[Right Wing Professor]

evolution can't offer plausible explanations for love, beauty, common notions of morality

You better first tell us why it should. I don't look to the Bible for values of fundamental physical constants. I don't look for information on the history of Central Asia in an Italian cookbook. I don't see why I should look for moral instruction or epistemological insight in a theory of the origin of species.

[Aric2000]

But, but, but, don't you understand, evolution is godless, and if it can't answer those questions then it must be wrong.

THese debated become so laughable at times.

The bar is being raised by the creationists again, and it's a bar that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with science.

Science is not supposed to teach morality and love and beauty, although the beauty part is easy to understand.

If a person is considered beautiful, they are much more likely to procreate, and spread their genes, an ugly person has a much less chance of doing so. That probably had nothing to do with the question, but it sure makes sense to me.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

"...evolution can't offer plausible explanations for love, beauty, common notions of morality..." You better first tell us why it should.

Because evolution claims, via "natural selection" (in deliberate contrast to God's choice) to account for the development and characteristics of all kinds of life, including humans, it claims to account for the character traits that recognize beauty, love, morality and the like. So to be a viable system, evolution must either explain how these things evolved or, alternatively, why they're just fancies in our heads, having no correspondence with objective reality.