[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.

[Liberty Wins]

"I don't see evolution as having any bearing on how a person tells right from wrong."

Well, if we all arrived in our current naturally selected state by chance, and by definition only the fittest survived, can't the criminals shoot and steal on the basis that they are fit, and the others don't deserve to survive? Is that wrong, and why?

[Liberty Wins]

"Some of us are not quite so close to the edge of maniacal conduct."

My question was not based on sympathy for the criminal or any suggestion that he should be allowed to rob and rape. What I hoped to elicit from you was some recognition that evolution could be used by those with their own selfish agenda, from the lowly criminal to Hitler himself. What better way to justify their crimes (in their own minds)?

[Liberty Wins]

How can we tell the difference between right and wrong?

The strong surviving and the weak not surviving is the very basis of Darwin's theory, is it not? Einstein was a weak little old man, and criminals, who are strong, would have had no appreciation for his finer points. You might say Einstein has to survive for the sake of our civilization, or our species, but how could you convince the criminal of that? Is he really interested in "cooperation?"