Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to
accurately describe nature is immoral.
Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that
humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting,
cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and
Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social
animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden
Rule.
Some bad morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism,
are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is
important that evolution be taught well to negate such
misunderstandings.
Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its
own problems.
For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of
creationism, by most standards, is immoral.
Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and
publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of
making information public.
Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes
of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to
talk about a general ethics (Rotblat 1999). Creationists have nothing
similar.
Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those
people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for
immorality within themselves, not others.
References:
Rotblat, Joseph. 1999. A Hippocratic Oath for scientists. Science
286: 1475.
Wedekind, C. and M. Milinski. 2000. Cooperation through image scoring
in humans. Science 288: 850-852. See also Nowak, M. A. and K.
Sigmund, 2000. Shrewd investments. Science 288: 819-820.
