“I think you may be putting some words in Darwin’s mouth. I don’t think he was promoting the idea that there was no God.”
I’m not saying that Darwin himself did, but there is no denying that many Darwinists today are “naturalistic” evolutionists - that is, they believe that all that exists occured by a natural process - not from some imaginary diety. That idea is a logical outcome of Darwin’s theory. It may not have been his intent, but that has been the overall far reaching result.
So, my point is that eugenics, from a naturalistic evolutionary point of view, should be morally acceptable because in the naturalistic worldview, there is no God, therefore there are no moral absolutes to hinder any action. In fact, morality is irrelevant and has no meaning.
I see your point, but Darwin's theory is hardly sufficient to logically support naturalism. If we accept that life came from inorganic material, then where did the inorganic material come from? The basic problem with naturalism remains completely unsolved. Darwinism is at best a shell game for the naturalist.
All the while the second law of thermo dynamics insists that the entire universe will use up all available energy in less then an eternity. Implying that matter must not have always existed.
Naturalists are free to reach any conclusions they want, but they sure don't seem to be basing it on logic.
If there is no god, it is still the height or hubris to see "survival of the fittest" and take upon yourself the judgment of who is fit. If you believe that natural selection is a self-correcting mechanism, why interfere? Things will shake out as they should. As they have to. For people who believe in evolution, as I do, the only sane solution is to leave it the hell alone.
Eugenics has always been rife with assumptions -- about the "lower races" with their vices and weaknesses, and built around how we can make more of us and fewer of them. Eugenics is not a problem with evolution. It's a problem with people who think they can game the system.