<<1) we are talking about science, not philosophy and especially not
materialistic philosophy.>>
Then we are talking at cross-purposes. I have ALWAYS discussed the
philosophical implications of materialism vis-a-vis evolution and morality in
this context. You are concerned with the narrow question of the science of
evolution.
And on that point, I agree with you. I have written as much before, stating
that if one holds to a theistic base, then one will not be compelled toward
amorality. The science itself is not a philosophy.
But my concern has always been with the materialist presupposition, buttressed
(wrongly, IMO) by evolutionary data.
<<2) It certainly IS a distortion to 'move from "only the fittest
survive" to "I define fitness as X, and I am X, therefore I
am more fit to survive."' Such an extrapolation is not only
absurd, it has nothing whatsoever to do with science. >>
Again, I agree with you, UNLESS it is a philosophical materialist who makes
the extrapolation. If we are all purposeless atoms, there can be no objective
standard of morality.
<<3) You previously insisted that your position was and
always had been that racists distort evolution to support
their beliefs.>>
I don't remember saying anything like that. My position has always been that
there is no logical argument AGAINST a materialist making an argument as in
#2, above. If I indicated otherwise, I apologize for being unclear.
Let me ask you a simple question. Without using any theistic presupposition,
can you explain to me why Hitler was evil?
I think you'll agree with me that you can't. And that's been my only point all
along.
Jim