Andrew Ferguson has a report on the debate that I asked about last week, that (sort of) answers my question. And I see that Derbyshire had the same question:

Darwinism, viewed one way, can easily be considered morally disastrous. But, responded pro-Darwin Derbyshire, Is it true? “The truth value of Darwinism is essential,” he said. “The truth value always comes first.” If Darwinism is true–and its undeniable success in explaining the world suggests that it is–and if Darwinism undermines conservatism, as West had claimed, “then so much the worse for conservatism.”

I’d like to think that he was influenced by the email I sent him with a link to my post before the debate, but I suspect that he was already loaded for that particular bear. And I agree with Gilder, despite his disbelief:

“Darwinism may be true,” he said, “but it’s ultimately trivial.” It is not a “fundamental explanation for creation or the universe.” Evolution and natural selection may explain why organic life presents to us its marvelous exfoliation. Yet Darwinism leaves untouched the crucial mysteries–who we are, why we are here, how we are to behave toward one another, and how we should fix the alternative minimum tax. And these are questions, except the last one, that lie beyond the expertise of any panel at any think tank, even AEI.

It is possible to try to build an ethical system out of evolutionary theory, I suppose, but it’s certainly not necessary, and not necessarily desirable.

[Afternoon update]

Derbyshire cites my previous post, and has further thoughts.