Killer of 3 UNC-Chapel Hill Muslim Students Was Hardcore Anti-Religion Atheist Progressive
Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, has been charged in the execution-style murder of newlyweds, bride’s sister.
I looked at his apparent Facebook page, Atheists for Equality, and sure enough, not far down, a Bill Nye “zinger” turned up (January 27, 9:46):
… if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
Quote can be found at ABC News (Hicks’ chosen page format doesn’t let me copy paste.)
No, this isn’t Bill Nye’s fault, of course! But to judge from other massacres, such as the Norway terrorist Anders Breivik (self-described Darwinian), the Finnish school shooter (instrument of natural selection), and the Columbine murderers (acting on Darwinian principles), there is a pattern.
A pattern often denied. See, for example: Jerry Coyne’s Statements Turn Out To Be Uninformed Blithering.
It is not theories about evolution as such that cause this type of thing, but theories about Darwinian evolution in particular. The notion of survival of the fittest and all that …
Creepily, another post, second below (January 27, 7:10) reads,
People say nothing can solve the Middle East problem. Not mediation, not arms, not financial aid. I say there is something. Atheism.~Jr Grover
Well, Hicks is a man who acted on his beliefs, we can sure say that for him.
Stop all teaching of Darwinism in the schools now.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
People have always used their religion to kill other people. Atheists are no different. Lately though, atheists have been going jihadists on the rest of us. But we have all seen what atheists can do when they gain power. Remember the millions killed by the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc?
News:
Yes. The separation of church and state is the law of the land. There must be no exception. Our schools have become fundamentalist madrasas for atheism.
Are you actually claiming this murder was (in some small) caused by the murderers belief in evolutionary biology? And that therefore evolutionary biology shouldn’t be taught in schools? All this based on a quote he reproduced on a Facebook page?
wd400:
Man, give it a rest. Nobody has said that evolutionary biology had anything to do with this crime. But evolutionary biology should certainly not be taught in our schools because it is part of the religion of atheism. And that’s against the law.
Readers, notice how wd400 equates Darwinism – which was named – with evolutionary biology as such. That is what a Darwinist is – for the record.
News,
Are you trying to say that e.g. random drift can be taught in schools but natural selection is somehow dangerous (assuming that you equate “Darwinism” with the latter)? While we’re at it, what do you mean by Darwinism?
If it’s the theory of natural selection, what has it got to do with a murderous head case who probably didn’t know what he was talking about when he mentioned Darwin? In what way could killing someone you disagree with possibly influence the human gene pool?
If you mean something like Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinism, it isn’t a scientific theory, and I don’t think it’s taught in schools, so what are you protesting against?
I long ago gave up a trying to correct the misuse of the term Darwinism here, so stick to the house-style where it just means mainstream evolutionary biology.
That distraction aside, to you want to answer the question? Or perhaps you should point out which bits of evolutionary biology lead people to murder and must be banned from schools?
as to: “Or perhaps you should point out which bits of evolutionary biology lead people to murder,,,?”
What bits do you think drove this guy?
Bornagain,
What do you understand by “Darwinism” and “Darwinian”?
Piotr, what do you ‘understand’ by ‘you’?
“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”
George MacDonald – Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood – 1892
Evidence to that effect
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-545518
“The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak. To see why we make these mistakes and why it’s so hard to avoid them, we need to understand the source of the illusion that thoughts are about stuff.”
[A.Rosenberg, The Atheist Guide to Reality, Ch.9]
If ‘you’ hold you are merely your body without a soul of what real consequence or purpose is anything?
OK, I shouldn’t have asked you a question. I thought you were trying to make an argument, but you were only muttering inanities and listening to your own voice, as usual.
Piotr, au contraire, I hold that you are ignoring the much meatier matters to focus on pointless inanities.
Pray tell, is the question of the reality of your own eternal soul truly of more or less importance to you than the question of my particular definitions of unguided evolution?
I hold that if you say that my particular definitions of unguided evolution are of more importance to you than the question of your eternal soul then you certainly have your priorities in life severely mixed up.
“Or perhaps you should point out which bits of evolutionary biology lead people to murder and must be banned from schools?” WD400, stop playing games, this is a very serious issue.
The problem concerns the philosophy and behaviours of the darwin believers. Darwinists are anti-human. You deny the existence of conciousness, emotions like love and reduce everything to the point it becomes meaningless. You push for the extermination of the weak and vulnerable, they are wasting your precious resources after all, and you have no moral code (unless borrowed) to follow.
Now many people have come to recognise your beliefs as nothing more than secular fairytales but some actually listen and believe these claims. These people, like the worst lunatics the world has ever known, places no value on human life, nothing on human exceptionalism and accept a universe whereby everything and everyone are one gigantic cosmic accident. Whether we live or die is of no consequence. It is these beliefs, this worldview that has spawned the worst tyrants the world has ever known and the destruction the followed.
I personally think people that genuinely believe this tripe should be committed for the safety of the human race. You’ll exterminate us all given half the chance.
It’s certainly a very serious issue humbled, but neither you or News seem capable of a serious discussion. The OP is not about a religious position, but about “Darwinism” which many religious people (in fact, most religious people in the west but outside the US) agree with.
If your reaction to hearing of this murder is to go out and scan the murderer’s facebook for tenuous links to a scientific theory you oppose then I think you probably have your priorities wrong.
From science to scientism in the Obama era
Wd400 just because there are religious people that believe in Darwinian evolution doesn’t mean that it’s stripped of its moral emptiness or religious connotations .
I was one of those that believed in it for the first 41 years of my life and in fact defended it in my debates with people that didn’t believe in it.
But when u look at Darwinian evolution from a pragmatic point of view it leads naturally to social Darwinism.
And what’s to stop any Darwinist from correctly arguing from this Darwinian worldview that the weak who poison the gene pool shouldn’t be eliminated ? They are nothing but pieces of meat that came about through random processes and chemical interactions , nothing more right ?
It’s no different then morality in an atheistic worldview . There is no objective morality there . It’s all subjective opinion .
A man that butchers a billion people is no more objectively good or evil then someone who helps an old lady cross the street during rush hour .
What’s funny is that there are still people like u that deny this reality of Darwinian evolution .
It’s no different then morality in an atheistic worldview
It’s a scientific theory — it has no more “morality” than gravity or the germ theory of disease.
wd400, it has become much more than a scientific theory. Social Darwinism proves that point. It is a philosophical worldview that denies any divine intervention with respect to life on Earth.
Scientific theories should not–and generally do not–teach moral lessons. Notice that nobody has shot anyone else and claimed to be doing so for the sake of Newtonian mechanics.
Darwinism is something completely different, and it’s about time that people acknowledged that it’s gone beyond a simple scientific theory.
See also Evolutionary Ethics
wd400:
It isn’t even a theory, let alone scientific.
Dawkins doesn’t want a darwinian society
wd400
That’s a very surprising response.
Darwinism claims to offer The explanation for the development of every aspect of the entire biosphere on earth.
“The evolution of morality”. I’m pretty sure you’ve heard of that.
Look, can you guys just admit now that UD is a totalitarian hate site? From O’Leary and Mapou we get the usual demands for totalitarian thought control:
Yeah you better stop it, scientifically you lost the argument and censorship is all the anti-Darwinian thought police have left.
Meanwhile from “Humbled”, who seem not very humbled but an egomaniacal sociopath, we hear this about “Darwinists”:
So you’re fascists, right? Not convinced? What about kicking people in the face with jackboots? That’s what skinheads actually do, right?
Well what does Reichscommandant Brent say?
So can you just admit you’re fascists now? I mean get over yourselves, just admit it.
Perhaps Joe will show up in a moment threatening more violence, or Michael Egnor will again demand the prosecution and imprisonment of climate scientists and other non-climate scientists for being in prestigious scientific organizations.
And let’s not forget what set you off: Journaliistic malpractice. The facts are that a guy murdered three Muslims. Upon perusing his Facebook page, we find that he was an atheist. It is Journalistic malpractice for Denyse O’Leary to assume that his atheism motivated the crime.
According to the police, the crime was motivated by a parking dispute. Fox News printed a correction on the story, making it clear there was no evidence that atheism motivated the guy’s crime. You guys are even more irresponsible that Fox News, got that?
Now later on we might find out more evidence showing that atheism motivated the crime, but right now it’s journalistic malpractice for O’Leary to present speculation and armchair psychoanalysis as evidence, and that will not change in the future if new evidence emerges: speculation is not evidence, but Journalistic malpractice is Journalistic malpractice.
Moreover, crimes committed over parking disputes are common. Atheists committing murder is not common. Check out our prisons: hard core criminals in the USA are overwhelmingly Christian or Muslim, especially on Death Row. Atheists in prison are so rare it’s hard to measure the proportion but certainly less than 1% and less than their fraction of the general population.
“When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras.” Thus, until more evidence emerges, a priori the higher probability hypothesis is that the murder was over a parking dispute.
But I want to emphasize that it’s discrimination to look at a guy’s webpage, see a NON-VIOLENT, NON-EXTREMIST affirmation of atheism and then conclude that his atheism motivated his violence.
If the media went to his Facebook page and saw pictures of a Christmas tree or generic, NON-VIOLENT expressions of Christian belief, no one would have said his Christianity motivated the murder.
This jumping to conclusions without evidence is just bigotry, and Uncommon Descent is a hate site. Censorship, fascist violent threats, and totalitarian thought control are your only options because you were defeated scientifically.
Well, Happy Darwin Day…
Just a simple thought experiment – if Darwin’s theory was never published, but we still had the knowledge of Mendel and Wallace – would science and society be better off? Consider the misuse of Darwin’s theory; eugenics, sterilization, Hitler, Marx, Freud, atheism / anti-theism, environmentalism, and justification for the redefining of fundamental American values.
So again, if science and society had the knowledge of Mendel and Wallace – how does Darwin’s theory really benefit humanity? (And yes, this is the same type of thought experiment atheists do with religion)…
Heartlander, not being an American citizen why would it be bad for me if Evolutionary Theory redefined, ‘fundamental American values’? If thse values include assuming every other culture or people share these values, then I say roll on ‘Darwinism’ and please, please redefine them.
You see Heartlander, the idea of living in that great central land mass that is the U.S. ‘heartland’, would put me into somnambulistic hell. The tedious goings on of intellectual dumbells appers the nearest I could come to enforced myopia: Open your mind, there are many other things that are of interset in this fascinating world,than your perverted view of science.
LoL! rvb8, a close-minded evolutionist/ materialist, tells someone to open their mind!
Diogenes:
That is what evolutionists and materialists do on a daily basis. So perhaps you should clean up your own house before telling others to clean theirs.
LoL! THAT from the internet’s biggest hater!
LoL! Only cowards think that I have ever threatened violence- enter Dio…
rvb8 @26
Don’t be such a twit – you could have easily ignored the thought experiment or any part of it that doesn’t apply to you – instead you chose to unjustly attack. I post a thought experiment and you tell me to open ‘my mind’ – while stereotyping Americans as dim. You know nothing about me – where I’m from – where I’ve been – yet you judge me and act as if you know how I view science and the world based on my screen name. This defines shallow thinking.
BTW, America does not offend everyone.
here is rvb8’s ‘open minded’ Darwinian world:
http://www.cogniview.com/blog/.....thebox.jpg
Whereas, here is the ID proponents world
http://livinggreenmag.com/wp-c.....e-box1.jpg
Oh, Joe “Security Clearance” says that he never threatened violence, huh? OK, I’m calling his bluff.
Joe, I’ll bet you $1000 that I can produce two hyperlinks to you threatening “materialists” and “evos” with violence or extermination– that’s $500 per threat. If I produce the links to you issuing threats of physical violence or extermination to “materialists” and “evos”, then I keep your $1000. If I produce no links, you keep my $1000.
