Simple nonsense. I'm rather suprised, actually. The laws of physics tell you what will happen if you throw a puppy from a moving car. Do you imagine then that the laws of physics justify throwing puppies out of cars?
First, if we cannot objectively derive our version morality from what we can observe (and we cannot)
I really think you'd better prove that statement, rather than simply asserting it.
Nevertheless, even assuming it to be true, for the sake of argument, how does the assumption of a Creator lend itself to "objective" morality? You've simply set the problem back a bit - now we argue about which of us is "objectively" correct about the nature and desires of the presumed "Creator", and the inherently subjective interpretations of two thousand year old texts.
Given that there are - at least - tens of thousands of Christian sects and denominations alone, which one of them is "objectively" correct? Yours? Would be convenient, wouldn't it? How about the thousands and thousands of non-Christian faiths? Are any of them a candidate for "objective" morality? Why or why not? Why is your version of morality "objectively" correct, and the Nazis not?
While I realize it's rather convenient to claim that atheistic moral systems suffer from the crippling handicap of subjectivity, the reality is that all moral systems have that in spades.
You misunderstood. The point is simply that Social Darwinists and Nazi eugenicists, among others, draw their moral conclusions directly from the proposed mechanisms of evolution. If (as these do) one interprets evolutionary processes in terms of moral precepts (which is what Rand says objectivists are supposed to do), then that is relavant. You can take up the propriety of interpreting evolution in moral terms with the ones making the link. The problem, if one disagrees with their moral calculus, is to demonstrate that they're wrong.
I really think you'd better prove that statement, rather than simply asserting it.
Natural selection operates on the basis that, statistically speaking, the specimens that are most physically fit for a specific environment have a reproductive advantage. "Physical fitness" is observably very often manifested in terms that are best described in terms of "initiation of force" in one form or another. For example, male apes often kill the offspring of the "former" head male. The claim has been made (on this thread and elsewhere) that initiation of force is "evil," despite the fact that it is observably successful in nature. I presume you agree that nature is not "evil," so the problem is fairly obvious: how can something that's not "evil," become evil when applied to humans?
how does the assumption of a Creator lend itself to "objective" morality? You've simply set the problem back a bit
A fair question. I suppose the most obvious answer is that the Creator is the one who makes the rules, and we're the ones subject to them. To us, the rules are objective, much as we are subject to the rules imposed by, say, the creators of a software compiler.
- now we argue about which of us is "objectively" correct about the nature and desires of the presumed "Creator",
Also fair; however, at this point we've tacitly accepted the existence of the objective rules. This is different from a philosophy the logical implications of which are that there are no such rules. At that point, we can argue about things like "optimal results" from a non-utilitarian perspective.
and the inherently subjective interpretations of two thousand year old texts.
Perhaps subjective, but perhaps not. For example, the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit provides a direct, even if tenuous, bridge between Creator and created. Most Christians can point to times when they've experienced, what can only be described as, well... "non-subjective" interpretations, direct from the Source.
Given that there are - at least - tens of thousands of Christian sects and denominations alone, which one of them is "objectively" correct?
IMHO, all of them, and none of them: the denominations are all searching for truth about something that is bigger than they can understand. It's not possible for anybody to get it all correct. It's obvious that there are points of disagreement; the practical questions have to do with how one responds to those differences, and (as is currently at issue in my own denomination) how does one define the limits of what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" difference.
While I realize it's rather convenient to claim that atheistic moral systems suffer from the crippling handicap of subjectivity, the reality is that all moral systems have that in spades.
Probably correct; and for that reason we should all strive toward humility in our own moral claims. OTOH, that simply makes Ayn Rand a fraud: she claimed to have acorner on objective truth -- something she shared with the leaders of the French Revolution, Communist Russia and China, and perhaps even Mr. Dawkins himself, if this article is representative of his views. If history shows anything at all, it is that "avid moral certitude" of any stripe tends to have unpleasant results for those who defy it.