Will Evolution Weekend Sermons Discuss Alleged Murderer Amy Bishop?

_{Salvador Cordova

February 14, 2010

Culture, Darwinism, Religion}

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

Today is the closing day of “Evolution Weekend”. The weekend is promoted by The clergy letter project. This is a weekend dedicated to glorifying Darwinism in churches.

Curiously one of the scientists on call to help clergy and parishioners promote the glories of Darwinism was Amy Bishop, she is listed here:

Name: Amy Bishop, Ph.D.
Title: Associate Professor
Address: Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Huntsville, AL 35899
Areas of Expertise: neuroscience, molecular biology, genetics, evolution of the human brain
Email: ——-@uah.edu

Amy Bishop was charged in the murder of several people recently. Now, there are some very fine Darwinists like Francis Collins, and I don’t mean to say Amy Bishop is representative of all Darwinists. But I’d recommend that if the Clergy Letter Project wishes to put on a good face for Darwinism, they might consider disassociating themselves from Amy Bishop.

They may not want to promote “survival of the fittest” in their sermons today. That would be kind of poor taste in light of the fact a presumed societal degenerate (Bishop) is the “fittest” survivor while 3 (possibly 4) innocent victims are the “unfit” dead. Think I’m overstating the case against Darwinism? Consider what Evolutionary Psychologist David Buss argues in his book The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill

murder is the product of evolutionary forces and that the homicidal act, in evolutionary terms, conveys advantages to the killer.

NOTES:
Here is the Fox10’s report on Amy Bishop Biology professor charged with murder

A biology professor at the University of Alabama’s Huntsville campus was charged with murder late Friday in the shooting deaths of three fellow biology professors at the campus….
Amanda Tucker, a junior nursing major from Alabaster, Ala., had Amy Bishop for anatomy about a year ago. Tucker said a group of students went to a dean complaining about Bishop’s performance in the classroom, and Tucker signed a petition complaining about Bishop.

“When it came down to tests, and people asked her what was the best way to study, she’d just tell you, ‘Read the book.’ When the test came, there were just ridiculous questions. No one even knew what she was asking,'” said Tucker.

Andrea Bennett, a sophomore majoring in nursing, was in one of Bishop’s classes Friday morning.

Bennett said nothing seemed unusual, but she described Bishop as being “very weird” and “a really big nerd.”

“She’s well-known on campus, but I wouldn’t say she’s a good teacher. I’ve heard a lot of complaints,” Bennett said

There are also now questions about why liberal congressmen Delahunt (then a District Attorney for Braintree Massachusetts) had her released from police custody after shooting her brother in 1986. See: Professor Amy Bishop Shot & Killed Her Brother in 1986 Dem Rep. Delahunt Made Call to Release Bishop

A Massachusetts police chief is now saying that UAH shooting suspect Amy Bishop shot and killed her brother during an argument, and the case may have been mishandled by the police department more than two decades ago when the fatal shooting occurred.

The Boston Globe reported that Amy Bishop, a biology professor at UAH who is accused of shooting and killing three colleagues yesterday, accidentally shot her 18-year-old brother, Seth M. Bishop, in the abdomen with a 12-gauge shotgun in December 1986.

The report said Bishop was asking her mother, Judith, how to properly unload the gun when it when off and a shot struck Seth.

Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier is now offering a different account of the shooting to The Globe: “Bishop had shot her brother during an argument and was being booked by police when the police chief at the time ordered the booking process stopped and Bishop released to her mother,” the paper reports on its Web site. Records from the case have been missing since 1987.
…
Braintree officers who remember the 1986 shooting said that former police Chief John Polio dismissed detectives from the case and ordered the department to release Amy Bishop after a telephone conversation with former district attorney William Delahunt.

Delahunt is currently a U.S. congressman from Massachusetts.

