I couldn't agree with you more on this. I would disagree, however, that Johnson, Bork, et. al. attack Darwinism because they fear that others will interpret the truth of Darwinism to mean that religion and morality no longer have any real bearing on human conduct. I think they attack it, not because they know it is true and don't want anybody else to know, but because they simply believe that it is not objectively true. The battleground among decent, right-thinking people should be over what is objectively true, not over what might be a useful fiction.
...some people will use the truth of Darwinism to argue that religion and conventional morality have no bearing on human conduct, no doubt...
I would simply reply for example that Dawkins and many others before him already have done just that. If Dawkins' atheism is true, his conclusions about the non-existence of real morality are at least rigorously consistent with his premise.
I think we should bear in mind that there is a distinction between the logical consequences that flow from a premise, and the actual contingent effects of a truth or a fact.
Cordially,
Right - I agree with this. But the interesting question, then, is why don't they believe it is objectively true? Consider - in the scientific community (albeit not in the court of public opinion, of course) the debate over the truth of evolution is settled. It's over, and the conclusion has largely been reached, Dembski and Behe notwithstanding. So, then, the question is, do Bork and Kristol and Johnson believe they have found some scientific truth that science has ignored or missed, or are they fallaciously extrapolating "truth" from their perception of the consequences?
They probably do believe that it isn't objectively true, you're right. But if that belief is essentially a denial of the truth of a thing because the consequences are too horrible to contemplate, then that belief in the falsity of evolution is not a logically tenable position.
I would simply reply for example that Dawkins and many others before him already have done just that. If Dawkins' atheism is true, his conclusions about the non-existence of real morality are at least rigorously consistent with his premise.
Are they? That seems to beg the question of whether the truth of evolution necessarily invalidates religion - as the author points out, many, many people do not believe that to be the case. Dawkins is the requisite odd duck among students of evolution - based on exactly the same premise as Biblical literalists (that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive), he simply comes to the opposite conclusion and believes that evolution is true and religion is therefore not. It is curious to note that, IMO, in reaching the opposite conclusion of creationists, Dawkins is guilty of exactly the same transgression as many creationists - the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
I think we should bear in mind that there is a distinction between the logical consequences that flow from a premise, and the actual contingent effects of a truth or a fact.
As a practical matter, yes, but in either case, the results do not change the premises ;)