So is rape reeeally wrong?

[DeistPaladin]

The biggest problem is that his premise is wrong: evolution is not just about spreading one's DNA, as evolution happens to populations and not individuals. He's really talking about survival of the fittest, in that special, misrepresentative way that christians do, which doesn't take into account that "fitness," for humans, is about our ability to maintain a social species and not just outright strength. ...

Agreed with your evaluation of his misrepresentation of evolution but I would argue that the "biggest problem" with his argument is even more basic than that, and it's one commonly made by science-bashers like him: confusing science with philosophy.

Even more basic than his straw man arguments and profound ignorance of the subject of evolution, he is confusing "is" with "ought" and trying to attribute moral philosophy with scientific findings. This is very important to establish first-and-foremost with Creationists. Science is not philosophy. It does not prescribe moral evaluations. It simply describes what is. It does not speak of what ought to be.

This may be confusing to Creationist thinking, as indeed much of reality must be but I digress, because to the Creationist mind, "is" and "ought" are intertwined. "GodDidIt" is naturally followed by "and so it ought to be". After all, if God made something a certain way and God is a perfectly good and wise being, then it logically follows that this is how it should be. This is why a convoluted theology of a fall from grace is required to explain evil in the world but again, I digress. The point is simplistic Creationist thinking leads them to blend together "this is how it is" with "and so this is how it ought to be".

This kind of thinking, the conflation of "is" and "ought", is what leads them to such appeal to consequences as "so since you think evolution is true than that must mean you think we ought to..."

Stop right there.

Putting aside all the straw men and over-simplifications, science is the study of what is, even when its a cold, hard truth. No wishful thinking is allowed. A scientist might study what is and be personally horrified by it but is still duty bound to report simply what is, like it or not.

The fact that science is divorced from the "ought" is underscored by how we've used science to change the very way we live. Summers are hot and we've invented air conditioners. Winters are cold and we've invented indoor heating. Viruses spread and we invent vaccines. Other planets are uninhabitable but we may yet use scientific advances to terraform them.

Just because science has discovered what "is" doesn't mean anything about what "ought to be".

You want to discuss morality? The philosophy department is that building over there.

You want to discuss political ideology? The poli-sci department is that building over that way.

You want to discuss evolution? Keep it within the realm of science.

Now let's discuss all these straw men...