[AndrewC]

Here is a "license to scoff" by Alan Keyes.

Survival of the fittest?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Is the debate over evolution a political question? Surely it is, first of all, a scientific question. And yet, it is a sign of how far we have strayed from our common sense as citizens that the implications of evolutionary theory for our project of self-government are almost never seriously considered. The American nation and our way of life were founded on an articulated and explicit moral premise – one which the doctrine of evolution directly contradicts. We better start thinking about this.

...

But the importance to our political and moral lives of facing the question should be immediately evident to anyone who remembers what it means to be an American, and who hopes to see justice prevail over the rule of tooth and claw.

[general_re]

The effective challenge to this false understanding of justice requires appeal to the belief that true judgment of rights and wrongs is not based on mere results – not decided by who has the whip hand – but instead rests on principles of justice beyond the reach of human will and circumstance. And yet, the possibility of any such principle is inherently denied by the irrational materialism at the heart of evolutionary theory.

How sad that Dr. Keyes is evidently unable to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive theories.

[CobaltBlue]

I think "evolution" is a term that carries a lot of baggage, depending on the speaker.

For example, if you define "evolution" as "a belief held by Communists, Nazis, and other people who hate God and want to destroy civilization, by teaching us that our lives have no meaning, God doesn't exist, and we have free reign to do whatever we want without any moral scruples," I'd hate that, too.

That isn't the way I define it.