I can't believe I lost to this guy.

As you know I was turned down in my attempt to land a community columnist spot with the Journal. Ever since I have turned on the idiots that were chosen over me. This happened again when I read this moron's column about evolution and atheism. At first I was pissed and began to fire off a nasty email but then realized that he would never read a nasty email so I rewrote it.
Here is the original article.

And my response.
Dear Philip, I read your piece in the Journal on Saturday and felt obliged to reply. At first I was upset, due to the fact that I am an atheist, but later I calmed down. I have no desire to argue evolution, religion, creationism or any other theological topic. I only would like to counter your points about evolution. I think much of the debate between the Religious and Secular is based mostly on a lack of understanding of each other’s beliefs, mostly because neither side wants to take time to understand the other person’s. I am going to attempt to explain, in better detail, what we believe and how simplified your take on it is, much like many Secularists who simplify the creation belief. I will try to quote you so that I am not putting words into your mouth.
Early on you state, “If we humans are animals like any other - only more evolved - there is no basis for us to act any differently from other animals.” The only problem is that all animals act differently then the others. There is no universal animal behavior because the animals differ so greatly. For instance, an ant, with its social structure is going to act differently then, say, a tiger. We, as human, if also animals, would act differently then other animals based on our numerous differences. Also could we not have evolved morality?
Later you go on to mention how the kookaburra’s commonly kill the weakest siblings. One could easily argue that we too as humans kill, through our inaction, the weakest people on the planet. With just a couple dollars a day, each first world citizen could save countless of the world’s poor. If my memory serves me right, Christ talked much about helping the poor with Jesus saying, to paraphrase, “what you did for the least off of your brethren you did for me.”
“If atheistic evolution is true, what basis do we have for prosecuting murderers as criminals? They're acting just as naturally as any other animal that kills.” Humans are social beings, they would not survive without the help of others around. Now, according to an evolutionist, murdering is wrong in a social animal because of what it does to the society. Social cohesion is the most important thing for the survival of the species because we are not the fittest, in the traditional sense, instead we band together to tip the balances in our favor.
“If evolution is true, and we are just more highly developed animals, then violence and rape cannot be condemned on moral grounds. There is no such thing as right and wrong in the animal world, so why should there be in the human world if we are just another animal?”
This is odd because just on the fact alone that we are more developed leads that we could set up laws unlike the animals. And to claim that there is no right or wrong in the animal world is silly because there are countless examples of members being kicked out of the herd and as a human, how could you possibly know what is going on in the minds of all the animals on the planet.
I think that your description of animal behavior is simple at best. We have no idea whether animals hold that some behavior is right and others wrong. Just because they have no ability to build courthouses and jails does not mean that they lack “right and wrong” even if that goes against what we see as moral. For instance, when a pack of dogs wants to invade another pack’s territory they scare them off. Whereas humans, and Exodus is a prime example, kill every man, women, the elderly and the children.
Does one really believe that if the Kookaburra could evolve farther that they too would build atom bombs and drop them on Japanese fishing villages? OR does that same Kookaburra, if it evolved to the point of speaking, justify the killing of the weaker sibling much like we justify dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima. When it comes to the latter we are told that we had to do it, therefore stripping it of its obvious immorality, whereas the Kookaburra could argue the same point, “I killed my weaker sibling for the good of the flock.” It was still immoral to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent fishermen even if the ends justify the means.
As a person who is both an atheist and someone who believes in evolution, I hold that human beings had inbred instincts that made us behave in all sorts of ways that are beneficial to our society as a whole. I just believe that the morality came before the Bible was written whereas you believe that the Bible came first. Of course, neither of us can come up with any proof either way, nor should we waste our time trying to.
If one looks at human history, and much of religious history, it may be possible to argue that animals are more moral not less. I doubt that animals are pedophiles, I doubt that animals horde more than they need while allowing the others to die, and I can’t fathom animals partaking in genocide.
So maybe the big difference is the same as the chicken and the egg. I say that morals came first and you say the holy text came first. Luckily though for you, this conundrum is easily solved. “God did it.”