Yes, yes of course this is true of humans. But, you said "living organisms" which encompasses humans and everything else alive. The question is one of sentience, meaning consciousness. Without it, there is only survival instinct. The only animals that we are sure think "life is worth living" are ourselves. This is why morality is a human construct.
The same observations that I referred to can be made of animals with the only lacking observation being a direct observation of their subjective experience of their form of sentience, sapience and intelligence.
This is why science itself is not moral or immoral, though it's application can be. You are trying to apply morality where it can't apply and it fails..
All scientia/knowledge relies on sentience, and sentience entails a sense of right and wrong, historically the notion that there is a form of knowledge/scientia that sentient beings can have that is not moral or immoral has lead to scientism, the eugenics movement, Nazism, etc. That is why above when you made argument of the same structure based on the myth of moral neutrality the words of Nazis, eugenicists and so on run in parallel, as they argued for the same foundation.
Your reply from this point on down is a cop out...
Don't think I'm going to go off and chase red herrings now, my friend. No, you made an assertion about actual evidence of some type that can be falsified or verified, and it is one that can be proven to be falsified time and again. To make matters worse when it comes to your claims it was woven into yet another unjustified attack against creationists, those attacks that you seem capable of pulling out of thin air with no evidence cited, no texts cited and no claims verified. The claim divorced of from that context:All you need to prove to the world that Darwin was wrong is a homo sapiens fossil from the era of the dinosaurs.
Well, there are artifacts that indicate enough use of technology to infer that they are the work of homo sapiens that have been found in such eras. For that matter, at least some homo sapien fossils have been found in the same supposed "era of the dinosaurs." Using your attacks against creationists as a red herring now does not hide the fact that your own terms were met and that your own claims lack substance, as is proven by the lack of evidence cited. I can back up my claims about Darwinists imagining things by citing texts written by Darwinists just as I can back up my claims about Nazism by citing what they wrote, said and did, perhaps combining historical sources such as newspapers of the day, etc. In contrast, it seems that you continually fail to back up claims about creationists that ought to be easy to prove and instead just make more and more! Which creationists attack science and where is the textual record of such attacks? What creationists claim that there is a "worldwide conspiracy" among scientists? Cite them, lest one assume that you are referring to ignorant bigotry or the specious charlatanism of talk.origins as all the evidence you need for such claims. There is a structure of argument that is typical to bigots or charlatans in which one is supposed to simply assume that an assertion is true as they shift away from the evidence, so I demand proof. Take one of your latest claims:"You think it’s all just a big world wide, century long, conspiracy. No wonder it’s near impossible to take creationists seriously. Creationists assume non creationists are witless automatons."
So prove it. That is a provable claim, probably much easier to prove than historical claims about Nazism. There are probably plenty of texts to refer to. As to claims about what I have written I know that I didn't claim that there is or was a worldwide conspiracy anywhere. And I typically claim that the Herd merges and runs together naturally enough.
On the topic, it seems that there is an interesting contrast between you and Ronald Numbers:"If you read their literature, you'll rarely come across an anti-scientific notion. They love science."
Emphasis added...because you don't seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to creationists. If you had knowledge even of a minimal and marginal sort then your arguments would be of this structure: "At least this one creationists here said this. So as you can see my case is proven!"
I don't expect much of the Darwinian mind and so I don't expect that you will live by your own evidential terms and claims, as they seem to be quite imaginary. E.g., "If human fossils were found in the same era as the dinosaurs then it would all be so obvious that creationists would have proven their case! Such fossils don't exist, which is why creationists are dummies or somethin'." But such fossils have been found a number of times, so then in theory the mind that is met on its own terms will say: "Very well, now that the terms that I set have been met I'll change my entire view of the world!" Well, not exactly, not if it has made its mind up to be in rebellion against some forms of wit/knowledge. So instead you are still trying to prop up the claim that creationists are paranoid, ignorant or stupid, etc., which is ironic given your apparent ignorance of basic facts combined with apparent paranoias about creationists.
Okay? Peace be with you Mynym.
Don't pretend that you have softened up that much even as you weave various attacks against creationists and I into the same comment. It seems that some fellows attack and then say "Be at peace...uh, please!?"
At any rate, I'm not attacking you yet. Just cite me the text that backs up your claims, assertions and attacks. I can and will do the same for my claims, perhaps even including the notion that some within the Herd may be conspiring when it comes to the evidence and access to it. Conspiracy? But of course, you didn't know?
What a bunch of charlatans, liars and moral degenerates, I say...ummm, be at peace Cineaste. Peace out!