Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin at Columbine

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent post Denyse O’Leary linked to a news story coverning Pekka Eric Auvinen, the Finnish student who killed eight in a shooting spree at his school.  Apparently Auvinen was an ardent Darwinist who considered himself to be an instrument of natural selection.  He wrote:  “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgaces of human race and failures of natural selection.”

One of O’Leary’s interlocutors more or less accused her of cherry picking her data to push her personal religious agenda.  Apparently this person believes this case is an aberation, and it is unfair to suggest a connection between Darwin’s theory and a school shooter’s self understanding as an instrument of natural selection.  Not so. 

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.

Comments
sorry -- I got an error message on my machine.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
But there are in fact such clubs. They're called Objectivist clubs, and they follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
"Further, if a group of students, whether on their own or with a teacher’s encouragement, start a "Looking Out For Number 1? Club in which selfishness, greed and coldly ignoring the needy are exalted, we Christians would speak out against it." But there are in fact such clubs. They're called Objectivist clubs, and they follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
"Further, if a group of students, whether on their own or with a teacher’s encouragement, start a “Looking Out For Number 1? Club in which selfishness, greed and coldly ignoring the needy are exalted, we Christians would speak out against it." But there are in fact such clubs. They're called Objectivist clubs, and they follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Getawitness -- Let me explain it this way: I think giving to charity is a moral issue. However, I do not think it should be required by law. I agree with you completely. OTOH, it is appropriate for schools, whether funded by the government or not, to teach that being charitable -- helping those in need whether giving to an organized charity or an individual-- is good. Further, I hope we agree that it would be vile for a school to teach that being charitable is bad. Further, if a group of students, whether on their own or with a teacher's encouragement, start a "Looking Out For Number 1" Club in which selfishness, greed and coldly ignoring the needy are exalted, we Christians would speak out against it.tribune7
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
tribune7, Sorry about confusing you with StephenB. But no, it doesn't challenge my "worldview." It's an event that may or may not have happened. That's all. I don't even know why you consider it something I should respond to. About the role of the state in moral issues, we appear to disagree, but I do not think you have represented my views fairly. Let me explain it this way: I think giving to charity is a moral issue. However, I do not think it should be required by law. Am I thereby ceding authority to the state in deciding what is moral vis-a-vis charitable giving? Hardly: I'm saying that not all moral issues are things the state should arbitrate. I don't understand why that's hard to comprehend.getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
Getawitness StephenB (sic) “Teaching Nietshze’s [sic] atheism as truth is constitutional. Teaching the Bible as truth is not.” . . . Again, all I’m stuck with is one person’s anecdote that this happened one time. I don’t know that it happened. It doesn’t merit a response. IOW, it challenges your worldview hence you don't have to think about it. Further: No way one can interpret the the phrase "because we live in a pluralist society, and reasonable people differ on such issues" as "not all moral issues, no matter how closely I hold them, should be given the authority of the state." Actually, I think it is far more fair to say that your statement that "not unless we can agree on what that absolute moral code is" and your requirement of "broad social agreement" for action is ceding authority to the state in defining what is moral.tribune7
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
StephenB, "Teaching Nietshze’s [sic] atheism as truth is constitutional. Teaching the Bible as truth is not." Again, all I'm stuck with is one person's anecdote that this happened one time. I don't know that it happened. It doesn't merit a response. "A couple of ways of pondering that statement." More than a couple, actually. The one you missed is the plain meaning: that not all moral issues, no matter how closely I hold them, should be given the authority of the state.getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
------getawitness, "I’ve said that the government is and should be secular. Not the nation. No establishment of religion, no faith test for office." No, I submit that the government did and ought to return to its two religious principles: 1) The authority of God 2) The dignity of the human person. It is the only philosophy on which freedom can endure. You can't build freedom on atheism. Nor did the founding fathers want to. what I am describing is not a Theocracy or anythkng close to it. You keep avoiding the religious language in the Declaration of Independence. It is there for the reasons I mentioned. You can have religious principles upon which law is built, without having "religious laws." The distinction is absolutey crucial. Two extremes are bad--1) religious laws (such as Islam) or no religious laws or no religious principles (as in atheism). Both are to be avoided.StephenB
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
I’ve already pointed out that the Bible can be both read and taught. Aggressively as Nietshze was at Columbine? Teaching Nietshze's atheism as truth is constitutional. Teaching the Bible as truth is not. Because we live in a pluralist society, and reasonable people differ on such issues. A couple of ways of pondering that statement. The first is that that you are saying there is no absolute moral law and that it is best to agree to disagree since it really doesn't matter what one believes or how one behaves as long as it doesn't affect you. The other is there is an absolute moral code but you are not certain as to what it might be. So you think homosexualty and promiscuity might possibly be morally acceptible?tribune7
