Replies

A logical conclusion of a worldview based on belief in evolution is that we (humans) are a product of pure chance. Killing, via survival of the fittest is a way an organism can improve it's environmental security. Death of disabled, elderly organisms contributes to the survival of the organism by increasing the amount of shelter, food and water.

No, we're not. Evolution is not a process of pure chance. We evolved because our ancestors survived and propagated themselves. And that process was not entirely devoid of attributes we might call 'good'. In most but certainly not all cases, qualities that lead to our survival are good qualities. We do seem to have evolved as primarily monogamous creatures; as creatures that value truth-telling and have an innate sense of fairness; that display reciprocal altruism; that are innately repulsed by incest and the unclean. That's not to say that those things are wrong because we have a natural dislike of them, but it does mean that evolution isn't necessarily a force for brutal, amoral competition.

We shouldn't form a system of ethics based on any natural law, be it evolution, gravity, or the second law of thermodynamics. How the world behaves, and how we should behave, are entirely different issues. But science, to the extent that it lets us understand ourselves, does have a bearing on what it means to be a good father, spouse, citizen, etc.. In most cases, in fact, science reinforces what traditional morality preaches. Traditional morality preaches the integrity of the family; science tells us that biological fathers have far more invested in the well-being of their children than the casual lover who happens to be currently impregnating the mother. Traditional morality says we shouldn't have sex with close relatives; science tells us that leads to genetic defects. Even the arcane dietary rules of Leviticus seem to have had quite a bit of hygienic practical sense.

So I wouldn't say science has no answers. It has a part of the answers; and the rest of the answers shouldn't ignore science.

Does evolution state that we are animals? Being that we are only animals, why should we have ethics that are opposite to the animal kingdoms behavior (a monogamous animal is not monogamous based on a choice, rather it is a design instinct)? How could you ever tell me it is wrong to kill my children as a male Lion will? What would you be basing your truth on? I could legitimately point to the King of the Savannah as evidence within science that supports my position.

We have seen instances where humans will resort to animalistic behavior. The terrorists come to mind. Their animalistic desire to dominate territory tells us Saddam Hussein lines up well with the animal kingdom. As the Liberals amazingly support the animalistic behavior in the Middle East, to a supernatural extreme, we can conclude that their motive is based on Evolution. The Liberals biggest enemy are those who oppose animalistic behavior - Christians.

Liberals support drug use, adultery, perverting children, child neglect for selfish reasons, killing unwanted humans (abortion), euthanasia, pornography, S&M, Beastiality, intolerance, terrorism...

They are creative animals run amok. Every person for themselves. The epitome of man without God. No restraint, for they make up their own minds what is right. Without God, who could fault them?