FROM Apologestics Press: Reason and Revelation:

Such “scientific” explanations for an immoral action like rape are absolutely appalling. When boiled down to its essence, as Thornhill, Palmer, Harris, and Rodgers, have so well illustrated, proponents of naturalistic evolution can never claim that any activity is wrong in an ultimate sense. This being the case, any action that a person chooses to do would be considered just as morally right as any other action, since all human behavior would be the by-product of evolution.

I don't understand this. Why does something have to be "ultimately wrong," or "wrong in an ultimate sense," in order to prevent us from doing it? If we're going to listen to "ultimate" rules, what hinders us from listening to common sense logic about what is decent behaviour? If you're going to be bad, you're going to be bad regardless what "ultimate rules" exist--or don't exist.