[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I don't fear Charles Darwin, but if you push him on me I won't be part of your coalition. Obviously the fear is on your part. You just can't handle anyone who disagrees with you. But make no mistake, you are denying the obvious if you think Darwinian science is compatable with religious belief, or that it is not morally degrading. Survival of the fittest is not a moral concept. There is no moral order to it. The powerful win. That's your only value. Furthermore, it reduces man to being equal with animals. Man is no longer "created equal." Rather, man has evolved, and the strong are of more value than the weak.

You are trying to change an intellectual point into an emotional point. That may make you feel better, but it's a denial of the logical philisophical and religious implications in your beloved theory.

[Arnhart]

Beginning with Adam Smith and Edmund Burke, the conservative intellectual tradition has been based on the claim that social order arises not from rational planning but from the spontaneous moral order of instincts and habits. Darwinian biology sustains that conservative claim by showing how the human capacity for spontaneous order arises from social instincts and a moral sense shaped by natural selection in human evolutionary history.

I don't see anything morally degrading in this. On the contrary, I see a science of human nature that supports spontaneous moral order as natural for human beings.

For example, when conservatives defend marriage and the family as natural because they are rooted in the natural human desires for sexual mating and parental care, doesn't this appeal to the biological nature of human beings?

[Dimensio]

But make no mistake, you are denying the obvious if you think Darwinian science is compatable with religious belief,

Your religious beliefs are not the only ones in existence, and there are people whose religious beliefs do not conflict with evolution.

or that it is not morally degrading. Survival of the fittest is not a moral concept.

No concept in science is a moral concept. Science is not about morality.

There is no moral order to it. The powerful win. That's your only value.

That's not a value. That's not even a correct statement. The ones best able to reproduce in their environment pass on their genes. It's not about "winning" or losing. There's no defined goals, no defined standards of "good" or "bad". Science isn't about determining such things, it's just about explaining reality.

Furthermore, it reduces man to being equal with animals.

Argument from the consequences.

Man is no longer "created equal." Rather, man has evolved, and the strong are of more value than the weak.

So define "stronger". What makes a man "stronger" than another? Be specific. Explain how this makes the theory of evolution immoral. Is it immoral to explain observations on reality?

You are trying to change an intellectual point into an emotional point.

Funny. A great deal of creationist arguments -- ones that you've just put up -- are based upon appeal to emotion in an attempt to dispel reality by saying that you just don't like the implications.

[ml1954]

You are trying to change an intellectual point into an emotional point.

In fact, you are doing just the opposite.