"I do not believe in the theory that humans evolved from apes because I believe in the Genesis passages!"

I don't believe there's a conflict between Genesis, which is drawn from older textual sources, and evolution of living creatures and physical processes, which you can confirm occur yourself. Perhaps you could specify how they conflict, and differentiate between the actual text of Genesis from interpretive claims about it.

"Hitler insisted on the theory of evolution that the Aryan race was superior to East Asians like me, and when he experimented with the evolution of the Aryan race, he revealed the worst barbarism of humanity!"

You seem to be unaware of far worse things humanity has done than anything ascribed to Hitler, or Nazis, such as cannibalism, the global slave trade, and Roman circuses, in which women were subjected to rape by animals in public spectacles. Without discussing whether or not anything laid at the feet of Nazis actually occurred, even the gravest accusations scarcely even point towards far more barbarous acts other cultures celebrated. Communists committed the Holodomor, the Purge of the Kulaks, and the Great Leap Forward, each of which quantitatively far exceeds any claim of genocide by the Nazis, the latter two by an order of magnitude. Pol Pot made children murder their parents. That seems qualitatively more barbaric than anything the Nazis are claimed to have done.

Mean people wear clothes, but that doesn't prove wearing clothes makes people mean. Hitler also petted Goldie, but that doesn't make petting dogs a crime, or German Shepherds evil. Simply because there are claims Hitler or the Nazis believed this or that has no relevance to whether such claims are factual, or whether those beliefs are factually superable or not. Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards Christianity. In 1904, he was confirmed at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Linz, Austria. Does that make Christianity evil?

The bare fact is that claims made about the Nazis cannot all be true, and it is necessary to separate the lies from the facts in order to support any claims about Nazis. This is why Godwin's Law exists.

"...I think Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory that justifies the white supremacy of European imperialists!"

It is apparent that any excuse can be derived from any claim from a plethora of derangements, like flat Earth, germ theory is a lie, perpetual motion, aylium abductions, Bigfoot, lizard overlords, and any number of religious traditions involving utterly insuperable claims, many of which purport to be Christian, like snake handlers, polygamous Mormons, or the Children of God that used prostitution to gain converts. Whether or not some theory is factually correct or not has nothing to do with social movements that claim it as a logical basis for their political endeavors.

Every race has some members that proclaim their race is superior to all others, and that all other races must be subjugated to them politically. That is a political matter that has nothing to do with evolution, but rather reveals the barbarity of centralization, collectivism, and war that results from institutional power.

Living things are all part of one terrestrial organism, and I have repeatedly stated this precept at different times here. It clearly isn't rational to claim the head is superior to the feet, or the liver to the stomach, and I don't believe or say any such thing, neither regarding polities, societies, or cultures. Understanding how things change over time and describing present circumstances that result, which is what Genesis and the theory of evolution both do, has nothing to do with Nazis or oppression.

I am content truthfully stating I don't know things, vehemently opposed to oppressing people for political purposes, and against false claims about the universe that have no basis in fact. The corollary is that I also state understanding I do have despite it conflicts with political purposes of oppressors that depend on provably false claims, such as that people are superior to other animals, animals are superior to plants, plants to protozoa, or, most ridiculous of all, that one person, or people, is superior to another. These things are all different from one another and have different roles, abilities, and evolved because life is necessarily complex and all those different roles and abilities are necessary to life for the complexity of the entire organism, and that is necessary for it's sacred nature to be fulfilled in the coming diaspora across the inconceivably vast, barren universe where and when prophecies of felicity in paradise will be realized.

Living is an act of war against other living things. Nothing alive can continue to live without killing other living things. Since all living things are parts of one immortal organism, there are rules of engagement that living things must observe to be tolerable, and transgressing those rules results in extinction, either of the transgressor(s), or the sacred whole of life, in due time. I believe that sentient life is bound to be merciful, to eschew cruelty insofar as it has the capacity to understand suffering and felicity, and that the laws of physics will enforce the rules of engagement on living things inexorably and inerrantly, in due time. For this reason I strive to be kind above all else factually superable. I believe that is the fundamental benefit that derives from sentience and it's utility to life, and will ultimately facilitate our felicity as our persons proceed to subsequent phases of existence, which persists beyond our experience trapped in a sack of meat. The No Hiding theorem and the laws of physics demonstrate information cannot be lost to the universe. Our persons are demonstrably information, and while we have no idea how this will happen, it is impossible that it won't happen insofar as our understanding of physics has any basis in reality.

I note that every substantial religious tradition has some concept of the soul, and that today physics agrees that persons aren't merely matter, but comprise something else, that isn't simply consumed and recycled when we die. I find the preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion, and therefore I act accordingly.

Edit:

"Civilized people are more cruel than barbarians!"

I agree. There are more slaves today than all the slaves that have existed before. I myself have been held captive and enslaved for years by the State of Oregon, which has become the first and only state in the USA to rescind the exception of government from the ban of slavery in it's state constitution. The governments of the United States collectively hold more than 2M slaves today, over and above those oppressed by other criminals. Nothing is more barbaric except murder, and none more guilty than those that know better. For centuries the United States has claimed that humanity are sovereign in all it's founding documents, yet continues to this day to criminally enslave free people, including Oregon still, despite repealing it's exception from the ban on slavery in it's constitution.

The more civilized the guilty, the more barbaric their guilt.