Darwin and School Shootings

_{Andrew Sibley

November 12, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

A friend has alerted me to this book and article in The Times online.

Charles Darwin and the children of the evolution

The headline makes the statement “The naturalist outraged the church, prompting a bitter debate that still sets creationists against evolutionists. Now a sinister link has emerged between his work and the recent spate of high-school killings by crazed, nihilistic teenagers.”

Read the article here

The book is available “The Political Gene: How Darwin’s Ideas Changed Politics” (Picador, £18.99) by Dennis Sewell is available at the BooksFirst or at amazon.co.uk

http://science-and-values.blogspot.com/

Comments

Re Clive Hayden in comment #36: Please, Clive, do exactly that: search for all the times that I have asserted that ID is or equals religion. And while you're at it, search for all the times that a contributor or commentator at this site have posted quotations from the Bible (or arguments grounded in religion, especially Christianity) in support of their argument for ID. I don't have to make this argument; the commentators at this website are making it for me.Allen_MacNeill_{November 14, 2009
November
11
Nov
14
14
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Now let's be honest jistak, The deaths of the bombers and the Disciples of Christ are worlds (universes) apart. The bombers only died for what they believed to be true. As well the bombers inflicted their death upon themselves, as well as a few thousand unwilling infidels. Whereas the disciples were dying horrid deaths at the hands of their persecutors merely for their testimony of what they had personally witnessed first hand i.e. the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The bombers on the other hand had no way of knowing if what they believed was accurately true or not, whereas the disciples had direct knowledge if what they believed was in fact a lie or not. Again I ask, would a man die such a horrid, selfless, death defending what he knew for certain was a lie?bornagain77_{November 14, 2009
November
11
Nov
14
14
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

boreagain77:
So have you murdered jistak? Have you committed adultery jistak? Or should I more properly ask, Have you murdered today jistak?
Let's try to keep it civil. Don't forget those 12 steps.
As well Jistak, would a man willingly die a horrendous death defending what he knew was really a lie? No of course not! A man would only subject himself to such a horrid death for something he “knew”, not something he “believed in” mind you, but something he absolutely KNEW to be true!
You mean like the 9/11 suicide bombers? I'm convinced they absolutely KNEW the 72 virgins were waiting for them.jitsak_{November 14, 2009
November
11
Nov
14
14
2009
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

jitsak, Actually the standard for Christianity is a quite a bit higher than you try to portray: Mark 5 21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. ,,,, 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So have you murdered jistak? Have you committed adultery jistak? Or should I more properly ask, Have you murdered today jistak? As well Jistak, would a man willingly die a horrendous death defending what he knew was really a lie? No of course not! A man would only subject himself to such a horrid death for something he "knew", not something he "believed in" mind you, but something he absolutely KNEW to be true! The Disciples - Would A Man Die Defending What He Knew Was A Lie? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk0My7sKb7sbornagain77_{November 14, 2009
November
11
Nov
14
14
2009
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Frost at 34:
I myself have every human right to determine whether one is or is not a Christian by observing the facts and scripture as template.
I'm curious whether Matthew 7:1 is one of the scriptures you evaluate putative Christians against?hummus man_{November 14, 2009
November
11
Nov
14
14
2009
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Frost,
Chinese Hong Xiuquan was not a truw Christian
Somehow I knew you would say that. I might as well claim that Mao et al. were not true atheists but secretly worshiping Apollo. I could go on and say that atheists value this life because they think that's all there is, while a believer doesn't have to feel too bad about killing because the 'victims' will go to a better place anyway. But I won't do that.jitsak_{November 14, 2009
November
11
Nov
14
14
2009
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

#35 The Christian faith would by it’s very nature not lead to a mass war unless it’s adherence were being attacked What counts as a mass war? The 30 years war certainly started as a Catholic vs Protestant war (although, just like the Russian revolution, it got more complicated). Relative to population size it was just as destructive as any of the other examples above. Between one quarter and a third of the German population died.Mark Frank_{November 14, 2009
November
11
Nov
14
14
2009
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