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
Sorry again: 47 in the other thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/veritatis-splendor-or-veritatis-peccator/#comment-147649getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
StephenB, Sorry -- the equivocation between nation and state was BarryA's [47], not yours. Apologies.getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
StephenB, I've said that the government is and should be secular. Not the nation. No establishment of religion, no faith test for office. I've also agreed that Christianity played an important role (though there were plenty of other influences, and I don't see what's at stake by insisting it was "dominant") in the early history of the government (though we apparently differ on the extent). Do we disagree here? Not unless you are claiming that the form of government was Christian (as I believe others here have claimed) or that government should favor religion over non-religion or Christianity in particular.getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
"We are discussing what may be constitutionally read/taught in schools." Sigh. First, "read" and "taught" are two things. I've already pointed out that the Bible can be both read and taught. Second, your request still does not make sense. "Why not [insist that schools teach my views on sexuality] if you are right?" Because we live in a pluralist society, and reasonable people differ on such issues. And I'm the intolerant one?getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
getawitness wrote, "As for state churches, I’m very glad individual states no longer have them. Why, are you hoping they’ll come back?" No. I am refuting your politically correct notions of history which, if I am reading you right, will remain with you in spite of any evidence to the contrary. Have you forgotten how we arrived at this point? I didn't raise the issue about established churches because I want them to come back, I was showing that Christianity was the dominaning principle for government and civil law. For some reason, you keep wanting to deny it. Your last question relates more to your perception of my motives than any rational response to the points being made.StephenB
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
No books have been found unconstitutional, besides certain kinds of pornography. Moving the goalposts again? We are discussing what may be constitutionally read/taught in schools. Am I going to insist that schools teach my views on sexuality? No way. Why not if you are right? And if you are not right why don't you change?tribune7
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
tribune7, Good gracious. "You say Heather Has Two Mommies is only found in libraries forgetting that there was a famous attempt to make it part of a curriculum (never found to be unconstitutional, btw)" No, I very specifically said that in cases I had heard of, it was an issue of libraries. I also pointed out that the book was in any event entirely irrelevant to your point about atheist books, since it's not an atheist book (a rebuttal you ignored). I also pointed out that the one case you mentioned was over a decade old and that that book is routinely challenged in libraries: my point, which stands, it that is the removal of the book from libraries, or censorship, that is the primary focus of controversy, and not the alleged indoctrination (again, all this being irrelevant because the book has nothing to do with atheism.) "When BarryA reveals first-hand knowledge that it was" etc. His "first-hand knowledge" is apparently not worth his doing anything about except for maligning a teacher who may still be teaching. One person's anecdote does not make a case. "You refuse to say which atheist books have been found to be unconstitutional" Are you kidding? It's a pointless demand. No books have been found unconstitutional, besides certain kinds of pornography. "You say (112) that we Christians should not insist on our institutions following an absolute moral code" They're not "our" institutions, or not ours only. There are competing values at work: tolerance (which you laid claim to a while back) being one of them. Am I going to insist that schools teach my views on sexuality? No way. Am I going to insist that they don't teach against them? You bet.getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
I’ll tell you what I don’t understand: your red herrings, pointless hypotheticals, and shifting goalposts. There are no red herrings, pointless hypotheticals or shifting goalposts. You say Heather Has Two Mommies is only found in libraries forgetting that there was a famous attempt to make it part of a curriculum (never found to be unconstitutional, btw) You refuse to say which atheist books have been found to be unconstitutional and insist that atheism can't be taught constitutionally in public schools. When BarryA reveals first-hand knowledge that it was, you -- um move the goalposts -- and ask why he doesn't sue completely ignoring the matter of standing. You say (112) that we Christians should not insist on our institutions following an absolute moral code "unless we can agree on what that (that) absolute moral code is" i.e. that we can only insist on teaching that homosexuality is wrong if there broad social agreement to do so, ignoring that it is minorities -- often mocked -- insisting upon adherance to the truth that causes social agreement to come about. You take offense when none is meant, then judge others rather harshly. There is a lot you don't seem to understand.tribune7
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
tribune7, that responds to my point, uh, how? I'll tell you what I don't understand: your red herrings, pointless hypotheticals, and shifting goalposts.getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Getawitness --He can sue without even raising the constitutional question (tort law and constitutional law being different subjects). Of which you appear to have equal understanding.tribune7
