[Sam Cree]

"You are also giving no foundation for right and wrong, whatsoever. It's each person's "feeling" or "intuition" which they call "conscience."

A good point, actually.

Although I believe that a strong moral code, combined with a guarantee of individual rights and personal liberty, such as that envisioned by our founding fathers, provide such a foundation.

Acknowledging that their moral code was based on Judaeo Christian teachings and acknowledging that individual rights and personal liberty cannot ever work unless those lucky enough to enjoy them adhere to a strong moral code.

I don't actually believe that one can be moral without having the choice of whether to be moral or not moral.

"It's only one step away from saying the weak in society are detrimental to humanity and doing away with those weak people."

True, but perhaps that is the reality that we, as humans, have been challenged (by God?) to rise above.

[DittoJed2]

True, but perhaps that is the reality that we, as humans, have been challenged (by God?) to rise above.
I believe God has given us a higher moral standard than that which is normal for us. I also believe he helps us to attain that goal.

Someone like Hitler came upon the infirm and had two roads to go according to the implications of Darwin's evolution. He could, like Charlie Darwin, see them as unfortunate individuals who are damaging to the species but do nothing about them. Or, he could take the path he took and actively rid society of what was damaging. He was not being inconsistent with the philosophy, and took a legitimate route directly springing from a system that says there is no God, just as he wouldn't have been inconsistent had he chosen to do nothing. In either case, the value of that human is lowered, and that comes directly out of Darwin's teaching.