StephenB,
I, on the other hand, would like to do a study on the number of posts you have devoted to the proposition that ID=religion.
I can do that study, I have access as a moderator using the Wordpress search engine to pull up all of Allen's comments. I might just do that soon.Clive Hayden_{November 14, 2009
November
11
Nov
14
14
2009
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

The Christian faith would by it's very nature not lead to a mass war unless it's adherence were being attacked- at which points those deaths would be the result of the aggressors and not the defenders- who fought because they were left with no other choice. But what you have in atheistic Marxism is the advocacy of a class war revolution which is not based on self defense of aggressive violence- but of class inequities. In other words it is not about life and death but about equality in regards to money and power and "human rights" (defined as however the people LEADING the revolution at that time choose) - and of course it never pans out that way- Fidel Castro does not share the same quality of life as the majority of peasants in his dictatorship do.Frost122585_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

Cann, you write, "You’re setting yourself up for accusations of being an illegitimate judge of who is and who is not a Christian. However, such accusations break down when you consider absurdities such as: “If I want to call myself the president of the USA, that’s my prerogative. Who are you to judge?” What nonsense. Wo am I to judge? Who are you to tell me I cannot? ANd who are you to ask me the question? I am me and you are you. Period. What you are arguing for is a RELATIVISTIC reality- results in no objective truth and hence no reason for us to argue. Philosophers have known this is a non sequitur for millennia. While relativity is true as far as what people believe, and frams of reference in physics- it does not get us anywhere when discussing the specifics of reality- because true reality is "objective." At some point there is an absolute reality- which involves one either being a Christan or not. I myself have every human right to determine whether one is or is not a Christian by observing the facts and scripture as template. You have no argument- and Hong Xiuquan claimed to have a revelation of being Christ's brother- which he used to help start a revolution which was the result of a totally non Christian dynasty form of government. And of course there are no scriptural revelations predicting any sort of a thing- that is a coming of Christ's brother. And since he lead a violent revolution (not exactly Christ like) under the auspices of an absurd declaration- from a scriptural point of view I see no reason to consider him a Christian. But, I am sure if I dug a bit deeper I could come up with a lot more reasons to doubt the authenticity of his faith though. It is a total fallacy to think someone is a Christian just because they say they are one. And when Jit uses this guy as an example of "a Christian example of the faith being used to lead the murder of 20 million people"- I will disagree for the obvious reason I noted and set the facts right.Frost122585_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

Frost, "Chinese Hong Xiuquan was not a truw Christian." You're setting yourself up for accusations of being an illegitimate judge of who is and who is not a Christian. However, such accusations break down when you consider absurdities such as: "If I want to call myself the president of the USA, that's my perogative. Who are you to judge?" There are certain criteria for legitimacy in calling oneself a Christian, just as there are definite criteria for legitimately calling oneself the Commander in Cheif. What's interesting about this is that such accusations are merely a tool for a higher rhetorical purpose - that of determining guilt by association. Christian morality does not call for the slaughter of millions under any conditions as far as I can tell from reading scripture myself. Therefore, if someone calling themself a Christian should commit such acts, one is entitled to use scripture as a measure of their true Christian commitment or lack thereof.CannuckianYankee_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

Allen you wrote, “One could test this hypothesis [religious rant] by counting up the various posts and comments, and then determining the frequency of the total number of posts and comments that depend upon religious concepts (e.g. biblical quotations, allusions to religious doctrine, etc.) for their justification. Anyone want to do this (empirical) study? I, for one, do not have time to do so, but I would be very interested in the outcome.” Well when we have all of these people coming to the site here challenging ID from an anti-religious point of view we are not just going to let them post their false opinions as facts. For example I am responding to your rant here about UD becoming too religious. Why? Because YOU are raising the issue. Congrats. Perhaps we need the site moderator to get rid of some of these people who show up here all of a sudden to continually post anti-religious posts over and over again- conflating religion with the secular scientific theory of ID. That would solve your problem :)Frost122585_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Jitsak, Chinese Hong Xiuquan was not a truw Christian- he was a revolutionary struggling against the TOTALLY corrupt Qing Dynasty- and he claimed to be "Christ's bother" which he discovered in a dream- hardly a claim a true Christian would make- just to give him authoritative power. But the point is that the Qing "dynasty" was ruling with a central government with extreme power- and of course absolute power corrupts absolutely- and it did. So he laboring classes fallowed Xiuquan as their only hope. Nowhere in the Bible did Christ ever say to revolt against a government. But of course revolution is exactly what Marxism Stalinism is all about- and without God.. all is permissible. You should do a little studying of history before you start making claims- because you look like a fool when you get all of the facts wrong.Frost122585_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Speaking of Asian conquerors, and in the interest of balance in the numbers game, let us not overlook the Christian Chinese Hong Xiuquan, who established in 1851 the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, leading to the deaths of 20-30 million people, a massacre only rivaled by WWII.jitsak_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

