The IDiocy continues…

The sickening use of the Finnish shooting tragedy by creationists to smear the science of evolution continues at Uncommon Descent with BarryA who also brings up the tragic shooting at Columbine in 1999:

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.”

What all of these things show is that Eric Harris was a deeply disturbed individual. It says nothing of the science of evolution by natural selection.

Look. When organisms reproduce, genetic mutations lead to changes in the inherited traits of the offspring. Some of these changes offer advantages to the offspring in terms of reproduction and survival, and these advantages are passed onto the next generation. These traits become before more prevalent in the population over time and the species evolves. These are the facts. If someone takes a gun and claims that they are being a “natural selector” by gunning down their classmates, it doesn’t make this untrue. How many times must it be said? Evolution explains biology, it doesn’t tell us how to behave.

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.

The only thing that couldn’t be more obvious, BarryA, is the fact that you are using a tragic event to sling mud at your opponents. What couldn’t be more obvious, is the fact that you will stop at nothing to smear good science because it doesn’t fit in with your theological presuppositions. What couldn’t be more obvious, is that the battle the ID crowd want to fight is not so much one over science, but over culture. This is a battle they are losing, and you can bet your nelly that the low blows are only going to become more frequent and in poorer taste. Is there any social ill, or any bit of bad news, that the ID crowd will not try and tie evolution to?

Advertisements

~ by Sammy Jankis on November 10, 2007.

5 Responses to “The IDiocy continues…”

  1. “Is there any social ill, or any bit of bad news, that the ID crowd will not try and tie evolution to?”

    I’d hope not, and I hope that you don’t either. Why? Because evolution is inextricably bound to *everything*. That excludes *nothing*.

    I find it interesting how you throw out Harris’ complaints by saying that he was “disturbed,” almost like saying that he himself is a fluke to natural selection. Basement materialism and strict Darwinism say that he’s not a fluke, that he’s a natural part of the process and that he simply fulfilled his own imperative. Does that mean he did the “right” thing? Well, by deffinition of Darwinism, there is no “right” or “wrong” thing, there is just what happens and what doesn’t happen. If a bear mauls you in the woods, whether because it’s hungry, protecting its young or just because it happens to be a particularly nasty bear, you can’t hold the bear morally accountable and take it to trial in front of an unbiased jury. You don’t hold a court of law for every bacteria in your body that you ruthlessly slaughter when you take antibiotics for an infection. So then why is everybody so concerned about one organism ending the lives of a few other organisms? It’s really not that big a deal in the big scheme of things and whining about it isn’t going to change the fact that people kill people. 93, –DH

  2. Basement materialism and strict Darwinism say that he’s not a fluke, that he’s a natural part of the process and that he simply fulfilled his own imperative.

    His own “imperative”? What evidence do you have to support this?

    I don’t know what “basement materialism” is supposed to be, but the simple fact that science is descriptive rather than prescriptive does not mean that we cannot make judgements about Harris’ behaviour. Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that Homo sapiens evolved the capacity (i.e. insofar as we have working brains and a higher level of intelligence than other creatures) to make reasoned ethical decisions, and that therefore Harris–unless it is shown that he doesn’t have a fully-functioning brain nor is as superior in intelligence to other species than his fellow human beings–is as accountable for his decisions as the rest of us?

    I realise that this would blow your attempted Darwinist strawman out of the water, but that shouldn’t rule it out as a possibility.

  3. Why? Because evolution is inextricably bound to *everything*. That excludes *nothing*.

    I’m not sure what you mean.

    I find it interesting how you throw out Harris’ complaints by saying that he was “disturbed,” almost like saying that he himself is a fluke to natural selection. Basement materialism and strict Darwinism say that he’s not a fluke, that he’s a natural part of the process and that he simply fulfilled his own imperative.

    I’m still not quite following – could you clarify all this a little?

  4. There is not an iota of evidence that either of the Columbine shooters had a clue who Darwin was, and it’s pretty clear that neither of them had studied Darwin. In point of fact, “Natural Selection” was the title of an on-line RPG that the shooters played, which had a lot more in common with any shoot-em-up video game than with biology.

    Remind me never to hire Barry A as my attorney, for anything.

  5. I’m not sure what you mean.

    There’s much about Daniel’s post that requires further clarification. For instance, what on earth is “basement materialism?”

    You don’t hold a court of law for every bacteria in your body that you ruthlessly slaughter when you take antibiotics for an infection.

    And you shouldn’t make the nonsequitous leap from simply acknowledging that biology, like any other of the natural sciences, does not make ethical prescriptions, to claiming that we cannot therefore make ethical judgments about the conduct of the Columbine shooters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: