalism

Social Darwinism has a view that persons, especially males, must compete to survive for future life and should not be given any assistance.  The poor should feed themselves, if they can not, they are losers in “struggle for existence”, that should not be helped; but be eliminated in the competition.

In 1798, Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population, in which he wrote:

The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

Both Spencer and Darwin accepted the Malthus’ idea that was very popular in Europe at the time. Malthus believed that growing population would sooner or later lead to food shortage; the weakest would die of starvation. Social Darwinism held that the charity would only make social problems worse. The enormous suffering in working classes under the laissez-faire capitalism in the 19th and early 20th centuries is an important factor for many people accepting Marxism and strong criticism of capitalism.

2. Eugenics

Eugenics is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a human population. Eugenics was originally developed by Francis Galton. Galton had read his cousin Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans. Galton and many others claimed that the less intelligent were more fertile than the more intelligent of his time.

Galton believed that the physiological characteristics pass from generation to generation; the same is true of the mental quality (gifted and talented); then the community should have a decision on genetic level, that is: to avoid overproduction of “not-fit’ population, and “lack of the fittest. Social welfare institutions and madhouse allow the survival of the “inferior” and let them grow faster than the “excellent” people in society. If the situation would not be corrected, the society would be flooded by “inferior” ones. In 20th centuries, Western countries had a large-scale forced sterilization under the influence (Rose, 1998).

Eugenics is infamously linked to the racial policies that led to Nazi Germany’s Holocaust. Hitler’s Third Reich singled out individuals they thought superb and let them mate together to produce so-called master race.

Eugenicists advocate specific policies that (if successful) they believe will lead to a perceived improvement of the human gene pool. Since defining what improvements are desired or beneficial is perceived by many as a cultural choice rather than a matter that can be determined objectively (e.g., by empirical, scientific inquiry). 


3. Racism

The idea of racial superiority is the direct product of social Darwinism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the popular view was that the Nordic Germanic people are the superior race, as they live in a cold climate, which makes them evolve with a higher survival skills and the people there more interested in expansion and adventure. The ideas obtained full support of anthropologists and psychologists at that time, including famous biologist Thomas Huxley, who was the early strong defender of the theory and called “Darwin’s watchdog” as the nickname.

Social Darwinism held that a race must be aggressive in order to survive. The white race was seen as the greatest race because they had a sense of superiority and conquest. The white conquered the Indians in America that was considered as the proofs of superiority.

A sociological theory, as a philosophical or an economics theory, is difficult to achieve a general recognition in the society; it is merely one of many views. The Darwin’s theory was considered as scientific one; to many the theory means truth. Implication of the truth is irresistible and urgent. Just like if no Hitler, there would be no the Third Reich, if there were no biological Darwinism, there would be no “social Darwinism”, which is a natural extension of the biological Darwinism in the human society. Even without Spencer, many others would put forward a similar view.

Darwinism has a huge negative impact on the human mentality, and it flips right to wrong, devoid of humanity. Sympathetic to the weak or disadvantage is human nature built in genes. It not only occurs in human beings, but also in all over animals.

It is often observed that group of birds flying in the sky, when encountered natural enemies, one or a few birds would scream very loud to alert the companions fled; however, the heroic acts would make them more riskier and even sacrificed. In biology the behavior is called altruism. Altruistic behavior is an important feature to keep species survived. Without it many species, including humans, might had been extinct. According to the Darwin’s theory, individuals with the heroic behavior does not survive and should be considered as not the fittest or loser in “struggle for existence”.

Humanity or human nature is bottom line of morality, which is built in our genes. We are angry with the Holocaust, or the Rape of Nanking, or the 911, not because we have relatives there, or we have any interest loss there as the result; we feel pain for the victims and mad with the murders, as the victims are a part of us. The feeling is our instinct that does not need to be trained.

By the Darwin’s theory, murders survive and they are the fittest, whereas victims died and are not the fittest. Murders should not feel guilty, but proud of their activity as the winners in “struggle for existence”.

The Phlogiston theory , the aether theory, the geocentricism do not make people to find excuses or even have euphoria for killing somebody, or bullying the weaks, but the Darwin’s theory does, which is only the theory that can do that.  I consider the Darwin’s theory the worst one ever. If ​​ones do not agree with me, let me which “theory” have the function.


Rose, M. R. (1998). Darwin’s spectre : evolutionary biology in the modern world. p. 134-146. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press

16 thoughts on “The Darwin’s Theory: the Worst “Scientific Theory” Ever

  1. It’s worth noting that “social darwinism” is not the logical conclusion of evolutionary science, that darwin was explicitly opposed to the idea and that he was actually an outspoken abolitionist who waxed poetic about the slaves he had met, and expressed a hope that his country would be the first to abolish slavery. That’s right, darwin did not invent racism. And much of the racism of his day and today was and is actually justified using religion. Hitler overtly used religion to justify his actions as did slave-owners in the west who were overwhelmingly christian. Was evolution invoked to justify evil things? Yes and no. Just as the theology of people like hitler was often twisted and not what you would call christianity so too the “science” people invoked to justify atrocities was universally (to my knowledge) pseudo-science. For instance many white supremacists support “evolution”, but if you ask them if they accept that they are related to chimpanzees or that they originally come from africa, what do you think they’ll say? Probably nothing positive. So what they believe is not actually evolution, but their distorted, ignorant version of it.

