Coprolites.
If nature (red in tooth and claw) doesn't have direction, purpose, values, or preferences, it in no way follows that I don't have those things, or that other people don't have those things, or that humanity as a whole doesn't have those things.
Value requires a valuer; I am a valuer. And whether or not my particular values matter to the stars in their courses--and I expect they do not--they matter very much to the person you asked, which is me.
Second, when you say MUCH better, what is the basis of that value judgement?
Effectiveness. The science of immunology prevents disease better than any trust in the commanding hand of the Divine. In order to prevent, say, influenza pandemics, scientists must have an understanding of the ways in which, say, the H5N1 virus can evolve. The Bible is reticent on this technical point, and if the future course of the virus is simply a matter of Divine Whim, then all we can do is wait and pray.
But there's still no standard of value in the cold numbers that show immunology to be effective. So OK, try this: I prefer not to be sick. Don't you?
If we are the product of evolution then where, pray tell, did "those things" come from if they are not from undirected natural selection.
Go back to article. O.E. Wilson has written:
Ethics as we understand it is an illusion
I believe that logic requires that we agree.
You say that purpose, direction, values and preferences have meaning to you. But they are the result of mutation and selection. Those without that specific mutation didn't survive. There isn't any "real" meaning beyond the mutation. The fact that we think there is more to them ended up being an advantage in the fight for survival. But the cat is out of the bag. Really, there is nothing outside the box.