Replies

You are obviously free to believe what you want – and if you believe; the universe popped into existence from natural causes (natural processes created natural processes), we just got lucky with the initial conditions and constants that allow for life, we got lucky again and life somehow formed naturally, we exist now thru a process of error accumulation and blind luck (neo-darwinism), and human consciousness is ultimately the result of mindlessness – fine – believe what you want… but again, there are consequences to those beliefs:

The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called “ethical principles.” The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible.
Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will…. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.
Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.
- Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, The Evolution of Ethics

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.
1) No gods worth having exist.
2) No life after death exists.
3) No ultimate foundation for ethics exists.
4) No ultimate meaning in life exists.
5) Human free will is nonexistent.
- William Provine (from Darwin Day speech)

Personally, I do not see how anyone can live in harmony with these beliefs. I would agree with Sir Arthur Balfour and William J Murray:

…that if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must find for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.
- Sir Arthur Balfour

“If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.”
- William J Murray

I agree mostly with the first quote, although it describes certain ideas very poorly.

There is no evidence, nor can any rational explanation be made, in support of a universal morality outside of the realm of homo sapiens. No morality exists on the moons of Jupiter, until a live human being sets foot there. Morality is a way for human beings to associate with one another and the outside world.

Since you've cut and pasted here again, we'll just go down the list on the second quote, since argumentative ventriloquy seems to be your preferred method of communication:

1) No gods worth having exist. - Subjective, "worth having"
2) No life after death exists. - I would say there's no evidence for it, and science points against mind/body dualism. We don't have enough information.
3) No ultimate foundation for ethics exists. - Disagree, in the sense that there is a foundation for determining health and well being, the minimization of suffering, and the social constructiveness of families.
4) No ultimate meaning in life exists. - Objection, subjective and non-cognitive.
5) Human free will is nonexistent. - This is a deterministic argument, which is philosophy, not science.