His views are completely contrary to evolutionary theory. Under evolutionary theory, natural selection is the decider. He is advocating that man be the decider. That's not consistent with the theory or Darwin's personal views. In fact, it would turn natural selection on its head.
They only support evolutionary theory because it places doubt on the existence of God, who threatens the authority of the Stalinists who seek sole power over the human mind.
Otherwise, they want us to devolve and result in less intelligent people who they can fool politically.
How so? A more ‘fit’ person decides that a ‘less fit’ will no longer receive societal resources. That’s the very definistion of Evolutionist Fundamentalism: Those who can out compete. Those who can’t, die.
I don't think this is correct. Evolutionary theory postulates that the fitness landscape is the totality of circumstances that impact an individual's ability to survive and have kids. For humans, the ability to survive the behavior of other humans has always been part of our "fitness to reproduce." Evolutionary theory also postulates that the fitness landscape is always changing. The globe warms up and cools down. Droughts come and droughts go. Guys like Peter Singer get power and then lose it.
The evolutionists see other humans as just another aspect of the fitness landscape. So why can't killers like the bioethicists (Singer and Watson) just be a part of the fitness landscape? Killers like Vlad the Impaler and Josef Stalin were just part of the fitness landscape for their unfortunate subjects. Think of it this way. It's like male chimpanzees killing the offspring of other males. It's natural! So it must be moral, right?