---Graham: 1: “Is this what Uncommon Descent has become ? A religious rant?” Is that what Darwinisn has become? Anti-religious sour grapes. ---Allen MacNeill: "One could test this hypothesis [religious rant] by counting up the various posts and comments, and then determining the frequency of the total number of posts and comments that depend upon religious concepts (e.g. biblical quotations, allusions to religious doctrine, etc.) for their justification. Anyone want to do this (empirical) study? I, for one, do not have time to do so, but I would be very interested in the outcome." Yes, I am sure you would. Your proclivity to describe ID science in terms of the perceived motives of its advocates is becoming legendary. ---"And, if the moderators do not allow the results of such a study [ID religious rants] to be posted, you can post them as a comment on my blog:" I, on the other hand, would like to do a study on the number of posts you have devoted to the proposition that ID=religion.StephenB_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Jerry says, "We have discussed deaths in wars before and the real winners are the various Asian conquerers" Yeah let us talk about Mao Tse-Tung, he rejected all forms of religion for the atheistic socialism of Marxism-Leninism, which sees religion as not only an opiate of the masses, but a destructive force which must be rooted out to usher in the glories of world communism. He had a pretty good outing for this world view didn't he? He sure showed that you atheist commies know how to clean house. 14 to 20 million deaths from starvation during the 'Great Leap Forward- millions outright killed- millions of lives ruined during the 'Cultural Revolution'. All from the enlightened mind of a man who said "religion is poison."Frost122585_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Graham1 And the moderators dont seem too worried.
I've found that, in general, I.D. proponents tend to be far more upfront and honest about their beliefs than do design-deniers. Your comment seems to reflect this. Remember, it's the designophobics who resort to censorship, debate dodging, and strawman arguments. All I.D. proponents want is clarity, honesty, and a willingness to follow the modern-day evidence, as opposed to clinging to silly steamboat-era ideas.ShawnBoy_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill @ 21:
Rather, they differ only about the source of the variation upon which natural selection (and the other mechanisms of microevolution and macroevolution) operate.
Allen, this cannot be correct. It is the mechanism that they discpute, as much as anything, and if natural selection is not the Darwinian mechanism that explains "irreducibly complex" system, what is? Behe is quite clear in DBB that he is launching a direct attack on the efficacy of selection to create these systems.Mung_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Mung, ....Frost122585_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

ALL Darwinists are atheists
no, No NO! You see, it is only all TRUE Darwinists who are atheists. The way to true Darwinism is narrow, and the gate is small, and few find it.Mung_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

To Allen_M: I did a 'view source' and got 22 occurences of 'god'. But seriously, ID is desperate to portray itself as science, yet (especially lately), just about every thread has (or acquires) a strong religious flavour. And the moderators dont seem too worried.Graham1_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