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
StephenB, I'm aware that many states had state churches. Countries develop unevenly: the DoI declares all men equal yet chattel slavery persisted almost a century longer and institutionalized racism for another century after that. As for state churches, I'm very glad individual states no longer have them. Why, are you hoping they'll come back?getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
----getawitness wrote, StephenB, Sorry if I wasn’t clear. As a Christian, I’m disturbed about the probable loss of freedom for non-Christians your insensitive remark seems to entail. Fair enough.StephenB
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
If BarryA really thinks that teacher has blood on his hands, he must have some evidence. He can sue without even raising the constitutional question (tort law and constitutional law being different subjects).getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
------getawitness wrote ], the historical roots of our jurisprudence don’t make our government “Christian” any more than the historical roots of December 25 make the celebration of Christmas “Roman.” The DoI does indeed refer to “unalienable” rights (not “inalienable”) given by our Creator. Reference to the Creator is helpful, rhetorically speaking, because it leapfrogs over the authority of the King. The particular phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is of course a variation on a phrase of John Locke — who was a Christian like every other philosopher in England of the time but whose own philosophy is hardly an expression of Christianity." No, I'm sorry, that is simply not the case. The reference to a Creator God has a very specific purpose. It dramatizes the fact that our rights come from God and not from the state. Anything the state can give it can take away. You keep looking for reasons to deny the obvious. The term Christian nation is meaningless; I don't know why you keep using it. We certainly do not want a theocracy but neither to we want a Godless government either. Why does everyone always have to approach this matter from an extremist vantage point. The founding fathers wanted neither a union of church and state nor a RADICAL separation. Tell me this, are you aware that, at the time in question, most of the states had "established religions?" The purpose of the establishment clause was to get the federal government out of the business of intruding in state business, including the business of whatever the state wanted to do with religion.StephenB
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Not according to my belief system. But in terms of law, It's not illegal (yet) for a school to teach homosexuality is wrong. And if it was shouldn't you try to change it, maybe even civilly disobey it, out of love of neighbor. And on the other thread did you pick up were BarryA was describing how a particular teacher was agressively teaching Nietzsche, a noted atheist? Nobody is saying it was unconstitutional.tribune7
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
StephenB, Sorry if I wasn't clear. As a Christian, I'm disturbed about the probable loss of freedom for non-Christians your insensitive remark seems to entail.getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
StephenB [100], “What are you disturbed about–the loss of freedom or my “insensitive” remark?” Responding you wrote, "I don’t know how you would fight “allow[ing] atheists and Muslims to dilute our cultural heritage.” Legislatively? Would you treat atheists and Muslims differently in law?" If you could answer the first question without changing the subject, I could go on to the second.StephenB
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
tribune7, "So according to your belief system “right and wrong” is a matter of “social agreement”?" Not according to my belief system. But in terms of law, on issues where reasonable people disagree, yeah. That's what the social contract is all about in a diverse society. "So you agree that homosexuality should not be presented in a positive fashion by our public institutions?" I think institutions should respect the broad range of views on the subject. Public institutions should not condemn a person for saying homosexual behavior is a sin, but neither should they condemn someone for having a different view or for being gay. But when did this become a disquisition on how I would design a school system?getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
See above: there is broad social agreement that racism is wrong. So according to your belief system "right and wrong" is a matter of "social agreement"? Meanwhile, despite what you say, the prime fight over books like Heather Has Two Mommies remains whether they should be in the library at all. So you agree that homosexuality should not be presented in a positive fashion by our public institutions? “What book promoting atheism has ever been ruled unconstitutional to teach/read etc. in a public school.” . . . Until you come up with an example of this actually happening, this remains unworthy of response. IOW, you don't know of any.tribune7
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
tribune7, "If [an absolute moral code exists] does then every institution should be captured to that code, don’t you agree." Not unless we can agree on what that absolute moral code is. "Should a public school be neutral with regard to racism? Intolerance?" See above: there is broad social agreement that racism is wrong. There is not broad social agreement that homosexuality is wrong. "The Children of the Rainbow" is a case from 14 years ago in which the right side won. So, hardly an example of widespread oppression. Meanwhile, despite what you say, the prime fight over books like Heather Has Two Mommies remains whether they should be in the library at all. The American Library Assocation lists it as the 11th most challenged book in the decade from 1990-2000. "What book promoting atheism has ever been ruled unconstitutional to teach/read etc. in a public school." Until you come up with an example of this actually happening, this remains unworthy of response.getawitness
November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply