[Liberty Wins]

Just to clarify, Post #310 was mine, and I was not accusing anyone of being an atheist, a communist, or a bed-wetter.

I was merely pointing out that some pretty unwholesome characters latched onto evolution as sort of an addendum to their own agenda, whatever that might be. That's all in the past; we don't have to stay stuck in the 20th century, do we?

Now will one of you charming fellows answer a simple question: Aside from the question of whether or not Darwin was an atheist or a believer, if one accepts evolution as a working theory (or hypothesis), how does one tell right from wrong?

[Dimensio]

Aside from the question of whether or not Darwin was an atheist or a believer, if one accepts evolution as a working theory (or hypothesis), how does one tell right from wrong?

I don't see evolution as having any bearing on how a person tells right from wrong. Some define morality for themselves, others believe that it is dictated by a divine agent, some think that it's some inherent property of the universe. Evolution doesn't play into it at all.

[Coyoteman]

how does one tell right from wrong?

How is this for a start?

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

[balrog666]

... if one accepts evolution as a working theory (or hypothesis), how does one tell right from wrong?

... if one accepts the theory of gravity as a working theory (or hypothesis), how does one tell right from wrong?

Or are you dishonestly equating evolution with atheism?