Cosmos and chaos my friend. I can prove it to a thinker like yourself, but you must be open minded. Like zen it ain’t easy, but the trip is worth it for the truly intellectually honest.
You co-opt the language of virtue, as here above, to which, I humbly reply, you have no philosophical or theological claim. (I say 'theological' because obviously you do not mean to be speaking as though you adopt Christian premises.) The straight walls of reason and morality require a foundation. If you are to prove what you claim you must do so on your own premises, not mine, and without assuming the very thing you are trying to prove.
For example, your appeals to the virtues of open mindedness and intellectual honesty above presuppose some absolute standard of moral wisdom by which you grade one morality as either inferior or superior to others. Likewise, by the modifier, 'intellectual' you presuppose a fixed criterion for what constitutes proper noetic functioning of human beings. The notions of "open-mindedness" and "intellectual honesty" assume an established benchmark for moral and mental health by which to assess both.
If you were speaking in terms of the Christian world view, your attempt to assess moral wisdom and noetic dysfunction -- as well as to adversely judge shortcomings in these matters, I would understand and expect because as a Christian, I believe there is a universal, objective and absolute standard of morality in the revealed word of God. In the Christian view it also makes sense to speak of things not functioning as they ought to function, because they were designed for a purpose. But obviously you do not mean to be speaking as though you adopt Christian premises. On your presuppositions this is a universe of chance/necessity that shows no evidence of design, where "laws" are nothing more than statistical averages describing what has happened in the past, and that the human animal is the result of an impersonal, blind physical process of evolutionary natural selection.
What you will have to demonstrate is what sense it makes to speak of non-teleological, brute physical forces not functioning as they ought to function. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to show on what basis you issue your moral evaluations and judgments of intellectual health, and in terms of what view of reality and knowledge you assume that there is anything like an objective criterion of morality and proper noetic functioning by which to find them lacking.
I will not allow any contraband of illogic. I do not yet know exactly what your world view is, but I predict that if your premises are followed to their logical conclusion, your moral judgments will not comport with your assumption that somehow biological might makes right, that that a species, merely by succeeding biologically, gets to use itself as the measure of good and evil. I think you will not be able to derive a system of moral absolutes; what you will end up with is a system of biological relativism. In short, it will not account for any morality or virtue worthy of the name.
But, I'm open minded. I'm all ears. Fire at will:^)
Cordially,