A Visceral Distate for Darwinism

Now comes Lee Harris, asking "[w]hy we are still arguing about Darwin". He disagrees with leading Darwinians like Richard Dawkins that opponents of Darwinism are "ignorant boobs who take the Bible literally." Instead, he writes:

The stumbling block to an acceptance of Darwin, I would like to submit, has little to do with Christian fundamentalism, but a whole lot to do with our intense visceral revulsion at monkeys and apes. This revulsion, while certainly not universal, is widely shared, and it is a psychological phenomenon that is completely independent of our ideas about the literal truth of the Bible.

He goes on to write:

For the basis of this revulsion is none other than "the civilizing process" that has been instilled into us from infancy. The civilizing process has taught us never to throw our feces at other people, not even in jest. It has taught us not to snatch food from other people, not even when they are much weaker than we. It has taught us not to play with our genitals in front of other people, not even when we are very bored. It has taught us not to mount the posterior of other people, not even when they have cute butts.

And in summary:

Our lofty humanitarian ethical standards have been derived not by observing our primate kin, but by imagining that we were made in the image of God. It was only by assuming that we were expected to come up to heavenly standards that we did not lower our standards to those of our biological next of kin. The meme that asserts that we are the children of God, and not merely a bunch of wild monkeys may be an illusion; but it is the illusion upon which all humane civilizations have been constructed. Those who wish to eliminate this illusionary meme from our general meme pool may be acting in the name of science; but it is by no means obvious that they are acting in the name of civilization and humanity.

Why am I uncomfortable with Darwinism, particularly as applied to the question of origins? Simply put, it undermines concepts of good and evil, right and wrong. Instead, a Darwinian looks at reproductive success as the only measure of good or bad. By strict Darwinian standards, a psychopathic seducer or rapist scores highly in terms of so-called "fitness," regardless of the suffering he causes.

A true Darwinist would not accept as "self-evident truth" the proposition that "all men are created equal," nor that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

What do you think? Am I making a legitimate reductio ad absurdum argument or falling prey to an appeal to ridicule fallacy?