Columbine film actually addresses Darwinism as the mass murderers’ motive

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 21, 2016

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Wow. How that one got past “All suits on board for PC over fact” is anyone’s guess. From Alex Murashko at World News Daily:

Although producers of “I’m Not Ashamed,” which releases Friday, use the 1999 Columbine High School massacre as a backdrop to the feature story of martyred Rachel Joy Scott, the film doesn’t shy away from the underreported fact that killer Eric Harris was most likely motivated by Darwinism and natural selection.

Based on Harris’ own journal, and as depicted in movie clips given exclusively to WND, Harris, along with Dylan Klebold, found justification for their diabolical plans in Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” theology. More.

Our Barry Arrington was the lawyer for some of the families who had lost children in the massacre and read everything Harris wrote. He confirms the Darwinism link here. But just watch the spin begin.

See also: Jerry Coyne’s Statements Turn Out To Be Uninformed Blithering

and

Would-be mass shooter idolized Columbine Darwin shooters

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Truth Will Set You Free @ 11
If Nye is correct, what is so wrong about killing “just another speck” that “sucks”? Drumroll………absolutely nothing.
Drumroll .... and absolutely nothing right about it either. That's the whole point, right or wrong according to whom?
This is where other wild-eyed lunatic atheists (rvb8, Pindi, Seversky, Ahmedkiaan) usually cry foul, desperately wanting to attribute value to something that has no value (if they are honest) under their atheistic philosophical worldview.
No, this is where you have it wrong. Value is in the eye of the valuer. Gold or platinum or diamonds or water have no intrinsic value but they are valuable to us for various reasons. If Christians claim to hold human life as sacred, even though Old Testament accounts suggest otherwise, what is to prevent atheists from doing the same?Seversky_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Throughout history people have committed atrocities in the name of Islam, Christianity, Nazism, Communism, you name it. Does that mean that being a Christian or Muslim or Communist compels people to kill their fellow human beings? Of course not. Neither do we see hordes of crazed evolutionary biologists roaming the countryside shooting up schools and churches. That's why blaming Darwin for Columbine is a distraction. A better understanding is that there are people who are predisposed to do terrible things for all manner of reasons who seize on whatever religion or philosophy that happens to be around at the time to justify them.Seversky_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

What is ideology? According to Merriam-Webster the simple definition is: “the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology In other words, even a religious or quasi-religious group could be described as having an ideology or being motivated by an ideology. For example, the 9-11 hijackers who brought down the Twin Towers in 2001 were motivated by radical Islam. Their ideological beliefs may have been a perverted form of Islam but looking at their motivations objectively you cannot deny the religious roots. What about Nazism, Stalinism or Maoism which collectively (through war, genocide or political oppression) has contributed to the deaths of over 100 million people? Ideology wasn’t a motivating factor behind the violence? It is absolutely absurd to believe that it wasn’t. As a Christian I have to concede that violent cults like the Branch Davidians and their leader David Koresh were motivated by a perverted form of Christianity. Why the complete denial by Coyne and others that a Darwinian based ideology, “Darwinism”, could never be the motivation for violence? It appears to me he is doing only what a fool could do-- fool himself.john_a_designer_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Not sure what all the "PC" banter is about. The killers at Columbine may not have known anything about Darwin's fraudulent theory, but it is clear to most people that they devalued human life, which is exactly what wild-eyed lunatic atheist Bill Nye does. Here's the lunatic's quote again: “I’m insignificant. … I am just another speck of sand. And the earth really in the cosmic scheme of things is another speck. And the sun an unremarkable star. … And the galaxy is a speck. I’m a speck on a speck orbiting a speck among other specks among still other specks in the middle of specklessness. I suck.” If Nye is correct, what is so wrong about killing “just another speck” that "sucks"? Drumroll.........absolutely nothing. This is where other wild-eyed lunatic atheists (rvb8, Pindi, Seversky, Ahmedkiaan) usually cry foul, desperately wanting to attribute value to something that has no value (if they are honest) under their atheistic philosophical worldview. At least wild-eyed lunatic Bill Nye is honest. I'll grant the poor soul that much.Truth Will Set You Free_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Flyleaf - Cassie with lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrURd3n1NGo The Fate of the Apostles - Sean McDowell http://seanmcdowell.org/item/the-fate-of-the-apostles podcast - Sean McDowell – The Death of the Apostles (November 6, 2015) http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/sean-mcdowell-%E2%80%93-the-death-of-the-apostles-november-6-2015#.WAtyBLUoDtQ
Of semi related note:
Is Christianity Beautiful? - Cameron McAllister https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4DnRnsMsMc
bornagain77_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Rvb8 is in good company. Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote on his blog in 2012 that Darwinian evolution had nothing to do with Columbine:
In 1999, two students in Columbine, Colorado went on a shooting rampage, killing 13 students one teacher, and injuring another 24 before committing suicide. That started a needed national debate about gun control and other issues, but there were also the religious nuts who blamed the whole thing on, well, evolution . . . Of course there was no evidence at all that Darwinism or evolution had motivated the shooters. They were disaffected and troubled boys who, thanks to America’s lax gun laws, were able to acquire an arsenal of firearms.
(emphasis added) Barry Arrington, who was one of the lawyers who represented the Columbine shooting victims, disagreed with Coyne’s assessment.
Coyne may be an expert in biology, but I am one of the world’s leading experts on the facts of the Columbine case. You see, I am a lawyer and in the months and years after the shootings I represented several families of the slain students. In the course of my investigation of the case I spent hundreds of hours in a detailed review of every page of the journals Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold left behind. I also listened to countless hours of their audiotapes and viewed over and over the many videotapes they left behind, including the infamous “basement tapes.” Finally, I spent a week in a closed room in the Denver federal courthouse deposing under oath Harris’s and Klebold’s family members. In the course of that exhaustive, painstaking investigation I learned a great deal about the killers and their motivations, and those motivations were clear. Eric Harris especially was quite vocal about what he was thinking in the months prior to the shootings. And there cannot be the slightest doubt that Coyne is completely, utterly, indisputably wrong — there was evidence that Darwinism motivated the shooters. In fact, Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and specifically saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles. The first two sentences of Harris’ journal state: “It would be great if god removed all vaccines and warning labels from everything in the world and let natural selection take its course. All the fat ugly retarded crippled dumb-ss stupid f–kheads in the world would die . . .”
So ideas-- ideology-- cannot be a motivation for anyone’s behavior? I think the evidence argues otherwise.john_a_designer_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

