True, I stand corrected.
Second, whether the [editorial] mentions morals directly or not, the target of your response did. You owe it to your opponent in a debate NOT to insult his/her intelligence by invoking petty twists of word usage. Manipulative tactics merely distract from meaningful and constructive dialog, which you may not be interested in pursuing.
I believe I answered this point rather directly in post #3.
The response may have been diverted from what you saw as the editorial's point or purpose, but stop that and you kill this board. Lighten up.
Okay. ;^)
Well, actually that #3 was my point, and I don't think you did exactly. After reply #31, I may have become more smarmy than I prefer...
In #3 You wrote "I've never seen that, especially since science has nothing to say about morals." in response to what your recipient had written about "science worshippers", a seemingly derogatory term for "scientists" or "supporters" of evolution.
In effect, you changed the subject. That had been my point. The writer to which you responded never made any claims about "science" itself, but about those who espouse it as something more than it is (in his/her view). That's a key diversion in my humble opinion.