It appears that the term is an oxymoron.

Although it is rare in nature, altruism is a product of evolution under certain circumstances. The reason we developed the morality and sense of dignity provided key evolutionary benefit for us in social groups. Our ancestors had to deal with both predator and prey significantly larger than themselves, and to counteract that we developed intrinsic social ability and intelligence to be better suited to handle that threat.

Not only are they compatible, but I would argue that humanistic ideas are the product of evolution under the right circumstances. In fact, I will take it a step farther and claim that evolution is compatible with any and all end outcomes, the only difference is the factors leading to that specific evolutionary process. The thing about evolution is that you can not predict the outcome, it will find a local maximization of potential based on statistical variance. If what we call moral values have some definite evolutionary benefit, such as helping the poor and the sick so that they can help you latter, then it stands to reason that a species that relies on other members of its own species would develop those traits.

Everything evolves. Ideas as well as everything living. I hate change, for example, but everything changes. I have seen much of this in my lifetime. If you look closely you can see some of this in just a short time. I do not believe that we have "inherent dignity" as there is no proof of this. "Unalienable rights" become so as we evolve along our path and make them so. We do not have a soul nor were we born with a soul. We become the soul.

“Man is not merely the latest dominant type produced by evolution, but its sole active agent on earth. His destiny is to be responsible for the whole future of the evolutionary process on this planet. . . This is the gist and core of Evolutionary Humanism, the new organization of ideas and potential action now emerging from the present revolution of thought, and destined, I prophesy with confidence, to become the dominant idea-system of the new phase of psychosocial evolution.” Julian Huxley 1964.

There does seem to be a religious-like fervor there, and a dead certainty that humanism is THE correct philosophy. In that sense humanism is not science—it is a turning away from science.

IMO the scientific approach is to look at nature with detachment and through experimentation and analysis try to understand why things are the way they are. The humanists look at nature and proceed to stamp its attributes with emotion-based values of good and evil.

Humanists want someone to seize control of nature and change it into something more to their liking, but I don’t see anything like that happening. Every social “improvement” seems to bring a bevy of unforeseen negative results. Perhaps no one has the knowledge or insight to create a better world. Maybe nature is capable of proceeding on her own without the meddling of arrogant ignorant humans.

Modern humanists seem to have adopted a shrill opposition to any form of religion. That is itself a religious-like attribute. Dogmatic religions often fight among themselves.

Basically, it seems to me that humanists are not looking at the overall picture. They take up the cause of morality with a religious zeal. But morality is nothing but friendliness, a necessary attribute for life in tribes, villages and cities. They ignore the equally necessary role of competition.

If your survival is dependent on collective group effort, then how can you say morality isn't borne of evolution? Why would it be borne at all if not for some evolutionary advantage? The calculus changes if survival depends on group activity and not simply on the individual!

Humans are a social species, our power is in the numbers, the more people we can keep alive, productive, educated and healthy, the more positive feedback will generate. This is an observation (of course now we are in the brink of superpopulation so it can change). Give this observation we can conclude that rules that will stabilize society, stop violence (at least inside the tribe, nation, alliance etc), improve survival chances by creating a social safety net (charity, benevolence, school, church, hospitals or at the limit a welfarestate) will promote it, and the moral codes represent this, the rules that when followed increase the numbers of a tribe, and make them more efficient than the neighbor tribe.
Understanding that the moral code is derivative from our needs and not an "absolute commandment" is the key. Moral is to allow many people as possible to thrive and do not treat equal people as if they were special, this way we can increase our numbers and extract in average more productivity from ourselves.
And those rules change with time.
Protect women that create the next generation of soldiers that protect the tribe is essential when we are at constant war, a man can generate many babies per day, a woman can generate one per year. But when you end this state of war, you do not need this distinction anymore. So the "moral" change. Bronze age societies where women were not baby factories lost the war because they didn't have big armies after some years. Now societies where women do not contribute with technology development and workforce loose the race because they rely on fewer brains to win the competition.

You can argue about what is right or wrong, but in the end, unless we have a world government that dictates our lives, whatever works will always grow and dominate over what is "moral".

"Humanism" is the ability, with the knowledge gained from evolution, to rise above the concept of evolution and determine that the gained knowledge of what is best for survival has become greater than raw evolution. Once upon a time, cave men "dragged their women by the hair". In the modern world, we have the intellectuality to decide that there's a better way to manage our affairs with the opposite sex, with respect and cooperation, for the greater good.