rvb8
Your ability to anthropomorphise animals ...
I questioned you about this concept earlier. You place humans in a category and then assign "human decency" or something like that to them. But the key point of Darwinism (your own doctrine) is not "anthromorphising" animals, but "animalizing" humans. Just for the sake of understanding your own professed view, I'm not even interested in changing that for now - just at least so you represent what you believe more accurately ... you need to come to grips with this fact. A leopard's morality is not better or worse than whatever humans think they want to do. Both come from the same source -- unintelligent natural processes. Some evolutionists are honest enough to admit this. The Columbine killers just recognized this fact and acted on it.Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Is a leopard moral for following its survival instinct? This is a better question than yours; to paraphrase, ‘is this idea ‘survival of the fittest’, or as Darwin prefers ‘natural selection’, moral?’ You can’t recognise the silliness of your question? ‘Natural selection’, or your poor phrasal synonym of it, is neither moral nor immoral, it is descriptive of what is!
Deflecting isn't gonna help you here.
Do the actions of Harris/Klebold in any way reflect upon the theory of RM+NS? No, of course not, don’t be a ningcompoop.
Your posts on this site clearly indicate YOU are the nincompoop and are quite incapable of NOT being one.
Your ability to anthropomorphise animals, events, and actions simply shows me your poor understanding of how this theory actually works in our world.
Or yours. Aren't humans supposed to be animals according to Darwinian mythology? Ever heard of PETA?
If you say Harris/Klebold used the notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality in their murders, then I would say, ‘what survival advantage did they gain?’ None!
Murder is good, good, good, good for you, evodelusionarily speaking of course. You can't justify claiming murder (or any thing really) is wrong as an evodelusionist.
If you say they were weeding out the weak to follow the laws of NS, then I would say, ‘their ultimate weeding was of themselves.’ Also stupid. In no way did these disturbed young men act upon Darwinian laws.
Still hedging. From CMI:
TW: There is no reason why an atheist cannot have a more sophisticated “sense” or theory of morality than someone who bases their beliefs of right and wrong conduct(or thoughts) on the teachings of a formal religion. My own beliefs are more consistent with a general sense of basic “fairness”, than obedience to the demands of a deity.
JS: But where does the notion of “fairness” come from in an evolutionary world? Surely it’s just a delusion caused by certain neurochemical activity that happened to be useful for our ancestors to survive. Just like rape was useful to spread our genes, as two evolutionists seriously argued in a book (look how one squirmed to justify why rape should be considered ‘wrong’). Similarly, the article Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation documents how leading atheistic philosopher/logician Bertrand Russell could not explain why right vs. wrong was any different from choosing one’s favourite colours. Think of consistent evolutionist and atheistic philosopher Peter Singer, who justifies infanticide, euthanasia, and bestiality. It’s also notable that some critics of my article Abortion ‘after birth’? Medical ‘ethicists’ promote infanticide claimed that Singer was an anomaly among atheists. Yet I showed that his pro-infanticide views shared by the the Journal of Medical Ethics and the vocal antitheist P.Z. Myers. See also Blurring the line between abortion and infanticide?. He also wrote the major Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Ethics (1992), and earlier this year, the Australian Government gave him Australia’s highest honour, Companion of the Order of Australia.
---
Try again!
Read that to yourself. You can't defend moral relativism. There's no dancing around that fact.Vy_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

