re: “Darwin says the weakest will NATURALLY get weeded out over time. And the way you really find out they’re the weakest is because they get weeded out. Once you start on the path of eugenics you’re no longer allowing a natural process, you’re weeding out what you THINK are the weakest but you could be wrong.”
I agree, but what moral basis does a naturalistic Darwinist appeal to, to say it’s “wrong” to interfere with a supposed “natural process”? The eugenics advocate will argue that he/she is simply “helping” the natural process along.
Again, I want to state that I do not believe that adherence to Darwinism means that one will become a Nazi or a eugenics nutjob. I’m just saying that there is no “moral” reason within Darwinism to argue against it. Why? Because morality is very difficult to pin down in Darwinian naturalism.
It’s science, not morals. The moral reason is that if you’re looking for an excuse for mass murder you already screwed up.