Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin at Columbine

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
It might be true that "Darwinism was necessary, but not sufficient, for the Holocaust/the Columbine shootings/the Auvinen killings." Even so -- what would need to be shown is that that's true in any stronger or more interesting sense than "the invention of the Wright brothers was necessary, but not sufficient, for 9/11."Carl Sachs
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
If materialism is true, and a Darwinian process is the key to advancing our species, then why is it wrong to kill weak, stupid, or otherwise defective humans? If natural selection (death) is what elevated us above viruses, insects and wild animals, then why are Darwinist murderers dismissed as "deranged" or "berzerk" for taking the Theory of Evolution seriously?russ
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
BarryA, apparently your post is very easy to misread. StephenB says "Darwin was necessary for the Columbine tragedy, but not sufficient," and you don't find that worthy of correction. But I am reprimanded for pointing out that there's nothing Darwinian about their behavior? I say it's a sin to try and score debate points from a tragedy while parents are still in mourning and before the children have even been buried.getawitness
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Specs, Although any philosophy can be twisted to mur^dering ends. I think the Germans of world war 2 slau^ghtering over 14 million (in the name of a "master race" i.e. Darwinism) and the Soviet Union slau^ghtering an estimated 60 million of their own people, under a publically atheistic philosophy, speak for themselves...NEVER has the Christian philosophy been twisted to match anywhere near such brutality in its 2000 year existence.bornagain77
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
Great points Barry. Something a lot of people don't know - since it's been deliberately avoided by Darwinist controlled media - is that the ones who were killed at Columbine were asked beforehand if they believed in God or in Jesus Christ. If the answer was yes they were immediately shot. A couple of books have been published on these specific 'martyrdoms'. For example rachel joy scott or cassie rene bernall and here I've heard atheist Darwinists tell me they would like to kill every Christian leader in the world and similar displaays of hatred such as one may find written just about every week on PZ's site or the PT site. Darwinian fundamentalists are a menace to society and human rights. (The inverse of the CofE's inanities!) In their minds might is right - i.e. the strongest & fittest must rule - indeed it is one of Darwinism's key concepts.Borne
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Go here for story updates. Stuff is getting removed from the 'Net.O'Leary
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
getawitness, read the post again. I did not attibute Harris’ and Auvinen’s actions to Darwinism. The point of my post is that they did. Murder has been part of the human condition long before Charles Darwin ever graced this globe. Any philosophy can be warped to justify it. If you were not wanting make an equivalence between Darwinism and murder, why even mention it at all? I am sorry if I am harsh, but we should be praying for the victims not parading their corpses out in our continuing war on materialism.specs
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Go here for the fact that the school shooter's video has been removed from the 'Net. HOWEVER, so far unpurged sources of actual info are linked. (No guarantees. If the spin bin arrives while I'm asleep in Eastern Standard Time, well, that's life in the materialist paradigm.) Let me also say that I have had to borf tons of posts at the Post-Darwinist over the last few days from angry materialist atheists, demanding that I assent to the view that materialist atheists are not murderous, or not compared to Christians. Shucks, whodauthunkit? Like, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot - all just misunderstood, man!O'Leary
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
Barry, I read your final paragraph and I have to say I find it hollow. No, you are not attacking anyone in particular. But, you are using this as bludgeon against the nameless, faceless materialist mob. And why? Because it suits our ends. We get upset when the "New Atheists" paint us with the same brush as sick individuals who warp Christianity to suit some nefarious end. And so we should. And so we should not engage in the same broad brush behavior we otherwise decry. Neither you, nor I, nor Denyse have the first idea whether Auvinen was truly a committed Darwinist or just trying to using word juxtapositions that he thought was clever when he wrote that he was "a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist." To exploit this tragedy in the name of the war on materialism is unseemly and, IMO, poor witness.specs
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
I wonder if it makes sense to make a point out of what any deranged person gives as a reason for an outrageous act. I understand the temptation regarding Darwinism and its undoubtedly unhealthy implications, but being myself a Christian believer, I think it would be awful easy for the atheists--especially the New variety--to ascribe all sorts of terrible things to Christianity, just because some deranged person says that God told him to commit some heinous act.Stanton Rockwell
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
getawitness, read the post again. I did not attibute Harris' and Auvinen's actions to Darwinism. The point of my post is that they did.BarryA
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
specs, read the last paragraph of the post again. I'm not "attacking" anyone. I'm merely pointing out a fact.BarryA
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Darwinism is not "necessary" for such events. There are tales throughout history of people losing control and killing multiple people. The word berzerk originally related to a Norse warrior of this type. In the Irish epic Táin Bó Cúailnge, a "warp-spasm seized Cúchulainn, and made him into a monstrous thing, hideous and shapeless, unheard of." In the Bible, Samson kills 30 men for cheating on a riddle and seems to be characterized by uncontrollable rage. (There is no mention in the Bible that he enacts that particular slaughter at God's command.) I have already mentioned Baruch Goldstein, who killed Palestinians for no reason. To attribute the sickness of two modern berzerkers to Darwinism is to warp a historical tragedy to make a point. I'm sorry, but this is unworthy of us.getawitness
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
I hate to be the dissenter here, but I have a quick question: why did Harris, Klebold, and Auvinen kill themselves, then? A Darwinian view of organisms is that natural selection filters out the weaker because they die, which becomes a part of the process which supposedly results in constructing the stronger and/or more fit. How it is possible to get "selection" and construction out of processes of reproduction and destruction isn't clear, and in fact Darwin was sometimes more honest in his language and called the process natural preservation instead of "selection." In a way the Darwinian mind has already killed itself to get life from death so it is difficult to see things from its irrational and psychotic perspective in the end. However, to the extent that the hypothetical goo typical to Darwinism is reasonable one might say that on their own terms they felt that they had served their purpose in life as natural born killers "selected" by their Mommy Nature to be so naturally enough. After naturally selecting to prove their supposed manliness it's time for the effete little fellows to crawl back into her womb.mynym
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
We should stick to attacking materialism on it’s merits. Using the actions of a diseased and confused mind to attack atheists and biologists comes across as shrill and unnecessary. You can try to be polite/political all you like but in the end basic logic and the truth have to enter into things somewhere. As the philosopher David Stove noted:
...Adolf Hitler found or thought he found an authorization for his policies in the Darwinian theory of evolution. He said, for example, that "if we did not respect the law of nature, imposing our will by the right of the stronger, a day would come when the wild animals would again devour us--then the insects would eat the wild animals, and finally nothing would exist except the microbes. By means of the struggle the elites are constantly renewed. The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature." ...it is perfectly obvious that accepting Darwin's theory of a universal struggle for life must tend to strengthen whatever tendencies people had beforehand to selfishness and domineering behavior towards their fellow humans. Hence it must tend to make them worse than they were before, and more likely to commit crimes: especially crimes of rapacity, or of cruelty, or of dominance for the sake of dominance. These considerations are exceedingly obvious. There was therefore never any excuse for the indignation and surprise with which Darwinians and neo-Darwinians have nearly always reacted whenever their theory is accused of being a morally subversive one. For the same reason there is, and always was, every justification for the people, beginning with Darwin's contemporaries, who made that accusation against the theory. Darwin had done his best to separate the theory from the matrix of murderous ideas in which previously it had always been set. But in fact, since the theory says what it does, there is a limit, and a limit easily reached, to how much can be done in the way of such a separation. The Darwinian theory of evolution IS an incitement to crime: that is simply a fact.
(Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution by David Stove :106-109) (Emphasis added) If your focus on the reaction of atheists or biologists is adhered to then basic logic and facts may be censored based on whoever gets the most offended about things. I've seen ID types compared to Holocaust deniers and people don't seem to be concerned that they might get upset about it. Perhaps the difference is that people get more upset and offended about the truth than propaganda or lies. So they get more upset when something is said that they think is true which they do not like than when something is said that they know is false as a means to ends that they would like.mynym
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
I think what went on in Finland, and what has went on in other similar situations, is an important but delicate subject. No, I don't think 'darwinism' led to these shootings. But I do think some popular treatments of evolution - that it means life (or the conditions of life) is purposeless, or only the strong survive and that anyone who dies has been justly 'weeded out' - are in play. Maybe even the modern culture that largely laughs at death and the "Darwin Awards" mentality help.nullasalus
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
"The problem is that in a naturalist universe, it just doesn’t matter. Atoms in motion interacting with other atoms in motion. It logically leads to no moral imperatives with no way to judge these actions as either right or wrong, good or evil." Well, I suppose that depends on how we use the word logical. Clearly, it does not lend itself stictly to an IF/THEN proposition, as in, "if it rains, the streets will get wet." We cannot say, IF Darwin/then Columbine. HOWEVER: I have spent years trying to explain to those not initiated in philosophical jargon the vital and decisive difference between two words--- "necessary" and "sufficient." Darwin was necessary for the Columbine tragedy, but not sufficient. Knowledge is necessary for virture, but not sufficient. Faith is necessary for salvation, but not sufficient. If people would only make that distinction, our world would improve dramatically overnight. What we can say is this: If no Darwin/no Columbine. If no Darwin/ no holocaust.StephenB
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
BarryA, I hate to be the dissenter here, but I have a quick question: why did Harris, Klebold, and Auvinen kill themselves, then? Darwinism may be to blame for a lot, but they were no more acting out Darwinism than Baruch Goldstein was acting out Judaism at the Cave of the Patriarchs.getawitness
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
We should stick to attacking materialism on it's merits. Using the actions of a diseased and confused mind to attack atheists and biologists comes across as shrill and unnecessary. Do we really want to go there when, as Christians, we don't wish to be tarred with Menachem Korn and Eric Rudolph. We should, as asked, do unto others as we would have them do unto usspecs
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
The problem is that in a naturalist universe, it just doesn't matter. Atoms in motion interacting with other atoms in motion. It logically leads to no moral imperatives with no way to judge these actions as either right or wrong, good or evil.geoffrobinson
November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6

Leave a Reply