Richard Dawkins is an atheistic, neo-Darwinian evangelist. His The God Delusion is a masterpiece of falsehood, self-indulgence, and just plain sloppy reasoning. The holes in his arguments are so obvious that even Dawkins has difficult concealing them. Dawkins argues that atheists are moral upright people because they follow the moral zeitgeist (world spirit), and the moral zeitgeist is the standard of morality. Dawkins uses a Nazi-esque passage from H.G. Wells’s 1902 book New Republic to illustrate the depravity of the zeitgeist in the past (if a “progressive” like Wells was bad in the past, just imagine the contemporary conservatives!) and the goodness of progress according to the zeitgeist. Wells writes:
And how will the New Republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal with the black?… the yellow man?…the Jew?… those swarms of black, brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency? Well, the world is a world, and not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go… And the ethical system of these men of the New Republic, the ethical system which will dominate the world state, will be shaped primarily to favor the procreation of what is fine and efficient and beautiful in humanity—beautiful and strong bodies, clear and powerful minds… And the method that nature has followed hitherto in the shaping of the world, whereby weakness was prevented from propagating weakness…is death…. The men of the New Republic…will have an ideal that will make killing worth the while. (quoted on pp. 269-270)
Dawkins omits from his telling two embarrassing facts: (1) Wells’s predecessors and the conservatives of his day would have been just as horrified as we are by his zeitgeist-endorsed views, and (2) Wells’s views are unmistakably Darwinian: the strong survive; death to the weak. Later Dawkins asserts, “One reason black people and women and, in Nazi Germany, Jews and gypsies have been treated badly is that they were not perceived as fully human.” But what goes unsaid is the Nazis saw the slaughter as part of a racial Darwinian struggle. In Darwinism, there is no such thing as a human being, since, as Dawkins confesses, “there are no natural borderlines [between species] in evolution” .
The connection between Darwinism and eugenics as well as the U.S.'s unsavory part in it is well described in a recent article, "Deadly medicine: The forgotten history of eugenics" by Logan Paul Gage (no relation). Here's an excerpt:
The acknowledged founder of the eugenics movement is Francis Galton [Charles Darwin's cousin]. Through an examination of the British upper class, Galton tried to show that talent is largely hereditary. As eugenics ideas spread, it was not much of a stretch for Indiana's General Assembly to believe conversely that "heredity plays a most important part in the transmission of crime, idiocy and imbecility."
While modern Darwinists may wince, eugenics clearly drew inspiration from Darwin's theory. In fact, Galton was Darwin's cousin. He took evolutionary theory seriously, arguing persuasively that hospitals, mental institutions and social welfare all violate the law of natural selection. These institutions preserve the weak at the expense of the gene pool. In the wild, such people would die off naturally, thus keeping the human race strong. As Darwin himself declared in "The Descent of Man," "No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this has been highly injurious to the race of man. ... Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
Pro-abortion views for a slave to politically correct fashion go without saying. Dawkins of course justifies abortion with Darwinism: “The humanness of an embryo’s cells cannot confer upon it any absolutely discontinuous moral status. It cannot because of our evolutionary continuity with chimpanzees and, more distantly, with every species on the planet.” By that argument, there can be no special moral status for any human being; the lines between human and subhuman are purely arbitrary, definable by whoever has power: the state, as in Hitler’s Germany, or the media elite, as in the modern West. Dawkins attempts to avoid the uproar of making born humans fair game by resorting to “well-thought-out consequentialist morals” (a double oxymoron): the adult’s fully developed nervous system sets him off-limits to killing, while the embryo’s inability to feel pain makes him fair game. Can Dawkins be so dense as to fail to see that his moral “standard” justifies any killing so long as accompanied by anesthesia?
The best that can be said for Dawkins's moral "principles" is that they are incapable of argument against the holocaust of World War II. Thus it should be no suprise that they offer no real barrier to the modern holocaust of abortion.
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006).