Has anybody mentioned the well known very vociferous atheist from some years ago, I can't think of his name, who became a theist (not a Christian) because he realized evolution could not account for morality and human consciousness. It's really indisputable ...
If it was really indisputable, wouldn't there be a good argument for it somewhere?
The decision of the atheist who became a theist had to be based on some pretty complicated analysis of possibilities in the natural world ...
Or on crass stupidity. That would be consistent with the complete, utter, glaring absence of a "complicated analysis of possibilities in the natural world" proving that "evolution could not account for morality and human consciousness". Whereas stupidity is abundant and easy to find, especially in creationist apologetics.
No one said you don't have the freewill to ignore the intrinsic law inside of you anymore than you would a traffic law.
But, again, I said we don't think that the same things are right and wrong. It's not that we all recognize the same morality, but some of us are ignoring it. It's that we do not in fact recognize the same morality.
For example, the old testament authors thought it right to murder a man for picking up sticks on a Saturday. Now, this is not something I acknowledge in principle as an obligation but casually ignore, like someone running a red light; it is something I actively find ridiculous and disgusting.
Right. Some people like talking to other people some people like killing and eating other people, this is why humans and animals cannot decide what is moral and shouldn't try.
You'll be shocked to learn that many people have made such a decision. For example, many of them have decided that the precepts contained in the Bible are moral. Someone should really tell them to stop.
My point is, an atheist who believes that evolution is a scientific fact cannot argue that a human life is worth more than a life of a bug.
Yes he can. Obviously.
because to do so is to contradcit the very science he holds to be true.
No it doesn't. Obviously. Which is why you can't argue for this.
Such an atheist must also accept that since life is the product of a blind, meaningless process, life itself is meaningless. So he cannot argue that his life has meaning because to do so is to contradict the very science he holds to be true.
Imagine if you turned the same crazy illogic on your own beliefs. "A creationist must also accept that since humans are the product of an omnipotent invisible sinless being, humans are themselves omnipotent, invisible, and sinless. So he cannot argue that humans are visible because to do so is to contradict the very religion he holds to be true."
One bunch of arranged atoms is no more important than any other bunch of arranged atoms and no biological machine is any more important than any other biological machine.
This seems to be obviously false, so you're going to need to argue for it rather than asserting it. There seems to be no more basis for you to assert that all collections of atoms are equally important than there is for you to assert that they are equally heavy, or equally hot.