Originally Posted by Nicato
Liddle makes an oversight in his piece. He basically claims that because atheists believe in Darwinism and Darwinism's core principles leave no room for what we call morality, Darwinism therefore leaves no room for morality it all.
I don't think that's exactly his assertion. His assertion is intended to rebut the arguments of strict atheists by asserting that Darwinism fails to solve the problem of morality; the morality of atheism is ultimately subject to the same arbitrary delineations that it's given by religion.
Numerous scientific disciplines are exploring the evolution of religion and social norms, including sociology, anthropology and evolutionary biology. Certain atheists are asserting that religion is essentially worthless and that science tells us everything we need in order to live. But describing the biological and sociocultural origins of morality doesn't solve the problem of morality by creating some sort of "rationally moral" set of principles that we should follow. It can only describe, in general, the consequent-relative nature of human morality. It doesn't change the fact that moral decisions are secondary to an intuitive, irrational thought process.