[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."

[Quark2005]

Here you're saying nothing more or less than that science trumps morality.

No, I'm just trying to say that a solid basis for a system of morality has to deal with the facts, no matter how uncomfortable they make us. Any system of morals that turns a blind eye toward the truth will be inevitably undermined as the evidence becomes more apparent for all to see.

[steve-b]

But then, we should never forget that along with scientific advancement, comes the responsibility to understand the difference between "can" and "should."

You're hardly in a position to lecture others on a responsibility that you have explicitly abdicated.