Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Legacy media puss frets about anti-evolution legislation

arroba Email

In “New Hampshire’s 2012 anti-evolution legislation (and the shocking thing a sponsor said)”(Washington Post, January 6, 2012), Valerie Strauss reports

You can’t make up this stuff: The chief sponsor of a new anti-evolution piece of legislation in New Hampshire said that Darwin’s theory is “godless” and that such thinking is linked to Nazi atrocities, the 1999 Columbine shootings and more.

But you don’t need to make it up. It’s all true.

The proudest boast of so many Darwinists is that their theory is godless. Here’s just one result. Is there an honest reason to conceal that?

The links to Nazi atrocities are well established, because the Nazis believed they were Darwin’s superior race.

As for the Columbine shootings, our head, Barry Arrington, in his own words,

As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, I read through every single page of Eric Harris’ jounals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.” There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles. For example, he wrote: “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms . . . but it’s all natural! YES!”

Elsewhere he wrote: “NATURAL SELECTION. Kill the retards.” I could multiply examples, but you get the picture.

It was no coincidence that on the day of the shootings Harris wore a shirt with two words written on it: “Natural Selection.”

I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism. It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.” Nothing could be more obvious.

The same with the Darwin fanship of the Finnish school shooter and the Norwegian camp shooter.

Now if someone wants to argue that this stuff isn’t suited to elementary high schools, the UD news desk would be inclined to agree. There is no way to put it in context.

But most Darwinism isn’t suited either, and that’s what our expense account puss isn’t getting and never will get.

We must build on the ruins of her sputtering outrage, poor foundation that it is.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Of course. Thank you. Bruce David
Well put, Bruce. (Except for the part about 'Darwinism' being 'ridiculous', of course. :-) ) champignon
However, the fact that a theory or point of view is "godless" does not justify its censorship, not in this country. Furthermore, the fact that a theory has unfortunate moral or societal consequences does not falsify it. The truth is the truth, whatever it is. If the truth has unfortunate consequences, one just has to deal with the fact. I am not arguing for Darwinism, by the way. Those of you who are familiar with my position on that subject know that I regard that theory as not only false, but ridiculous. What I am saying is that in these United States, censoring an idea because it is "godless" or because you don't like its consequences violates fundamental principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. While I'm on the subject I would like to add that I believe that one of the reasons many people both within the scientific community and within the population at large fight so tenaciously against ID is that in their imaginations they have ID and religion linked, and they fear the possible consequences for individual freedom that would result from a theocracy coming to power. The piece of legislation referenced above is a good example of what they are afraid of. Bruce David
Ran across this quote today,,
"for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed." Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 15. (Note the year that this was written was shortly after the German 'master race' was defeated in World War II)

Leave a Reply