I enjoyed Sanko Lewis' article. It helps put the moral culture sections of the encyclopedias into context, so thanks Mr Lewis.
I understand that the Daoist idea is to return to the basic nature, and also that humans should avoid war at all costs. Don't those two goals contradict one another? Conflict is part of human nature and of Nature - apparently other primates have wars too. Perhaps Daoism needs to adjust to new knowledge like this?
The Moral Culture section is indeed influenced by Daoism, but also very much by Confucianism and Buddhism. These three world views form the foundation for most moral ethics in Oriental thought. (Another Oriental philosophy contemplating war is Mohism which acts as a counterpoint to Confucianism and is therefore also worth looking into once we start thinking about Oriental moral issues, particularly those related to war and fighting. Then there is also the indigenous shamanistic culture of Korea that may also have had an influence on Taekwon-Do's Moral Culture.) My focus was on Daoism in particular, because it seems to be the philosophy most overtly alluded to by Oriental martial arts.
Regarding your thoughts on the seeming contradiction in human nature and Nature that seem to inherently include conflict: It looks like Daoism does not recognise conflict as the "Natural Way". Conflict is probably viewed in the same way as natural disasters, which is something that goes wrong when the natural balance is disturbed. That Nature itself could demonstrate such conflict ("natural disasters") does not seem to prove within the Daoist world view that such conflict is a natural part of Nature. Instead, within the Daoist world view such disasters / conflicts indicate something abnormal. The wars among primates, like the wars among humans, like natural disasters, all indicate an imbalance, an abnormality in Nature -- indicating being out of sync with the Way.
On a side note regarding whether man is fundamentally evil or fundamentally good: there were two chief Oriental (Confucian) philosophers, Xunzi and Mencius, that were in direct opposition with each other on this very point. Your suggestion that conflict is natural to man, is in line with Xunzi. Interestingly the Christian world view seems to be a syncretism of the two, suggestion that man was originally innately good, but then became innately evil (aka "the Fall of Man"), but I'm not sure if such a view would have reconciled Xunzi and Mencius.
If modern Daoists will attempt to "adjust to new knowledge" based on the Modern Scientific World View, is difficult to say. I'm not too familiar with modern Daoist teachings. I'm guessing, however, that such "adjustment to new knowledge" may alter the world view too much, in which case it may not properly be described as "Daoism" anymore.
In the end, all world views are based on a priori assumptions -- even the Modern Scientific World View is based on some assumptions. They are all different glasses used to look at the world through. It is impossible not to have such "glasses". The important thing is to know that you are functioning within a specific world view and to identify the possible limitations of one's world view. The limitations of Daoism may be that it does not recognise the "fallen" (conflict prone) state of mankind / Nature as innate; while the limitation of the Modern Scientific World View could be that it does not recognise the "Way", a sense of ultimate transcended Truth or Purpose.