First of all – I wonder if there is any field of science (or religion) that can’t be warped to serve evil ends. Nuclear energy provides warmth and electricity for millions, but can also kill millions. It’s the way you use it. The same goes for the Bible and all the atrocities that have been committed in its name. Does that make Christianity a bad thing? If not then the same should be true for the Darwin and the theory of evolution.

I think you are making quite a jump from Darwin to Euthanasia. The theory tries to explain what we see in the world – how species evolve. It does not give us a moral code on what to do with that knowledge. Evolution is neither good nor bad – it just is. “Survival of the fittest” is surely one of the quotes most often used out of context.

I think the decision of some parents to have an abortion if their kid would be born with crippling diseases or birth defects has not so much to do with Darwin than with the age-old wish to have a healthy child. I think that wish transcends biological reasons. I am not saying that it is the right reason to abort a fetus, I just think Darwin doesn’t have much to do with this.

Also think about the medical advancements that make it possible for kids with hereditary diseases to live a much longer and fulfilled life. Much of the understanding we have about genetic diseases comes from the groundwork Darwin laid with his work.

And just think about genocides (and judging by the Old Testament, God wasn’t all that against it, if the “right” people got exterminated – ask the Canaanites). That is killing people based on their race or tribe. This behavior is ancient – centuries before Darwin was born. So if you are against killing human beings based on their biological traits – I think you shouldn’t overlook God.

And finally: even if Darwin had been a liar, fraud and terrible human being – that doesn’t change a bit about his theory. It is still the most elegant and brilliant explanation for the origin of species.

And I don’t think Darwin totally rejected God. I’m sure he did reject a literal creationism – obviously. But I’m fairly certain that he recognized he had not reasoned away a need for God. I think that is what others that came after him did, taking his theories a number of steps past any credible evidence – hence, our modern day Darwinism (which I’m not sure Darwin himself would prescribe to at all…but there are lots of things people mean by Darwinism anymore).

I didn’t know about Wiker’s new book. I will definitely check it out! Thanks for sharing that, Jeff! I really enjoyed Wiker and Witt’s book “A Meaningful World” where they address similar subjects.

It was his search for an evolution without God that is what Darwinism mainly is. Darwinism and believing in evolution is not the same thing. He started out with a priori that there is not God and worked to advance a theory that backed it up. So to call a philosophical bias a discovery is not really correct.

Benjamin Wiker has a new book out called “The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin.” I haven’t read this yet though have read plenty of his other books. The Catholic Laboratory podcast interviewed Wiker on the book and the difference between the theory of evolution and Darwinism.