I’m serious so we have to pick a referee to hold the money, but I don’t trust anyone at UD because they’re all nuts and will say it’s raining while they pee on your leg. I would recommend Michael Behe as a referee because whatever else I think about him, I don’t think he would be dishonest in adjudicating what is a cut and dried case of indisputable threats of violence. We can each kick in $1000 and Behe can hold it. Deal?
But there’s more: I want everyone at UD to join and bet some money on Joe. Who do you think is more trustworthy, UDites, me or Joe? Who do you think is more likely to lie outright, me or Joe? Put your money where your mouth is.
If you people at UD don’t want to put down your money on Joe (given Joe’s history of, to put it mildly, threats of prevarication, it should be a no-brainer), I want everyone at UD to explain why you’re not betting on Joe. Why are you not putting your money where your mouth is?
Remember, Joe “Security Clearance” Gallien has had posting privileges at UD, he’s posted not just comments, but top-level posts. So you regard him as a great intellectual leader, right? So why are you not putting your money on him?
An oldie but a goodie:
I don’t like the terms of the bet …
Notice the highlighted terms. The original comment was about ‘violence’. Now you added ‘or extermination’. Once I see something like that, where it appears as if you’re playing games, I become suspicious.
“Extermination” can be interpreted as something like “All evos need to disappear”. So that gives you some huge opportunities that do not match what was stated (there’s nothing violent about it).
Diogenes:
I am sure that you think you can. I bet you won’t post the entire context.
I don’t get what you imps think is so “good” about that.
But anyway meet me so we can shake on the bet. 😉
For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices.
One brutal and dry summer I threw our watermelon rinds into the woods across the road. A week later I overturned the rinds that landed juicy-side down and observed they were covered with ticks, of all things. Ticks, little ugly arachnids. This was repeated with different fruit peels but only watermelon scored on the ticks.
All ticks were eliminated during this testing.
I also know that dragonflies play.
I would say that most hunters, fishermen and hikers have observed that.
What Joe? What happened to your claim that
No blanket denials of issuing violent threats? Where’d your previous denials go, Joe?
*sigh* That’s your way of weaseling out. I said I would post hyperlinks, Joe. Like to the original. I did not say I would copy n paste. With a hyperlink to the original, the readers can judge context for themselves.
So how about it, Joe? Did you, or did you not, make threats of violence to “materialists” and “evos”?
If you did, weren’t you lying right above?
If you didn’t, where’s your money Bro?
Now let’s see how Silver Asiatic will weasel out:
*sigh*. Extermination is a subset of violence. A disjunction of X or a {subset of X} has the same logical structure as X but it may sound stronger. For example, “a sandwich or a chicken sandwich” means the same thing as “a sandwich” but hints that I have chicken in mind, get it?
I have to spell everything out. OK, now if it really bothers you Silver Asiatic, I’ll let YOU choose the terms!
1. Two links of threats of violence,
2. Two links of threats of {(violence) OR (extermination by violent means)},
3. One link of threat of violence and one link of threat of extermination by violent means
So which wording is acceptable to you? Or you can suggest your own.
Diogenes
That first one is fine with me. He said he never threatened violence. So, “extermination by non-violent means” would not count.
I will kick in $20, which is not a lot but I also have to say you’re assuming that everyone on UD knows each other well enough to defend and support whatever is said at any time. Plus, if someone has been posting on this topic for several years, I don’t think it’s quite fair to dredge up something said 7 years ago, for example, and use it as evidence against the person.
So, I wonder what you think you’ll achieve with this bet. “Some people on UD say rude things therefore there is no evidence of intelligent design in nature”?
That’s pretty lame.
You’ve jumped to some absurdly wild conclusions about how UD is a fascist blog and a totalitarian hate site, based on some stray remarks from people who post here. You seem driven by a lot of emotional hostility and I’m not sure why but maybe I can learn something from this. I can understand the desire to win $1000, but beyond that I don’t think there’s much to gain against ID as a concept.
