Since I'm not a Hiroshima survivor, I suppose I would be more inclined to
say no. :-) But Darwinism has much more to say about both killing, and who
or what we are than does partical physics. I can go and kill a frail old
lady and at best Darwin has nothing to say to me, at worst he says,
"Ahhh... I see you are engaged in the struggle for survival of the fittest!
Good luck, you're off to a good start!"
Now clearly no sane evolutionist would support the murder, because even
evolutionists have an innate sense of morality :-) But I am interested in
the logical extensions of the theory. If evolution of homo sapiens is the
goal, the means is the death of the weaker ones (I've left behind the issue
of race btw). Killing worked for our animal ancestors, did it not? Nature
rent in tooth and claw? I wonder, at what point in the evolutionary scheme
of things, did it suddenly become immoral to kill others of the same
species? The moral majority have slowed humanity's evolution to a snail's
pace!
All I can say is that I've yet to hear anyone demonstrate from the
evolutionary worldview why killing fellow humans is wrong. I would go
further - I would say the theory implies benefit in doing so.
I'm speaking only of *naturalistic* evolution, determinism.
Regards,
Peter Grice