How do compassionate liberals reconcile themselves to "Survival of the Fittest?"

Thank you, SolaGratia, for bringing this topic to the forum for debate. I look forward to a good debate and a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas and information. 1) "Evolution, passing over the relative truth or falsity of its various claims, is hard and emotionless." Evolution is not hard or emotionless - it is nothing but the overall theory of the development of life on both the macro- and micro- scales. Evolution is the theory (I won't get into the difference of the usage of "theory" in a scientific sense versus its common usage in everyday conversation) and natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. To say that "evolution is hard and emotionless" is to try to personalize an idea - to give it a face, as it were, when there is neither texture to be touched nor emotions to be expressed or felt. Once you give evolution a face, something to be avoided at all costs, it becomes possible for any statement as vague as "evolution is hard and emotionless" to ring true in *some* general way: "Evolution is wondrous and imaginative" or "E. is mysterious and beautiful" or "E. is rude and cunning" all become equally relevant and equally useless. So let's not personify natural processes. I think your meaning is something roughly equivalent to "Mother Nature (ie, our total environment) isn't very nice" which is hardly a stretch (see how easy, yet unnecessary, it is to personify concepts?!), but there is much more to our total environment than just the process of evolution. 2)"The Survival of the Fittest" Doctrine I assume that you are not speaking of the archaic, idiotic and pseudo-scientific writings of Social Darwinism, but instead of the process of natural selection, which Darwin used synonymously with the phrase "survival of the fittest" after it had been coined by Herbert Spencer. I know of no particular "doctrine" and so shall use the language of biology that refers to the idea of natural selection; correct me if there is some specific idea I missed or if you were referring to something different. Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a metaphorical way of saying natural selection, and in modern biology the use of "natural selection" is the preferred term, not only because of the confusion that has grown up around "survival of the fittest" but because there is much more to natural selection than just the aspect of "fitness." In biology, an organism's "fitness" is measured in terms of their reproductive success, not by any set of features or characteristics belonging to that organism. The common use of "fit" and "fittest" is generally taken in a way related to being "physically fit" or such, whereas its use in biology can only be related retrospectively. 3)I do not see how this "puts a moratorium on human compassion" at all. To derive your ideas of morality from what you call "the Survival of the Fittest Doctrine" would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy - just because something *is* a certain way in the natural world does not mean that it is good or right, or *ought* to be that way. In any case, evolutionary "survival of the fittest" does not even necessarily mean the strong constantly trample the weak, as social behavior such as cooperation is "fit." 4)"Darwinism has become, like it or not, a central tenet of liberal thought since The Origin of Species came out in 1859." It would be fairer to say that Darwinism has become a central tenet of rational thought, perhaps. "Liberals" certainly do not have an exclusive relationship with scientific fact. 5)I don't see much to reconcile, frankly. I am generally very liberal (by modern meaning of "liberal") and I am fairly compassionate, but I don't see the contradiction between these facts and a description of natural selection, whole or part. If there is a movement known as "compassionate liberalism" mirroring the neoconic "compassionate conservatism" I am not aware of it; if you meant "compassionate" only as a qualifier of the classical school of liberalism, please clarify. 6)On the last note of your argument, you mentioned that you wanted a debate that touches on the philosophical side of evolution more then purely scientific. I hope to indulge you as I feel this will be the most rewarding part of the experience. First, I think, it is important to note that we are making a large step when we move from Darwinism, which is relevant to biology and a host of other disciplines, to looking for the explanation of "the origin of life," which natural selection is still involved in, and "the universe itself," where biological evolution can lay no claims as the subject is now scientifically in the purview of cosmology. I do not claim that Darwinism (or science in general, or any other viewpoint) can answer these ultimate questions of ours. The supreme question, "Why is there anything instead of nothing?" is the most unanswered (and perhaps least asked) question we have. We might as well not even ask, it is so remote a possibility of man ever finding an answer above mere speculation. And it would be ridiculous to ask "Darwinism" to attempt to answer any of these questions. Science will always bring us ever closer to possibly answering some big questions, but we all know that we will never know it all and that science ends where evidence and observation and falsifiability end; after that, all is speculation and guessing, no matter how well-informed or educated it is. It is neither the purpose nor the want of Neo-Darwinism to answer these questions of ours. As humans, we all exist with this existential quandary every day of our lives. Most people cope with this by getting their metaphysics (and thus their "answers") through religion. As an atheist, I don't do this, but I don't dispose of metaphysics entirely. When a question cannot be answered, the default answer becomes "I don't know," to which I usually append "but someone might know someday" and that is the end of it. It is not entirely satisfying and far from comforting, but it is good enough for the time being - it has to be. Back to you, Sola Gratia Britt