This quote doesn't look complete. It seems heavily parsed and would likely benefit from being read in the context of the entire passage. As it is, I'm certainly not seeing "advocacy of mass murder" as your thread title claims. Can you cite its source?
Far be it from me to defend Richard Dawkins, someone against whom there is no shortage of ground for legitimate criticism, but my years as a Traditional Catholic have taught me to be extremely leery of condemnations that run on the (excessively) well-trodden "Hitler / Nazi comparisons" track.
He is advocating killing people for being weak which could also mean disabled as shown by the quote. Talking about it as if it were a good thing:
The article you've linked to attributes this quote to a Richard Hickman, not
Richard Dawkins. Its cited source for the quote is an article called The Influence of Evolution on Nazi Race Programs
by Jerry Bergman on creationism.org. This article, in turn, cites the quote as having come from Hickman's book Biocreation
. And outside of these articles, and others linking to them and / or quoting them, I cannot find anything on this Richard Hickman or his book Biocreation
, so I'm at a loss as to why I (or anyone) should care about what he has to say about Hitler, or Evolution, or any other subject.
Not knowing anything about Hickman's views in general, I'm forced to read the quote as is, devoid of any helpful (perhaps vital) context. But as it is, the quote doesn't seem to be saying much apart from Evolutionary theory being influential on Hitler (which, like the influence of Nietzsche, is nothing at all new or unknown). He is certainly not - I cannot put too fine a point on this - not
"advocating killing people" / "advocating mass murder" as you insist; at least nothing in the quote as it is indicates that. He is acknowledging that Hitler's ideas about "extermination of the weak" are "evolutionary ideas," but he is completely silent in regards to approval or "advocacy" of those ideas. If anything, he has distanced himself from them from the outset by his reference to Hitler's "profound" "psychosis." For all we know, he is setting out to draw some distinction between "good" application of Evolutionary ideas and the obviously bad ones he attributes to Hitler. I mean, if you were going to "advocate" another man's views, would you preface your advocacy with an admission that your source of inspiration was a psychotic?
Evolution is an error of the greatest magnitude. Its most perniciously evil effects are that it breeds and fosters atheism and materialism; attacks the Christian Faith at its root by calling into doubt our ancestry to Adam and Eve and the inheritance of Original Sin; and that it casts the universe into chaos even on the ontological level, by denying the very reality of being
, replacing it with a perpetually mutable state of becoming
. In short, there is no shortage of legitimate arguments to be made against this wicked error, and against men like Dawkins who subscribe to it and proselytize on its behalf. Therefore, we had best take care not to injure our own cause by indulging in illegitimate
arguments rooted in shoddy research and misattributed quotes. To that end, a good rule of thumb to follow going forward would be to avoid trash sites like "Conservapedia" (a cesspit of neocon ignorance and Jewish propaganda* as devoid of any trace of scholarship as the average toilet stall's graffiti) altogether.
*I refer you to their calumnious article on Fr. Charles Coughlin (of happy memory) as evidence - http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Coughlin