Scott,
Quick response as I'm going out the door in a minute: When I first read your post I had a good five minutes wrestling with it and trying to distinguish the differences between Darwin, Mendel, how Christians treat both, and eugenics.
Here's my take: Mendel simply observed "what is", the basics of genetic theory, etc. Had Darwin simply observed his finches and argued that species can adapt to their environment, then yes, I would view him as similar to Mendel. I think the difference is that Darwin seemed to argue backwards from that and present an entire picture of life and worldview that saw all of life as the survival of the fittest, and natural selection as the mechanism thereof. Granted, maybe I am wrong about him, as I have only read this from secondary sources over my life. But it does seem as if Darwin instituted the notion that life had constantly been a struggle, and that unfit and less-adapted lifeforms were naturally destined to destruction and being left behind, whereas the higher could continue.
So, perhaps that specific aspect is why they make the case between eugenics and Darwinism, not due to the bare science that we can cultivate good genetic traits, but rather to the larger implications and assumptions of Darwin's views whereby natural selection and " Nature " actually becomes the
rationale and justification for eradicating the life that is unworthy of life. After all, they were just acting out Nature's will.
One could retain the facts of Mendel and some of Darwin's okay observations and place them in the Christian context of the fall, warped genetic codes, etc., while still wholly affirming the value of each individual due to their creation in the image of God, the inherent right to reproduce, and the goal of the "Higher Life" and "Higher Nature" to actually tend for and nurture the weak, rather than wipe them out.
