Although a prime virtue of evolution is providing offspring to pass along flourishing traits, homosexuality promotes the exact opposite. And even in lieu of the lack of a “gay gene” Richard Dawkins supports the lifestyle and condemns others as bigots. The gene might exist, but the fact that it hasn’t been found as of yet leaves him to be very unscientific in his support. This view on sexuality leaves all forms of sexuality, which aren’t genetically helpful, to be open (including incest, which brings about genetic problems).*
Although the holocaust was ignorant in the Nazi’s understanding of genotypes and phenotypes, the principles of eugenics and genocide are still compatible with the worldview. There is no evolutionary reason why children with hereditary diseases (such as sickle-cell anemia, schizophrenia, et. al.) should not be sterilized. Likewise, there is no reason to stop the extermination of a race if their genes jeopardize the existence of the human race.**
If there is no ontic good, evil, just “blind pitiless indifference” as Dawkins says, why shouldn’t we lie or be hypocritical? Why should there be any freedom, forgiveness, honesty, courage, love, justice, hope or any reason to follow the idea that “we ought to be good” whatsoever?
Richard Dawkins says humans are unique among the apes in that we can break free from our selfish genes, but he doesn’t say how. If all we are is atoms colliding, then all our actions should be deterministic. Any attempt to say how we act apart from our material body, is non-materialistic by it’s very nature.***
Regardless of any of the previous points, Richard Dawkins says that survival of the fittest is an ugly ugly process (and is adamant of this). At the same time, in his last debate with John Lennox, he has expressly stated that the natural laws of the universe are beautiful all on their own; adding God to the picture is “gratuitous”. Yet a deterministic philosophy, such as materialism, means that the very natural laws that are so “beautiful” also bring about the “ugliness” of survival of the fittest.
Ultimately, if all our actions are going toward a predetermined ends (fatalism), this also means that none of what we do has any real value. There is really no reason that a person shouldn’t use their supposed free will to end their lives right now. It would have already been predetermined and would make no difference in the end. This, as well as all the previous points, is an inherent inconsistency for Dawkins if he cannot explain the Free Will problem.
. . .
*Even if Dawkins were against homosexuality, he should be open to polygamy on the moral grounds of evolutionism.
**On that note, the question arises, “Why should the human species flourish anymore than the ant species flourish?”
***Also, all attempts to find motive in criminal law should be stopped. If there is no immaterial entity, then there is no such thing as an evil intent or deontological morality in general. If we do continue to prosecute others for their actions on a utilitarian ethical basis, then we should also prosecute all the “immoral” actions of animals (such as murder, rape, incest, etc.).