"No. The point is there will always be some few instances of genetic defects due to random mutations."

Ok, so what you're saying is that eugenics "can't work" when you give it your own extreme strawman definition.

Eugenics is a normative social philosophy about improving human life (to whatever extent) through artificial selection. Nothing about the science of genetics precludes it, and I am not aware of anyone who ever defined 'eugenics' as trying to halt the natural occurrence of genetic mutation.

"The problem is that it would take something on the order of 10,000 years (IIRC) and would require the participation of the entire human race"

Again, this is your fictitious definition. A eugenics policy could be entirely limited to any given nation or population, and with limited and specific goals. And your claim that it would take "10,000" years to virtually eliminate color-blindness in a population is just nonsense. It took a short handful of decades for Ashkenazi Jews to virtually eliminate Tay-Sachs.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E0D81E3AF93BA25751C0A9659C8B63

My eyes glazed over at the Pharyngula link. It was just a breathless rant. There was no "debunking" of artificial selection for the simple reason that it can't be debunked. Nothing about eugenics need contradict genetics.

"The problem is that mutations will show up naturally in every generation. And the rate in which they show up is greater than the rate negative eugenics can get rid of them."

Dude, are you seriously suggestion the mutation rate makes natural or artificial selection impossible? This is amazingly stupid. You are denying evolution.

Both positive and negative eugenics would work. Neither the desire to do so, nor the desire to refrain from doing so is "science", it's politics. Genetics is a science, eugenics is a political platform.

We don't call pro-life or pro-choice "science" or "pseudoscience" either. I don't see how eugenics is different.