Moral Reasoning Moved From the Philosophy Dept. to the Biology Dept.

This bit of rock solid science from the New York Times:

Biologists argue that . . . [animal] social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

Moral philosophers do not take very seriously the biologists’ bid to annex their subject . . .

Needless to say, the article did not discuss any experiments or testing that show definitive evolutionary connections of animal social behavior to human morality. But the article is full of rich speculation and lots of opinions, which is what science is all about, after all.

So let's get this straight. Exploring alleged evidence of the evolutionary origins of human moral codes and human religious ethical codes is "science." Exploring scientific evidence of design in biology is "religion." Ah yes, so simple. And the US Constitution says that school kids can hear about first, but not the second. Isn't that convenient?