HT: my good friend Mike Gene for uncovering the book by David Buss and Amy Bishop’s entry in the Clergy Letter Project

Comments

Lewontin: "materialism is absolute..." Sagan: "the cosmos is all that is..." Monod: "Chance alone..." Sev in another thread: "The fact is no one has a satisfactory theory of origins". - - - - - - Then...Sev to Scordova: "Hardly a convincing disclaimer" Back at ya Seversky, back at ya.Upright BiPed_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Sal, you set the tone of this thread with your opening posts, so you really can't wriggle out of it by claiming "For the record, I’m not arguing evolutionary theory necessarily leads to a degenerate character." If you were not making that very point, why did you toss in the quote about how much Darwin liked to shoot? People of all persuasions, backgrounds and beliefs do reprehensible things.Muramasa_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Sev "This reminds us that there is no shortage of such crimes to be exploited for propaganda purposes if evolutionists were so minded." Hrun "Things only get complicated if she was a biology professor AND a Christian AND a active church member".Upright BiPed_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

scordova@24:
My point is, how can the Clergy project do justice to Darwinism and still put together a message of love and charity?
In the same way they can do justice to plate tectonics and a message of love and charity - the two have little or nothing to do with each other. Except for those who are trying to make ridiculous associations to create a negative connotation around a concept they don't like.mikev6_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

the theory of evolution stands as a sound scientific explanation regardless of whether abhorrent political regimes have tried to argue it as a justification for their atrocities
Nuclear theory's truthfulness is not dependent how people use or abuse it. Thus, I thoroughly agree that evolutionary theory's truthfulness (or lack thereof) is not dependent how people use it or abuse it. However, advocating Darwinism has no place in Sunday sermons. Dawkins position is more philosophically consistent with Darwinism than is a world view of love and charity. I took the opportunity to cite how the behaviors of one of the members of the clergy project would be interpreted through the eyes of Darwinism, nameley, that according to Buss, murdererous tendencies can lead to Darwinian advantage. I asked if this is a wrong inference given the supposed immutability of Darwinism. Is not the phenomenon of murder completely consistent with evolutionary theory as Buss (and others) argue? If murder is consistent with evolutionary theory, why then should the Clergy Project be promoting sermons that celebrate Darwinism? Kind of a stretch. Wouldn't Dawkins ideas be a more intellecutually honest way to describe the implications of Darwinism than the way it is portrayed by the Clergy Project? If the Clergy Project declares Amy Bishop's behavior a tragedy, how can they justify that inference based on Buss's work and the natural implications of Darwinism? In the world of Darwinism, survival of the fittest is a good thing, it takes priority over the suffering of individuals. In a world view where love, life, and charity are special, "survival of the fittest" might be something to lament, not celebrate. Darwinism has overtaken culture not merely because Atheists have promoted it, but rather because Clergy have sanctioned and encouraged it!scordova_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

JPCollado: The husband of one of the victims summed it best: Sammie Lee Davis said his wife ………had mentioned the shooter before, describing the woman as “not being able to deal with reality” and “not as good as she thought she was.”
Richard Dawkins had a sex-change?!ShawnBoy_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

The shootings not only took place during "Evolution Week", but happened on February 12th - Darwin Day. Interesting.ShawnBoy_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

This all begs the questions: What is degenerate behaviour? Who gets to decide and why them? As for the theory of evolution being a sound scientific explanation- only if a scientific explanation can be void of science...Joseph_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

