Creationist Moral Panic

[Amarok]

I was gonna write a long rave debunking wooters and mini me but upon reflection . Just no . Face Neo you suck . You suck at defending moral objectivism . You suck at defending theistic morality . And you at attacking naturalistic morality almost as much as Sam Harris is at defending it . And Dawkins and company are at undermining it with stupid quotes . So i'm not going to waste my time. Welcome to my ignore list say high to Asshole and Wally.

[size=small]But I minor context . You didn't address the notion that the trait Should have remained present in modern context. Because it was advantageous .  It didn't so evolution would deem it a failure . So point refuted.

---

Actually since 1 in 200 men are descended from Khan, his genetic footprint demonstrates clearly that his was a highly successful approach to extending his bloodline. And in evolution that is all that matters.

There is still the difficulty of getting an "ought from an is"  here as well. 

It doesn't matter what is best for society with this kind of evolutionary view as a bases for morality, only what survives, and is passed along through genetics.  That which reproduces more is moral...I can't subscribe to that.

neither does any serious naturalist

---

Actually since 1 in 200 men are descended from Khan, his genetic footprint demonstrates clearly that his was a highly successful approach to extending his bloodline. And in evolution that is all that matters.

However, we're in human society, not 'in evolution'. It simply doesn't follow that Khan is to be emulated.

Well said