'Survival of the fittest', is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer not Darwin. Is a leopard moral for following its survival instinct? This is a better question than yours; to paraphrase, 'is this idea 'survival of the fittest', or as Darwin prefers 'natural selection', moral?' You can't recognise the silliness of your question? 'Natural selection', or your poor phrasal synonym of it, is neither moral nor immoral, it is descriptive of what is! Do the actions of Harris/Klebold in any way reflect upon the theory of RM+NS? No, of course not, don't be a ningcompoop. Your ability to anthropomorphise animals, events, and actions simply shows me your poor understanding of how this theory actually works in our world. If you say Harris/Klebold used the notion of 'survival of the fittest' mentality in their murders, then I would say, 'what survival advantage did they gain?' None! If you say they were weeding out the weak to follow the laws of NS, then I would say, 'their ultimate weeding was of themselves.' Also stupid. In no way did these disturbed young men act upon Darwinian laws. Try again!rvb8_{October 22, 2016
October
10
Oct
22
22
2016
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT}

rvb8, Yes or no. Is Darwinism's survival of the fittest immoral because it allows a lean, powerful leopard to drag down and kill a fat and stupid member of Homo sapiens? How many organisms have been killed on account of the bloody survival of the fittest? -QQuerius_{October 21, 2016
October
10
Oct
21
21
2016
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

'Facts', are important News? Here's a fact; an idea, whether it is true or not, can not determie how individuals will interpret or use that idea! Let me explain, whether or not evolution is a fact, (it is), does not mean that this reality can be used for good or evil; it is merely what it is, a fact! If your absurd contention is true, and the two monsters were indeed inspired by Darwin, so what? People inspired by the Lord Jesus Christ have been inflamed to far worse; your point being? Apparently the holy Koran causes some anti-social behaviour; your point? I do however submit that the writings of Darwin are innocent compared to the blood stained utterings, and ill informed scratchings, of half mad clerics from days of yore.(Luther- Augustine- Tertullian.) I have visited the web-site of this sacharine infused tripe, "I'm Not Ashamed". I can only say it sits well with the fine works of "Expelled" and the eternally lamentable "Left Behind": when the family's away I watch this a little drunk, it is unwittingly hilarious.rvb8_{October 21, 2016
October
10
Oct
21
21
2016
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

How that one got past “All suits on board for PC over fact” is anyone’s guess.
Well actually, it’s not very surprising because the movie was produced by Pure Flix Entertainment, which also produced the very ID friendly film “God’s Not Dead, “. According to Wikipedia, Pure Flix, “is an American independent Christian film and television studio, headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona… [which] produces, distributes, acquires and markets Christian and family-friendly films.” Wikipedia, also reports something that is of a concern:
YouTube has been accused of advocating an anti-Christian bias by blocking the film's [I’m Not Ashamed] trailer for 11 months from its site… Reportedly, the video sharing site had repeatedly removed the trailer for the movie from their site without offering any valid explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Not_Ashamed_(film)john_a_designer_{October 21, 2016
October
10
Oct
21
21
2016
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

One concern many of us share is: How many people care about the facts, as opposed to PC blither?News_{October 21, 2016
October
10
Oct
21
21
2016
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Of course Darwinism (unguided biological evolution) makes it easier for people to kill other people. Under Darwinism, humans are just evolving animals among a vast array of other evolving animals. Humans kill animals all the time, often for sport. Reminds me of a quote from wild-eyed lunatic, Bill Nye. "I'm insignificant. ... I am just another speck of sand. And the earth really in the cosmic scheme of things is another speck. And the sun an unremarkable star. ... And the galaxy is a speck. I'm a speck on a speck orbiting a speck among other specks among still other specks in the middle of specklessness. I suck." What is so wrong with killing "just another speck"?Truth Will Set You Free_{October 21, 2016
October
10
Oct
21
21
2016
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply