<<I am going to answer this one, in spite of my deep desire not to get
involved again with this raging discussion I started. >>
Now you're going to wish you had followed your deep desire. ;-)
<<While I would not base morality on evolution, there are very good
evolutionary reasons not to kill your neighbor.>>
You're dead from the get go. You assume some standard of "good" when you have
no source for it. You then proceed to list several examples of this goodness.
I (speaking as a materialist) can reject them all. They are bogus. And there
is nothing you can say in return, for I reject your standard of "good." Since
death renders everything meaningless for me, there is no reason I should be
concerned with the gene pool or evolution or future generations at all. I
don't give a rip about the gene pool or whether natural selection works. Why
should I? I'd love to hear you answer that.
<<Now you have heard a demonstration "from the evolutionary worldview why
killing fellow humans is wrong." If you reject this demonstration, you will
have to modify your statement to say that you have never heard an
explanation that you agree with. But now, you have heard one.>>
Well, we've heard something, but it does not qualify as anything close to a
"demonstration."
Aren't you glad you dove in? I'm here in the water, circling...
Jim
________________________________________________________________
"Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change
without notice." -- Will Durant
________________________________________________________________