[Quark2005]

I've been reminded many times that the theory of evolution has no moral implications. But of course -- like any scientific theory -- it does. And as the nastier aspects of "Social Darwinism" have made clear, the moral implications of evolution can be rather uncomfortable.

Should we pretend, in spite of the evidence, that evolution never occurred because its moral implications are "uncomfortable"?

Good science doesn't try to cater it's outcome to what might be comfortable to us, it does quite the opposite - attempts to reveal the truth, in spite of what we are comfortable believing. How society decides to deal with the outcome is another problem entirely that has no bearing whatsoever on the science itself.

[r9etb]

Should we pretend, in spite of the evidence, that evolution never occurred because its moral implications are "uncomfortable"?

No. But then, we should never forget that along with scientific advancement, comes the responsibility to understand the difference between "can" and "should."

Good science doesn't try to cater it's outcome to what might be comfortable to us, it does quite the opposite - attempts to reveal the truth, in spite of what we are comfortable believing. How society decides to deal with the outcome is another problem entirely that has no bearing whatsoever on the science itself.

Here you're saying nothing more or less than that science trumps morality. You have divorced "can" from "should."