It is farily fashionable among IDists/creationists to complain that Darwinism led to eugenics - they are claiming that "weeding out inferior" (selecting "fitter") humans is something that comes out of accepting "Darwinism" (as William Dembski did, for example). But does this claim really stand up to scrutiny? On April 10th, 2007, William Dembski writes on his blog:
In reading Reuland’s critique, try to keep track of “rational design,” “directed evolution,” and “Darwinian methods.” Reuland conflates the last two. In so doing, Reuland completely misses the boat. So let me spell it out: DIRECTED EVOLUTION IS NON-DARWINIAN. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS NON-DIRECTED. I’ve been saying this now for close to a decade (see ch. 4 of my book No Free Lunch). Just because the word “evolution” is used doesn’t mean that that homage is being paid to Darwin. “Directed evolution” properly falls under ID.Follow Dembski's logic here:
DIRECTED EVOLUTION IS NON-DARWINIAN.
Directed evolution properly falls under ID.
Eugenics is directed evolution.
Eugenics is NON-DARWINIAN.
Eugenics properly falls under ID.
Uncommondescent regular poster bFast is halfway to understanding the logic above when he responds to Dembski:
Directed evolution requires a director. Any director that I can envision uses intelligence in the process of directing. Directed evolution is unquestionably an ID position.
How long will it be before the IDists wake up and realize that, according to their own logic, they are actually claiming that eugenics is an ID endeavour?