[peter12]

I'm not familiar with what exactly the tenets of new left ideology are. Regardless, if the standard definition of "Darwinism" is accurate, I don't see how it can be even considered an ideology:

It's more mechanism, I suppose. An ideology that makes an all-encompassing statement about society without the ability to be comprehensively tested.

But you did just claim that viewing people as material organisms somehow devalues them. You have made this statement and followed it up with something about how "Darwinism"—for which you still need to provide an acceptable definition—should not be allowed to "venture out" of science. Before making these sorts of generalizations, you need to make a case that there is indeed a relationship between an adherence to Darwin's theory of evolution and the valuation of human life.

I think that what I'm getting at is some agreed upon notion of Gould's NOMA. How does science answer the right questions about people, while leaving humans to exist within their own cultures/religions?

There's also something to be examined there about the millenarian/utopian haze that surrounds a lot of the current neo-Darwinist/atheist debates.

Jeez, I'm all over the map.

Even if it is true that "Darwinism" struggles as you say it does—and I would argue that it does not, so what? Science is not at all concerned with intrinsic value. Period. On the contrary, it is actually my opinion that a clear understanding of evolution would in many instances increase one's perception of humanity's "intrinsic value". Does it not spur us on to do our best to preserve our own species through discovering new and meaningful ways of coping and sustaining our own beneficial environment? Furthermore, a proper understanding of evolution ought increase one's understanding of her/his place in the world, in her/his environment, her/his relationship with all of nature, and the critical importance for maintaining a harmonistic existence within this environment.

Yes, I definitely agree with you there. The trouble for me is finding that proper understanding, especially in regards to finding methods of environmental stewardship that correspond more with our biological human nature.

However, what I get sort of stuck on is that there has to be more to this viewpoint than just a neo--Darwinist viewpoint. E.O. Wilson just wrote a great book on how the two sides of science and religion can come together to solve environmental problems. My question is, how do you find that balance, I suppose.

Is there a need for another Axial Age where the major dogmas of religions are re-examined?