scordova @ 16
For the record, I’m not arguing evolutionary theory necessarily leads to a degenerate character.
Hardly a convincing disclaimer, given the gloating tone of what you have written. It reads much more as if you have seized gleefully on the story of this tragedy as further ammunition in your campaign of anti-Darwinian propaganda. Barb has asked us to monitor press coverage of this incident to see if it is given the same prominence as that of religious murderers. This reminds us that there is no shortage of such crimes to be exploited for propaganda purposes if evolutionists were so minded. There have been a number of killers who were strongly motivated by their religious beliefs. But the more thoughtful in both the pro- and anti-evolution camps recognize that the actions of these disturbed individuals say nothing about the core beliefs or the theoretical soundness of either side. The moral values at the heart of Christianity are still worth upholding regardless of those individuals who choose to ignore some of them. Equally, the theory of evolution stands as a sound scientific explanation regardless of whether abhorrent political regimes have tried to argue it as a justification for their atrocities. What has happened in the case of Amy Bishop is as much a tragedy for all concerned as it was in the cases of Paul Jennings or Scott Roeder. It does no one any credit to try and exploit them for partisan advantage.Seversky_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Nature's Fearless Fighting Machines
Often the fighting is between alpha males who are looking to secure dominance over a single female or perhaps even a group. The dominance of the alpha male will ensure that it is his genes that are passed on to the next generation. In many species, when a new alpha male takes over, he will deliberately seek out and kill and offspring which he has not sired. Why should he bring up other people’s kids? In other species such as the meerkat and Prairie dog it may be the females who occasionally commit infanticide in the fight to get their genes in to the next generation. .... The fighting is often about the right to mate. The old idea of the survival of the fittest is an everyday fact of life in the animal kingdom, .... Fighting among males is not only restricted to mammals. Dragonflies are highly territorial and if a male strays in to the wrong territory then it will definitely mean a fight. In years when the population is large that can mean that territory can be disputed by more than one dragonfly at a time. ... Of course, there is one animal that has been shown to be consistently the most violent animal on the planet. Occasionally conflict is caused by the desire of two males to show affection to the same female but the species Homo sapiens finds – so it seems – any reason to fight depending on the mood of the aggressive male. Almost unique in their ability to use tools as weapons, this species is widely regarded as the most volatile and dangerous on the planet.
To the evolutionists here at UD, is this conception of reality not consistent with the notions of Darwinism? Was Amy Bishop possibly exhibiting behaviors consistent with Buss's evolutionary theory? My point is, how can the Clergy project do justice to Darwinism and still put together a message of love and charity? To that end Dawkins is at least more philosophically consistent than members of the Clergy project.scordova_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Things only get complicated if she was a biology professor AND a Christian AND a active church member.”
Some anti-semeitic websites speculate she is jewish.scordova_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

How many people that are female, with kids, holding a hard-science PhD, and teaching as professor, have ever been accused of homicide, let alone a triple homicide? Mrs. Bishop is a "black swan." (A statistically improbable, but highly meaningful occurrence.) It would seem hard to explain her behavior apart from free will, something which she probably didn't believe in.ajones_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Barb, You are late. "Things only get complicated if she was a biology professor AND a Christian AND a active church member."Upright BiPed_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Cabal: "I believe some people have a problem understanding even first things about the theory of evolution." An incredible statement considering how much money is poured forth in its furtherance via public schools, museums, popular media, etc., as well as its being held as the grand-daddy theory of 'em all, where "nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution."JPCollado_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

I'll be curious to see if there's as much outrage over this act of violence as there is when a supposed Christian or religious person commits a crime.Barb_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

from WCVB report above:
the gun accidentally went off into a bedroom wall when her daughter was trying to teach herself to use it in case the home was burglarized. Amy Bishop then asked her brother to help her unload the gun when it went off again, killing him in front of her, Judith Bishop told the newspaper
Let me see, the gun just went accidentally off into the ceiling. What did Amy Bishop say to her brother Seth. "I just fired off the gun accidentally into the ceiling. Will you stand here with your chest infront of the barrel and help me unload it?" I'd think Amy would drop the gun first rather than brandish it around the house, shoot her brother, and then carry it into the street and threaten passing drivers!scordova_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

I just don’t get the connection between crime, psychopathy, irrational behavior or child abuse, and evolutionary theory.
For the record, I'm not arguing evolutionary theory necessarily leads to a degenerate character. The point of this thread was to highlight how ironic it is that any churches (especially those claiming to encourage love and charity) would be trying to celebrate Darwin's theory as inspiration for hope and love!!!!! I think Dawkins has a better and more honest grasp of what Darwinism really means: "
The universe we observe,” he says, “has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference.”
Of all people, note what Darwinist Steve Barr has to say:
The root of Dawkins' philosophy is the insight, derived from neo-Darwinian theory, that life has no ulterior purpose, biologically speaking. Mosquitoes exist to replicate mosquito DNA and dung beetles to replicate dung beetle DNA. The whole drama of life is a meaningless genetic competition. Not surprisingly, many people find Dawkins' vision of a pointless universe rather repellant. He has been accused of spreading a cold and joyless message, a pessimistic nihilism. The present book seems to have been written to respond to these charges. Its preface begins thus:
A foreign publisher of my first book confessed that he could not sleep for three nights after reading it, so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold, bleak message. Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings. A teacher from a distant country wrote to me reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book, because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless.
This preface filled me with the keenest anticipation. I had always wondered what consolations could be found in a philosophy like Dawkins'. What would he have to say to that sleepless publisher or that desperate girl? Not what you might have expected. Here is a passage from chapter one, in which he is describing the time-line of life on earth:
Fling your arms wide in an expansive gesture to span all of evolution from its origin at your left fingertip to today at your right fingertip. All across your midline to well past your right shoulder, life consists of nothing but bacteria. Many-celled, invertebrate life flower's somewhere around your right elbow. The dinosaurs originate in the middle of your right palm, and go extinct around your last finger joint. The whole history of Homo sapiens and our predecessor Homo erectus is contained in the thickness of one nail clipping. As for recorded history; as for the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Jewish patriarchs, the dynasties of Pharaohs, the legions of Rome, the Christian Fathers, the Laws of the Medes and Persians which never change; as for Troy and the Greeks, Helen and Achilles and Agamemnon dead; as for Napoleon and Hitler, the Beatles and Bill Clinton, they and everyone that knew them are blown away in the dust of one light stroke of a nail file.
Vivid, striking, accurate, but hardly consoling. Steve Barr Prophet of Pointlessness
scordova_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Isn’t it more about differential reproductive success within a species population than the circumstances relating to any single individual?
Survival of the fittest is a misleading term!
I believe some people have a problem understanding even first things about the theory of evolution.
Agreed, and most of the misunderstanding is by Darwinists. On average, the fittest (as in most functional genomes, functional in the engineering sense) can die out. Reasons for this are natural disasters, mutational meltdown, random "selection" etc. There absolutely no guarantee differential reproductive success leads to inevitable progress toward comlexity. NONE! UD has posts on Gambler's Ruin, Nachman's Paradox, and No Free Lunch. Darwinists like Dawkins can't seem to get it, that "survival of the fittest" is a misleading term. If "survival of the fittest" only means those that survive, it is a superfluous notion. If "survival of the fittest" means differential reproductive success on average, there is no guarntee it leads to improvement or increase in complexity, it's a meaningless statement as far as the question of the emergence of biological compexity.scordova_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Cabal: “I just don’t get the connection between crime, psychopathy, irrational behavior or child abuse, and evolutionary theory.” The husband of one of the victims summed it best:
Sammie Lee Davis said his wife ………had mentioned the shooter before, describing the woman as "not being able to deal with reality" and "not as good as she thought she was."
JPCollado_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

