Though they believe we are all simply advanced animals and that morality, if it exists at all, is simply a genetic predisposition toward mutually beneficial cooperation, they don't like it when people act on that position. (I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that most scientists aren't built for a truly dog-eat-dog world.)
A recent Time interview illustrates their problem:
"TIME: You believe that Darwin should continue to be taught in schools. But how can we teach Darwin and also teach that humans are somehow exceptional in the natural world?Unfortunately naturalistic evolution does not leave us with the option of having something special about human beings. We shouldn't get different treatment or rights, and to claim the contrary, we're told, is "speciesist."
DS: I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world's religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. In teaching our common descent with animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings, and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain rights."
If Dawkins et al are right, the Columbine killers were right; there's no difference between killing a human and a cow.
Does that mean Dawkins et al are wrong? No. Naturalistic evolution can be totally true while leading to this horrible conclusion.
But, hey, maybe there really is a good reason to believe in Darwinism and in the sanctity of human life.
But perhaps we should demand that they stop teaching evolution until they can give students a convincing explanation.
Related: Defining Evolution: Getting Terms Right