Now, I don't pose as a Huxley-scholar. Huxley did go on to argue somehow that ethics indeed needs to strive against evolution, in order to sacrifice and help and show self-restraint.The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before.
This is the point that drives atheistic evolutionists (a near-tautology, but not quite) nuts. They say that it is because it is such a dumb question. That isn't it. It drives them nuts for the same reason the slippery-slope progression drives "gay" "marriage" advocates nuts: because it is irrefutable and dead on-target.
If two guys or gals committing serial-perversion can be called "marriage" simply because they feel like it, then there literally is no limit to what might be illegitimately so labeled. It's a fatal flaw in the argument, and bringing it up simply undoes advocates.
Same way with bringing up that the atheistic evolutionist is unable to argue for any transcendent ethics or morality.
Except that isn't strictly true, is it? Strictly, while an atheistic evolutionist could not argue that it is "good," he could argue that crushing the inferior is both imperative and advantageous. However, he cannot make an argument that either drive or advantage are "good."
Which exposes a fatal flaw in the system.
Which drives them nuts.