Let us presume a battle between good and evil exists. Evil must needs win. Why you ask? Simple... evil has an infinite continuum of posible action, almost any act can be evil in the right time and place. Good suffers from a restriction- to "be good" there are a limited set of acts that you want to do.
To be evil... you can do anything. You can even do acts that would be good, and still remain evil. Evil, in terms of just plain evolutionary desireablity, is far more able to survive a war that Good. It's like roaches.
Of course, you know what makes this funny? The mythical battle between good and evil. Which doesn't exist. That's like saying there's a mythical battle between the rain and snow. Not to mention, the way we handle good and evil is like saying the snow is preferable to the rain. However, it still rains on the just and unjust, and it will, hopefully, continue to rain with more frequency than it has as of late. This drought is getting rather nasty.
So here we are, and you find yourself wondering what this whole thing was about. Why did I post all of this.
It was an experiment.
An excersise if you will. To see how many words I could use to say absolutely nothing. A few more experiments like this and I'll be able to write political speeches in my sleep. I told you you wouldn't want to read this.