In #18, Graham1 asked:
"Is this what Uncommon Descent has become ? A religious rant?"
An interesting conjecture. One could test this hypothesis by counting up the various posts and comments, and then determining the frequency of the total number of posts and comments that depend upon religious concepts (e.g. biblical quotations, allusions to religious doctrine, etc.) for their justification. Anyone want to do this (empirical) study? I, for one, do not have time to do so, but I would be very interested in the outcome. And, if the moderators do not allow the results of such a study to be posted, you can post them as a comment on my blog: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com (assuming, of course, that this comment is allowed through moderation)Allen_MacNeill_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

jerry in #15:
We have discussed deaths in wars before and the real winners are the various Asian conquerers who have left hundreds of million dead in their conquest.
An interesting (and accurate) point. What religion was professed by those various Asian conquerors (such as Ghengis Khan), perchance? Or were they all Darwinist atheists? And what does this any of this have to do with the veracity (or lack thereof) of either the Darwinian or ID theories of evolution? Let us not forget that both "Darwinism" and ID are theories of evolution (as asserted by Drs. Behe, Dembski, Denton, et al). They do not differ in their underlying acceptance of descent with modification from common ancestors, nor in their acceptance of natural selection as an important evolutionary mechanism. Rather, they differ only about the source of the variation upon which natural selection (and the other mechanisms of microevolution and macroevolution) operate.Allen_MacNeill_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

If God does not exist, everything is permitted Is this what Uncommon Descent has become ? A religious rant ? Im regularly censored for mentioning it, while Frostxxx, Bornagain etc continue their preaching. Do you ever wonder why the outside world associates ID with religion ?Graham1_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

And atheism and darwinism continue to under-write abortion and euthanasia. The "culture of death" is part and parcel of Godless philosophiesderic davidson_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

Mr Leviathan, To answer your first question, the article was written to publicise the book written by the author, and referenced at the end of the article. Sewell is a relatively conservative British journalist. A review of the book is also available from the Times. From that review: Sewell is no proponent of intelligent design. He has “no quarrel whatsoever with the orthodox account of evolution as taught in English schools”, he says. But he does have an agenda.Nakashima_{November 13, 2009
November
11
Nov
13
13
2009
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

"religious belief has led to plenty of deaths, if not more than atheism." Nonsense. Atheistic communism set some records during the 20th century. Atheism has not been widely accepted for most of history as most groups had some gods they adhered to. So in its initial trip to the plate it did quite well for itself. I think the argument by the authors of the Black Book was whether it was 95 million or 100 million. One set of authors was accused of inflating the numbers so it passed the 100 million mark while the conservative group would not go for any more than 95 million. Isn't socialism great! We have discussed deaths in wars before and the real winners are the various Asian conquerers who have left hundreds of million dead in their conquest. Up till the two World Wars deaths in Europe has been far behind those in Asia. Though the 30 Year War left a lot dead. And there is some evidence that Darwinism affected Germany military thinking in WW I.jerry_{November 12, 2009
November
11
Nov
12
12
2009
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

To Frost122585: ALL Darwinists are atheists Sigh.Graham_{November 12, 2009
November
11
Nov
12
12
2009
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

Barry, I submitted a comment backing up my claim that the Cassie Bernall martyrdom story is a myth. Why has it been deleted?scrofulous_{November 12, 2009
November
11
Nov
12
12
2009
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Jit- you go and look at how many deaths we are tkaing about from Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Vietnamand Cambdia- and lets throw in other countries like North Korea and Cuba with their soviet style revolutions and governmets. You will see that the toll is bigger than with all the supposed huge deaths of the Crusades- which have been over blown- or the revolutionary and civil wars which were not about religion but political and economic issues- in fact both wars resulted in a more Christian and free society.- the revolutionary war for freedom and the civil war for spiritual dignity. And let me be clear. ALL Darwinists are atheists. There is no room for a God who creates a world that produces life by pure chance and natural selection. It would be Diesm, or pantheism at best but even these view would ask for more than natural selection as a mechnaism- even these views require a lagislator playing a role in the system which brings forth species. Darwinism does not include this because it goes against the theme of the theory- which is that life is the result of simple stupid (non-teleological) material actions. Remember Darwinian evolution does not say that that natural selection is a designed system anywhere in the theory. Darwin said we evolved from lowliness - that is bottom up evolution- and not from a supreme intellect (top down). So how anyone can hold both Darwinism and theism at once is illogical and irrational to me. And I am not interested in considering an irrational theist- one who holds contradictory position- both a theist and non theist at the same time.Frost122585_{November 12, 2009
November
11
Nov
12
12
2009
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply