Let's suppose for a moment that evolution is true and verifiable (scientifically speaking). I would have to believe that we as humans have been inhibiting our progression as a species by our human efforts to eradicate disease, poverty and war.
Yes and no. We are inhibiting a great deal (but not all) of natural selection, but natural selection isn't the only component of evolution. At this point in our development as a species (that is, now that we can alter our environments to suit us, rather than die out if we don't suit our environments) we are more inclined towards bettering ourselves, rather than letting natural selection better us.
Every technological step forward and every refinement of the social contract are examples of cultural evolution. Agricultural developments help fight famine, economic developments help fight poverty (unless you're a capitalist, in which case it helps make the rich richer) and social developments help fight war. Of course, my description is grossly oversimplified, but that's it in a nutshell.
These conditions which we see as enemies of civilization are the very elements that - if one believes in evolution, are meant to improve our genetic makeup and eventually change us acordingly.
As I wrote, these influence natural selection, a stage which we are [relatively] over as a species. However, we aren't entirely over it - if we won't learn to stop killing each other, whether intentionally (war, terrorism, crusades against science) or otherwise (pollution, bad economics, crusades against science), then we may yet be naturally selected to leave the game of life.
There will also come a time when natural selection will again visibly come into play, like when dealing with interstellar survival. One day, for example, the sun will die, and if we'll be chained to the planet by our primitivity - we will die with it.
Disease wipes out inferior or week life forms...
Yes and no. In the past, an intelligent but sick and/or disabled human (think Stephen Hawking) would have likely never survived. Now, however, when hunting and not being hunted are no longer real problems for most, but when being able to aid progress is - he is in many ways an ideal human. Especially if the next Stephen Hawking cures disease (think Akrit Jaswal; although he isn't disabled, it wouldn't necessarily matter if he was).
war eliminates those who are intellectually stunted
No, war actually has a tendency to kill the best of a generation. Any general knows that targeting your enemies' key positions and personnel is tremendously advantageous. Not to mention all the strong, capable, intelligent fighters who were at the front line doing their best (think pilots and commando), and are likely to die anyway.
And then there are assassinations. Ghandi, Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Rabin, Benazir Bhutto - all were great hopes for human progress, by allowing war to subside and therefore allowing cooperation to prosper. It is these kinds of assassination that make some believe we're a doomed race, but I think it's just a matter of two steps forward, one step back.
and poverty allows the stronger to enslave the weaker.
You're assuming slavery is effective, but I disagree. I tend strongly towards socialism, believing that the human race is better off cooperating, even if (and especially because) it will force the ultra-rich to give up their ridiculously huge amounts of resources which they are hoarding (fuck the trickle-down system - it doesn't work, never has and likely never will). When a huge percent of resources is in the hands of only a very few, the talented born into poor families are enormously more likely to never be discovered.
These are things that we (if one believes in evolution) must not be resisted in the quest for a higher and more advanced society.
As I said - evolution doesn't always mean natural selection. Especially when society comes into the picture.
The elderly must be euthanized, the sick be exterminated and the poor must be sexualy sterilized and then enslaved to enrich the society of the priveleged.
Woah there! The elderly are massive archives of experience (not to mention that they're our parents and grandparents) and should be treasured as such, the poor aren't inherently poor and the privileged aren't inherently (or deserving of being) privileged!
Think before you make wild assertions like that!
....right out of the sick mind of some nihilistic "scientists" and philosophers, right? His name was Hitler.
Which is why we dislike him, to say the very least!
But guess what? Hitler's plans fucked up. As far as natural selection's concerned, that proves he had it all wrong. That doesn't, however, say anything about evolution as a whole, which looked horribly different in his deranged mind. He misunderstood the entire process, made up imaginary enemies and was all-in-all a psychopath deserving of a thousand excruciating hells.
He was insane, by the way, just like the KKK, Al Quaida and those like them - does that make Christianity and Islam inherently flawed? No, you'd probably say they don't understand their own religions. Well, that goes both ways.
Oh, and he wasn't a nihilist. He was a Christian. A nihilist believes in nothing - evolution included.
For the record, I believe that the earth was created (designed) by the master designer himself...Jesus Christ.
As I said, just like the KKK, the Inquisition, Hitler and so forth. Remember this.
