Regarding: “I think they were wrong - just as wrong as some of the most celebrated Creationists who were for sterilization and eugenics (e.g. several of the founders of the Creation Research Society, William Tinkle, Frank Marsh, etc).”
Nevadan: I agree with you that anyone, whether Darwinian or Creationist, that advocates eugenics on humans is wrong.
What I’m wondering though, concerning Darwinism and eugenics, is - if materialistic evolution is the mechanism by which the universe “came into being” and evolved to its present state - then isn’t morality also a part of that evolutionary process? Isn’t it just another random element of the purposeless (non-designed, non-directed) mechanism of materialistic evolution?
Evolution says that life today developed naturally - but if one believes that the laws of nature were designed and have a purpose, than there’s certainly no conflict between saying something occurred naturally and saying there’s design and purpose behind it.
The relationship between morality and evolution is a contentious area both among theistic and non-theistic evolutionists. Is it correct to say that morality evolved - or is it more correct to say that morality emerged from empathy and reason (even if empathy and reason themselves evolved)?
I often hear that if evolution is true, or if God doesn’t exist, than there’s no reason to be moral. But regardless of how/why we have morality (whether directly from God, or from evolution, or from God via evolution) we still have empathy. Empathy compels me to have compassion for others regardless of how the empathy got there.
Many also think that religion is necessary as a guide for morality. But other than rules on homosexuality or a ban on eating cows, using religion as a guide on morality wouldn’t change my or most people’s morality much from what our morals would have been anyway just by following our natural empathy. The only people I can imagine becoming immoral (or amoral) as a result of becoming atheist are sociopaths (a severe psychiatric condition).