I am a Christian which should make me want to flame this right? Nope. I agree with you. I enjoy debating (organised and just agruging) and you are so right, a scientific or legal debate is totaly different that a moral one. Thank you, this site (and world in general) need more people who can think and express their thoughts as well as you can.

As an atheist, liberal, and ethical relativist, this essay struck several chords within me. But the only real reason I reviewed this was that the oppression in capitalist societies is often written off as being the fault of the poor, thus the oppressed.
Anyone with a logical mind and a liberal spirit should consider Communism. Seriously, Communist philosophy is not the "Great Evil" the US and UK portray it as.

Bravo! I quite liked the whole deal about the magazine and the flyswatter.
The thing about social Darwinists is that they were all rich and white, judging by their views on people that were not.
Morals are subjective to a point, I suppose, but there are a few things that seem kinda universal, aren't there? (Ex: killing people because you are bored or something is wrong.)

also, those who argue against evolution by saying that that it dehumanizes us and makes us meaningless are appealing to happiness or satisfaction. the truth is not always what you want to hear and science is not about wishful thinking. i wish i could fly like superman but newton's universal law of gravity pushes me down to the ground.

So true! Thank you for posting this! I get so tired of reading stuff like 'If evolution was true there'd be no such thing as right and wrong!'. You made a very good point about social Darwininsm, and I love the way you explain things.

It is as fallacious to say ‘Social Darwinism’ has ‘failed’ as to say we no longer live under the law of the jungle just because the strongest predators (gangs and bands called ‘governments’) have decided to herd us as livestock instead of hunt us haphazardly. It is not so much an incorrect statement as it is a meaningless statement.

You never get away from the law of the jungle. It’s the only social law that exists in any objective sense. So you never get away from ‘Social Darwinism’, both within and between societies.

I should clarify some points that No Trust pointed out. My information about the demise of social Darwinism came from the encyclopedia. It wasn't my own judgement but the accepted judgement of professionals in the field, I guess from looking at different social dynamics, etc. I'm not an expert here -- sorry :) It's in the Encyclopedia Britannica if you want to check it out.
Also, it's a pet peeve of mine to personify nature, so I'm a huge hypocrite on the "intent of nature" deal. I guess I should have said "natural tendency of most sexual organisms."
Thanks for reviewing!

Um, sensitive subject (well it is, isn't it?) discussed well. I'll personally give this an A. But u know what- i don't reckon evolution can explain everything... not that i believe in creation either.

Good one. I like your points. Fine job on stating your case without getting embroiled in either side, Somalia-style.

Not a bad essay, although your two arguments (evolution and homsexuality) come out stronger than your main point itself.

One thing: "according to the theory of evolution humans are “overly complex germs.”"

Not really overly complex, just more complex than others. In evolution, as long as something works, and our huge population gives the idea it does work for humans pretty well, nothing is "overly" complex.

1) True Christians would not be against homosexuality. God does NOT think it is unnatural. And Christ commanded only 2 things: love God above all and love your enemies. So, you cannot support this war on terrorism, either, if you were TRUE Christians.
2) Evoloution for humans is geting weaker with time. http://w.unknowncountry.com/dreamland/?id=179 The more we learn about cloning/genetic manipulation the more it seems WE are the result of such advanced technologies! So, not evolution but "other" scientists? wow!

“So from the theory of societal evolution – which, by the way, was shown to be false as the twentieth century progressed – came the idea that allowing the evolution to run its course, effectively hanging the poor and the non-whites out to dry, was morally acceptable and even beneficial to the whole of society.”

And by the way, the twentieth century did not “prove” anything, except from the subjective perspective of the one viewing it. For instance, there is no objective or reliable way to measure what is ‘beneficial’ to a whole society, because what one perceives as benefit to oneself is inescapably subjective in nature. What you perceive as beneficial to other individuals, they might very well perceive as detrimental.

“In evolutionary (sorry!) terms, yes, the male-female mating situation is the “intent” of nature.”

No. Unless you’re a Gaia-worshiper there’s no basis for believing that “nature” has intentions.

You’ve hit on a pet peeve of mine. As much of a fan of the Thomist tradition as I am, I don’t think morality can be objectively derived from what is seen to be ‘natural’. In reality, nothing “unnatural” is possible of occurring; morals objectively derived from ‘nature’ are useless because they don’t rule out any action humanly possible as immoral. It is physically possible to shove a tallywhacker up the anal passage, and some humans are inclined to do so (it is in their 'nature') therefore it is ‘natural’ in the only meaningful sense of the word.

Awesome essay! I thought all of it was pretty good, so I don't really have much to say other than "good job". So, uh... good job!