I have to admit that I find the smug tone of this thread a bit distasteful. This poor messed-up woman shot dead four even-more unfortunate people. It's no occasion for scoring points against Darwin. Even if the link between being a Darwinist and committing this atrocity were to be proved---and I'm sorry scordova, but your case is pretty weak---some restraint is appropriate when some people will be burying their loved ones this week. Don't think I'm being fussy. ID has the potential to reshape the intellectual landscape of the world my children grow up in. But this site also has a tendency to degenerate into a triumphalist, opinionated, conspiracy-riddled talking shop at times, and this *seriously* detracts from its credibility. I am a long-time follower of this site and have benefited from it greatly, but I have written here only a few times so please resist your native urge to heckle me. (Incidentally, as I don't appear here often---I am UK, PhD, ID/TE marginal.)equinoxe_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Or is there a theory that says Darwinians are more vulnerable, that Darwinism is some sort of mental disease? Cabal, the point isn't that holding a particular view of nature makes you more inclined to violence -- at least as an individual, a societal basis being a much different matter -- it just that it doesn't make you less inclined to violence or irrationality as some insist on claiming. What's more of a concern is why a district attorney got involved in covering up a murder 24 years ago and how that D.A. got elected to Congress.tribune7_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Gee Amy, don’t point the barrel at another human being while trying to safely unload the gun And repeat the action at least twice as per the linktribune7_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Whatever she did will be the subject of a court case under English Common Law, a far more stringent rule of evidence, and vastly superior, to what counts as “science” today – as Climategate so clearly shows. That one's gotta hurt. Great point, O'Leary. LOL.tribune7_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

I always love these post: darwinist killer, liberal congressmen, removal from websites, Well . . .tribune7_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

I just don't get the connection between crime, psychopathy, irrational behavior or child abuse, and evolutionary theory. People just go crazy for whatever reasons they happen to have and that applies to all of us regardless of creed, faith, atheism, evolutionism or creationism. One doesn't even have to understand ID or even evolution to see that. Or is there a theory that says Darwinians are more vulnerable, that Darwinism is some sort of mental disease?Cabal_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

All I know is this: We should all be careful to insert terms like "alleged" and "allegation" when we refer to claims about Amy Bishop, however well-sourced we think they may be. Whatever she did will be the subject of a court case under English Common Law, a far more stringent rule of evidence, and vastly superior, to what counts as "science" today - as Climategate so clearly shows. The best thing the English-speaking peoples ever did for the world was English Common Law. By comparison, what counts as "science" today is often garbage. Now, I have no reason to doubt that Darwinism can (puzzlingly) lead to massacres in the cause of supposedly helping "evolution." I've always thought that, if Darwinism made any sense, we should just not get involved in what lives and what dies. But then, I hadn't considered "cosmic Darwinism" or "evolutionary psychology", had I? Silly me. Jobs for useless profs, if you ask me.O'Leary_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Darwinists sing an old evergreen here - those who do not accept their fantasies actually do not understand "theory of evolution". In this point they take after another naturalists - marxists. Marxists used the same argument incarcerating their enemies. They "didn't understand revolution". Both naturalists love struggling - be it "struggle for life" or "class struggle". Also their liking in "evolve" calques - either rEVOLution or EVOLution is striking. Both parties even call their fantasies "science", marxists established "scientific communism", darwinists called their fantasies "scientific theory of evolution".VMartin_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

Isn't it more about differential reproductive success within a species population than the circumstances relating to any single individual? I believe some people have a problem understanding even first things about the theory of evolution. I may be wrong but believe I am not.Cabal_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT}

If you had, then you would have actually referenced the number of times each of the people involved in the incident had reproduced
Amy Bishop: 4 kids Seth Bishop (whom she killed): 0 kids (presumably) There, did the fittest survive?scordova_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

[Amy] Bishop was asking her mother, Judith, how to properly unload the gun when it when off and a shot struck Seth.
Gee Amy, don't point the barrel at another human being while trying to safely unload the gun. And don't do the following as reported by the police: WCVB Report
Frazier said Amy Bishop shot her 18-year-old brother, Seth Bishop, in the chest with a 12-gauge shotgun at the family’s home in Braintree, then ran into the street and aimed the gun at a passing vehicle before fleeing from the scene. Amy Bishop, who was 20 at the time, was arrested at gunpoint by Braintree officers.
scordova_{February 13, 2010
February
02
Feb
13
13
2010
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply