Ideas have consequences: Jesse Kilgore
|December 18, 2008||Posted by O'Leary under Atheism, Darwinism|
Too bad young Jesse did not give himself a chance to read Alister McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion. My thoughts and prayers are with all who knew him. No doubt there was more going on than we know.
It’s a very sober reminder that, in a world where many believe that young people care only about text messaging aimless gossip, some take the critical questions deadly seriously.
Significantly, when I reported on the Finnish school shooting, I received a storm of complaints from Darwinists who wanted me to know that their belief system was in no way implicated. I responded,
This tragedy has provoked an enormous outburst of protest from Darwinists on account of my noting that the shooter’s motive was social Darwinism. On the rare occasions when a shooter’s motive has been anti-abortion advocacy (Rudolph) or fundamentalist madness (Yates), I have NEVER been excoriated by an anti-abortionist or fundamentalist for openly discussing that fact. Indeed, these types of cases were openly discussed among Christian journalists at a number of gatherings in which I participated over the last decade, with conspicuously little defensiveness. We had long accepted that some forms of anti-abortion advocacy and fundamentalism are toxic.
So this storm of comments has been a real eye-opener for me (and I probably rejected more than I accepted, so readers never saw all the somniferous posturing as I did). The storm suggests that – despite claims – Darwinists have never dealt with the legacy of social Darwinism in an emotionally healthy enough way to just put it all behind them. Now that may be because the actual worldview of Darwinism necessitates social Darwinism. Or it may be because no one has said, “let’s just do it.” Or someone has said that, but the troops didn’t get it. It’s not really my problem though.
I shut off comments to that post. (And later to all posts at the Post-Darwinist, but for unrelated reasons, to do with declining civil rights in Canada.)
Also just up at the Post-Darwinist
A science writer explains her interest in the intelligent design controversy to other science writers
Popular media and the intelligent design controversy: When reporters write what they “know”
Intellectual freedom in Canada: Moving toward a reasonable standard of evidence (hauntingly like ID)