[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.

[r9etb]

In essence, you're agreeing with me that the Theory of Evolution does have moral implications. And, when we're confronted with something like Social Darwinism, it's pretty obvious that "science" cannot provide a moral basis on which to decide on whether or not Social Darwinism (or, more to the point of this article, Nazi eugenics theory) is morally acceptable.

[Psalm_2]

note: most present antisemitism comes from leftist ecumenical churches, non Christian secularists, aryan supremacists & islamofascists ie iran, hezbolah, plo, hamas etc, et al.


the Christian right fully disagrees with the above organisations.

[hellbender]

We've been told repeatedly, including in this thread, that science has nothing to say about morality, but here you seem to be saying that morality must change as science progresses. That's ethical relativism--a standard dogma on the Left, but not a traditional feature of conservative thought.

Most conservatives think that the ugly essential truth about human nature has been obvious for thousands of years. Can you tell me anything science has ever demonstrated which invalidates the wisdom of the Ten Commandments, which were propounded to a bunch of pre-scientific nomadic tribesmen?