Hitler, Morality and Evolution
Suppose we accept the premise of young earth creationists that evolutionists must accept the fact that Hitler (and his behavior) are both the product of evolutionary biology. [Note: There are some fallacies about evolution in the remainder of the post, but these result (partly) from accepting the creationist view of evolution].
In effect, the argument is that immorality (however defined) is the product of evolution. The soft version of this argument is that evolution leads to a philosophy of hate, murder and immorality. Let me deal with the hard version of evolution that has also been argued by creationists in a variety of writings. If it is true that evolution must be responsible for all evil, then the logical axiom follows that morality (however defined) is also the product of evolution. That also means that atheism, agnosticism and theism are also the products of evolution. The young earth creationist position seems to imply that evolution is solely responsible for immorality, evil and atheism whereas the more logical conclusion is that if evolution is responsible for one, then evolution must be responsible for all. The hard version is thus logically flawed.
The soft-version of the argument is basically social Darwinism. If you insist on taking this tack, then you are also left with the question as to what philosophy is most akin to evolutionary biology? The young earth creationists want you to think that killing, abortion, rape and genocide are the logical endpoints of evolution. How logical is this conclusion? Young earth creationists would have you believe that evolution is ONLY about survival of the fittest and only the strong survive. The absurdity of this argument can be exposed by noting that there would be no success in life because most young are neither fit nor strong. Some organisms overcome this hurdle by producing millions of offspring with the statistical advantage that a few will make it to adulthood. Others, such as humans and chimps will nurture and care for the young in an effort to assure that the offspring reach reproductive age. Someone claimed that evolution would therefore justify rape. The absurdness of this claim is revealed by the fact that rape, while perhaps adding to the initial gene pool, does not result in favorable conditions for nurturing and assuring the ultimate reproductive success of the offspring. However, such a view of evolution (promulgation of the species) could logically lead to the view that both abortion and murder are anti-evolution. Thus, if one WANTS to argue that evolution must account for morality, then it can be logically and cogently argued that evolution must result in an absolute morality that leads to the preservation of the species. It is certainly an oft-used and successful tact to argue for emotional appeal, but the reality is that the goal of evolution is to make sure that a species survives. Logically, this means that a species will adapt, using whatever mechanism is available to survive. While this may include killing an intruding species, it will also include caring, nurturing and any other morality that results in promulgation of the species.