I think that the potential for eugenics is a poor argument against Darwinism. That's like saying "we won't believe Darwin because the consequences are unethical." It's either true or it isn't, regardless of the consequences. I think that a better argument against Darwin is that his theory is at best seriously flawed (cambrian explosion and punctuated equilibrium) and at "worst" just fallen man's attempt to justify away God.

__________________
Eric
Woodgreen Presbyterian (PCA)
Calgary, Alberta CANADA