    • It’s worth noting that “social darwinism” is not the logical conclusion of evolutionary science, that darwin was explicitly opposed to the idea and that he was actually an outspoken abolitionist

      Darwin favored social Darwinism, which is natural extension of his theory. I will write a separate post to explain it in his words. His racism is in black and white, it is a waste of time for anybody to deny it.

      • I have seen many out of context and even outright fake quotes attributed to darwin (there is even a heavily modified quote in the movie “expelled” that was distorted to mean the opposite of the original quote, which said that forced eugenics would be an “overwhelming present evil”.) So if you do a blog that quotes darwin accurately being racist I would be interested to see that. I have never found a supposedly racist darwin quote that was genuine or actually racist, and I have found many quotes from his letters and writings on the subject of racism that espouse the opposite view.

        • So if you do a blog that quotes darwin accurately being racist I would be interested to see that.

          “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.”

          Charles Darwin. The Descent of Man, 2nd edition. New York, A L., Burt Co., 1874, p. 171

          The careless, squalid, usaspiring Irishman multiples like rabbits; the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting …. Married late, and leaves few behind him.
          ….. It would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.

          Charles Darwin. The Descent of Man. New York, A L., Pengine Group., 2007, p. 215.

          • First of all “savage” and “civilized” are not ethnicities and the first quote is in no way racist. Second “irish” and “scot” are also not ethnicities and like most supposedly racist darwin quotes is modified so as to obscure the fact that darwin is quoting someone else and to obscure the fact that the person he was quoting was not making a generalization but was posing a *hypothetical* scenario to illustrate a *criticism* of darwin’s theory, which darwin was quoting in order to respond to. As for the use of the word “race” the term did not have the connotations in the 1800s that it has today and was used much more generally, as evidenced by darwin also describing different “races” of brocolli.

            • As for the use of the word “race” the term did not have the connotations in the 1800s that it has today and was used much more generally, as evidenced by darwin also describing different “races” of brocolli

              By your logic, there was no racism in 1800s since the definition of the race was different now, with the same logic, there is no racism now since the definition might change 1000 years from now. If you think by definition by people living 1000 years from now, there is no racism at all since nobody knows what the race and racism definitions would be. I feel tired to play word game with you.

              • Someone is not racist simply because they used the word “race” in the context it was used in the 1800s. Racism is advocating different treatment or making broad generalizations based on ethnicity, neither of which darwin does in the quotes you gave.

  2. It’s clear that whoever wrote this post has little to no training or education in scientific theory, sociology, history, or philosophy; considering the fact that the only “reference” cited is a link to a Wikipedia page, it appears they also have no understanding of what constitutes academic rigor. There is little point in responding, except to suggest that they do some serious and comprehensive study in all of the above subjects and return (if they can) with a genuinely compelling argument that is not so clearly based on fallacious reasoning, misinformation, personal prejudice, and religious belief.

  3. It’s quite clear that whoever wrote this has little to no training or education in history, social theory, the theory of Evolution, or philosophy. The only “reference” cited is a link to Wikipedia, which is not valid as an academic reference. There’s little point in responding, other than to suggest that they do some serious research and try to come up with a compelling argument that is not based on personal opinion or religious belief.

  4. Typical response of a liberal; if you can’t come up with a realistic argument to someone’s opinion, just call them names and attack them personally!

    • Typical response of a conservative; neither intelligent, thoughtful, nor well argued. This person has attempted to pass themselves off as academically rigorous when they are clearly not; I have spent many long years of study in academia and it – frankly – pisses me off when poorly educated and partisan individuals make comment on subjects they clearly know nothing about – just as you have about me.

  5. If one is to believe Darwin’s theory of evolution, in that we were descendants of another species (apes), and we evolved as a species for survival, then why are there still apes?

    • This stupid argument? Idiots are still parrotting this stupid “Why are there still apes?” bullshit? Anyone who isn’t a retard knows knows that’s not what Darwin’s theory says. Moron.

  6. You’re an idiot. That’s the best you can do to assault an established theory that has not only been challenged, but supported through thousands of intellectual and scientific texts? Noted, SOME of Darwin’s theories have been disproven, but no one has yet to assail the sound and well established principles of the Origins of Species. Again, you’re an idiot. I’m sorry you didn’t have anything substantive to say… how disappointing and ignorant your read. In case I didn’t say it: you’re an idiot… and not even a high functioning one at that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s