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.
They're not here, so you'll have to do. In which case, I seem to remember someone posting on how we musn't blame the idea itself for the excesses of those who claim to be acting on its behalf. Sound familiar? ;)
Natural selection operates on the basis that, statistically speaking, the specimens that are most physically fit for a specific environment have a reproductive advantage.
And? How does "more fit" translate into "morally superior"? More importantly, how and why is that translation a necessary consequence of the theory itself?
The problem is that, like all scientific theories, evolution is descriptive, not proscriptive - it tells you how things will be, given some particular set of circumstances. Theories of gravity are much the same way. It does not, however, follow from those descriptive theories that it is somehow incumbent upon us to make those circumstances come about. We are not required to demonstrate our fealty to the laws of gravity by throwing things from high places. Nor would we give much credence to someone who came along and claimed that we should (or must) act in obedience to the laws of gravity by, say, throwing the elderly and infirm from bridges, because the idea is grossly stupid on its face - the conclusion does not follow.
And yet, there is a certain variety of creationist who is all to willing to accept the equally absurd when someone comes along and makes the exact same claim, but happens to substitute "evolution" for "gravity". "Ah, well, he's right about that, so evolution must be wrong." It does not follow, and no such conclusion can be rightfully claimed as honestly come by. So let's not.
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.
Really? What is the practical difference between a set of objective rules that wind up being unknowable, and no such set of rules existing at all? It makes us feel better at night, when it's dark and quiet? Heck, at least in the latter case, there'd be one less thing to fight about, insofar as we'd know that nobody has the inside track to God's right hand.
Most Christians can point to times when they've experienced, what can only be described as, well... "non-subjective" interpretations, direct from the Source.
You can certainly describe them as such, but that hardly makes it so. "Reason by revelation" is inherently self-contradictory - while we may, as humans, excel at rationalizing self-contradiction, I see no need to positively embrace it just yet ;)
It's not possible for anybody to get it all correct.
Ah, but is that opinion objectively correct? How do we know it's possible for anybody to get any of it correct?
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.
Well, hell, I'll drink to that :^)