Darwin, moral relativism, and "soft eugenics"

Catholic Education Resource Center has posted the chapter, "Charles Darwin," from Architects of the Culture of Death (Ignatius, 2004), authored by Donald DeMarco and Benjamin Wiker. In my July 2004 interview with the authors, I asked Dr. Wiker this question:

IgnatiusInsight.com: Darwin and Darwinian evolution have been, of course, very controversial for many decades. What do you think are the biggest misconceptions and incorrect notions about Darwin and his beliefs that exist today? How seriously is Darwinian evolution taken today in the scientific community?

Benjamin Wiker: I think there are two very serious misconceptions about Darwinism today. First, that Darwinism is a well-established theory, with no considerable intellectual difficulties. The second, one more directly related to Architects, concerns the essential moral implications of Darwinism. Generally, historians and scientists alike have tried to distance Darwin’s biology from the eugenics movement—an understandable move, given the ugliness of the eugenic programs of Nazi Germany. If we read Darwin, however, we find that he himself understood eugenics to be the obvious inference from his biological theory of evolution through natural selection. Natural weeds out the unfit; so should we, or at least keep the unfit from breeding. Further, he also understood quite clearly that his evolutionary account of morality, which destroyed the permanency of human nature, provided the most radical moral relativism possible. As for the scientific community, it generally accepts Darwinism without question, which means that it generally hasn’t studied the theoretical and evidential problems facing Darwinism. Happily, more and more scientists have found the courage to look at Darwinism with a clearer, more critical eye.

Read the entire interview. And here is the table of contents for Architects of the Culture of Death.

Comments

[carlos]

I own the book, and it's very informative. I think that the placement of Ayn Rand in the book is misplaced, though. Certainly, Rand had a warped outlook on life. I disagree, however, that she or her objectivist philosophy contributed to the culture of death at the same level that Darwin or Marx did. Other than the Rand chapter, the book is truly excellent.

[Carl Olson]

I disagree, however, that she or her objectivist philosophy contributed to the culture of death at the same level that Darwin or Marx did.

I don't speak for the authors, of course, but my sense is that there may be a difference in degree, but not much of a difference in kind when it comes to Rand and the others. And Rand's self-absorbed and materialist philosophy of life is still incredibly popular among teens and young adults, with her books still selling about 500,000 copies a year.