Simple argumentation and discussion would work a lot better in my view.
Diogenes, my claim stands. That is why context is important.
My money is right here. Meet me and we will shake on it.
Also, is there a difference between a threat and a promise?
No Joe, I’m not meeting you anywhere. I don’t know where you live, I don’t want to know, and I think you’re dangerous and probably unvaccinated and have cooties. Your trying to insert conditions that are unnecessary and dangerous for me and non-standard. We can send our cash to Michael Behe and he can hold it for us. That’s how it’s done, SOP.
Silver Asiatic:
OK, you said you’d kick in $20 so at least you have some guts.
Why do you keep speculating about my motivation? Does it matter? My name is Inigo Montoya and Joe killed my father. You ID proponents sure love to appeal to motive.
My motivation, of course, is that I’m infuriated by Joe lying over and over, and glibly believing that he can just deny, issue counter-accusations and get out of everything. So first, I want to show how Joe Gallien will always weasel out of any challenge that requires honesty. I just get my kicks watching him weasel, weasel, weasel. It’s predictable. Now his thing is, I have to drive to his house and shake his hand! Weasel, weasel.
Second, by challenging other UDites to kick in some cash of their own, I’m trying to show that the rest of you know that Joe G is untrustworthy, but still you don’t ban him, don’t delete his comments (as you’ve done to countless polite evolutionists), and you give him the privilege of writing top-level posts at UD, so he’s one of your big intellectual leaders. But you don’t even challenge his most transparent lies. So I’m showing that UDites know that Joe is untrustworthy, but enable it and give him a big megaphone.
LoL! Why isn’t Dio infuriated at itself and all evolutionists for lying over and over, being caught and then lying again?
BTW I said nothing about you driving to my house to shake my hand. As if I need more lowly species slithering around here. You are anonymous and as such have an unfair advantage. At least I know the name of the last loser evolutionist who bet me and lost $10,000- Andreas “Andy” Schueler.
Also we would have to determine if calling out a coward for being a lying little weasel is the same as a threat. The local police don’t see it as a threat when you merely stand up for yourself in the face of unrelenting hubris.
So we would have to make sure we have clear and concise definitions of the words being used.
But perhaps you have some other alleged lies that will be easier for you to expose? Or are you just lying again?
Diogenes
I don’t usually ask about such things but it just seemed that your condemnation of this blog was pretty extreme. A fascist, totalitarian hate site? I’m obviously biased but I really don’t see the vast majority of discussions following that kind of profile.
Ok, that’s understandable at least. It looks like something personal between you and him – so some bad blood between you. I have no idea about the history on any of that, but I don’t like the entire UD group being considered fascist. If you lose the bet, for example, I’d hope you’d back away from that kind of attack.
I see your point, but I hope you’ll consider also that this blog doesn’t require everyone to be virtuous and saintly. It would be nice – sure, but there’s room for a lot of different personalities. I think the charge of “lying” against someone is more difficult though. A person can forget what he said in the past or be mistaken about it.
In other words, I think you’re making too big of a deal about this and it seems like a personality clash between you and Joe and you’re using that to condemn the whole site.
One final point – I think this is essential and I referenced it before … I believe Joe has already been banned for a while quite recently.
So, when someone has been punished and then rehabilitated to the site after a while — in fairness, would it make sense to go back to posts that he wrote before he was banned?
I can’t say much more than this because I don’t know the situation. But I will put my 20 bucks in as I said.
Diogenes @23
So you’re fascists, right? Not convinced? What about kicking people in the face with jackboots? That’s what skinheads actually do, right?
This guy runs Pharyngula, a top ranked blog for evolution… Now what? Is he a totalitarian fascist that runs a hate site?
It seems to have escaped some people’s attention that Ms. Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha was a biologist, having graduated cum laude with a B.S. in biological sciences last December, and therefore was well versed in evolutionary biology.
One can be well versed in evolutionary biology and not be a Darwinist