[js1138]

One has to wonder why creos are gushing over an article published on a sectarian website that obviously supports Darwin. Could it be that they have misread the meaning and intent of the article?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[VadeRetro]

Could it be that they have misread the meaning and intent of the article?

You've just described a good chunk of their total arsenal.

[r9etb]

One has to wonder why creos are gushing over an article published on a sectarian website that obviously supports Darwin. Could it be that they have misread the meaning and intent of the article?

I don't know that I fit into that precise and neat little "creo" box, you've defined, but I'll take a shot at it.

Dernavich is not talking about evolution per se, but instead the moral implications of a God-free, evolution-driven universe. He's pointing out that the usual presuppositions concerning rights and morality are not scientifically or logically supportable. His conclusion is actually rather simple: if you want morality, you need something supernatural to provide it.

jennyp: Your comment has is really just making a case for a utilitarian approach to morality -- it boils down to a percieved optimization of survival chances, but does not make any judgement about the possibility different approaches, which might allow an individual to attempt to optimize his chances using different rules. Put another way, you've assumed that your desire to remain alive is a moral requirement on me -- even if it suits my purposes to kill you.

[Heartlander]

One ‘should’ wonder why the neo-dawinists’ aren’t gushing over an article published on a sectarian website that does not ‘mindlessly’ support Darwin. Could it be that they have read the meaning and intent of the article from ‘their universe’ which is without meaning or intent and void of intelligence?

Inquiring minds want to know what mindless happenstance allows the appearance of inquiry?