Recently, at the Post-Darwinist, I have received many posts from Darwinists who protested my mentioning the fact that the recent school shooting in Finland was driven by social Darwinism. Some of them have resolved never to read my blog again as a result.
(Be still, my heart! Be still! How can you be sure they will keep their promise?) Anyway, I wrote,
This tragedy has provoked an enormous outburst of protest from Darwinists on account of my noting that the shooter’s motive was social Darwinism. On the rare occasions when a shooter’s motive has been anti-abortion advocacy ( Rudolph) or fundamentalist madness ( Yates), I have NEVER been excoriated by an anti-abortionist or fundamentalist for openly discussing that fact. Indeed, these types of cases were openly discussed among Christian journalists at a number of gatherings in which I participated over the last decade, with conspicuously little defensiveness. We had long accepted that some forms of anti-abortion advocacy and fundamentalism are toxic.
So this storm of comments has been a real eye-opener for me (and I probably rejected more than I accepted, so readers never saw all the somniferous posturing I did). The storm suggests that – despite claims – Darwinists have never dealt with the legacy of social Darwinism in an emotionally healthy enough way to just put it all behind them. Now that may be because the actual worldview of Darwinism necessitates social Darwinism. Or it may be because no one has said, “let’s just do it.” Or someone has said that, but the troops didn’t get it. It’s not really my problem though.
Also, at the Hack,
Do recent studies of out of body experiences show that there is no soul?
Should evangelicals be worried about the “Spiritual Brain” book?
College no longer best place to lose your faith?
Religious freedom: Not a mere luxury, says political theorist
Theories of brain evolution: Evolving brain or revolving door
Theocracy, theocracy, a theme for thee but not for me!
Sure, I love praise from people I respect. Who doesn’t?