Twitter reported “widespread backlash” after renowned evolutionist Richard Dawkins recently used that social platform to comment on eugenics. (Eugenics is the control of human reproduction to promote ‘superior’, or eliminate ‘inferior’, genetic traits—a logical outworking of evolutionary theory, see creation.com/defenceless-death).

Dawkins, the author of books such as The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene, had tweeted:

“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.”

©123rf.com/lightwise

The resulting criticism prompted Dawkins to respond the following day:

“For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.”

There is some irony in the world’s best-known atheist/misotheist using the expression ‘heaven forbid’. And in another tweet the same day Richard Dawkins warned against trying to oppose eugenics by denying “obvious scientific facts”, as this would lose or derail the argument. Rather, “Let’s fight it on moral grounds.”

But what ‘moral grounds’ can atheism sustain? Richard Dawkins is well aware of that problem. Years earlier, when challenged with the statement that evolution leads to a ‘moral vacuum’, Dawkins replied, “All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.” (creation.com/evolution-no-morality-dawkins)

• Biologist Richard Dawkins’ take suggesting ‘eugenics would work for humans’ sparks criticism; twitter.com, 17 Feb 2020.