Killing In The Name of Darwin
[Article]
He describes himself as "a social darwinist.""I am prepared to fight and die for my cause," Sturmgeist declares, "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection."
A teenager, claiming to be Pekka-Eric Auvinen, (but authorities will not say for sure if that is his name) has apparently killed seven of his fellow students and the headmistress at Joleka High School in southern Finland, after posting a message to YouTube (as user called Sturmgeist89 - Sturmgeist means storm spirit in German.) predicting the event.
“Hours after posting his last message it appeared the teenager carried out his threat and, shot dead the school's principal and five male and two female pupils, before shouting "This is the start of the revolution" and shooting himself in the head. He was said to be in a critical condition last night and unlikely to survive.”
Is this the next step for mankind in evolution?
I can’t help but ponder an atheist’s blog I sometimes visit, whereby the writer has a phrase he often writes about concerning Christians. The phrase used is “Know Them By Their Deeds,” where the writer usually speaks about Christians that have veered from the path of Christianity. I ponder can we also say we can know the atheist or Darwinist by his deeds also? Should we judge all Darwinists by this one’s deeds?
39 comments:
C'mon Tim. You're sinking to new lows, here.
First of all, the man is clearly nuts.
Second, he describes himself as a social Darwinist, not an atheist. You do know what social Darwinism is, don't you? And surely you know it has nothing to do with biological evolution.
Third. The "Know them by their deeds" series posted by vjack is all about hypocrisy, where, for example, a priest, who preaches sexual celibacy and kindness towards fellow humans, rapes a child. That is the epitome of religious hypocrisy. That's what that series is about. Surely you got that point? It's the hypocrisy that is the odious point, not the act. Rape of children, while terrible, is something done all the time, by many types of sub-human beings. But when a self proclaimed Christian does it, that's notable.
Here, this clearly disturbed individual claims he is a social Darwinist, and decided to act out his ignorant and uninformed idea of natural selection. Where is the valid comparison? Are you claiming that the priests and other Christian hypocrites are equally warped, bordering on legal insanity?
That's what I take from your post.
SI,
1. I agree.
2. Okay, so I added a little pun in my statement, “Is this the next step for mankind in evolution?” since the Darwinists suggests “survival of the fittest” within evolution as “natural selection.”
3. Noted also by the comments to the “Know Them By Their Deeds” series seems to be all (or most) Christians are merely hypocrites, and it is used as a type of “proof” that Christianity is fake. I understand it may be supposed to be centered toward merely hypocrisy, but the posts and comments are not usually limited to the specific individual themselves, thus is why I wrote, “Should we judge all Darwinists by this one’s deeds?”
Yes, I may have stretched the topic of this news article just a bit, but no more so than some the blog posts I have seen regarding a single persons clear acts against Scripture used as an attack against all of Christianity. You know exactly what I am talking about SI, but I don’t ever see you calling them on it.
Tim
Killing “in the name of Darwin” makes no sense unless you postulate that Darwin laid out an ideology or agenda that advocates or condones killing. As the saying goes, “You can't get an ought from an is”. The fact that evolution is obviously true does not imply that it is therefore a good thing. “Natural” does not mean “good” (or “bad”).
Although you do not say it explicitly, I have come across arguments to the effects that “Darwinists” must approve of “social Darwinism”. I find this absurd. Does recognising the truth of a scientific theory require a person to view it as a moral ideal? Should we advocate murder just because we think that death is real? Should we push people over just because we believe in gravity?
Tim:
That is because the Scripture says exactly what Christians are doing: Gays deserve death, disobedient children are to be stoned, etc. The bible clearly advocates violence, and those Christians who commit it are merely adhering to the Word of Gawd.
As for the "social Darwinist", I doubt you know much about the history of Eugenics, so I think it is best you don't flaunt your ignorance and comment on it.
Beast
Hello!
"Yes, I may have stretched the topic of this news article just a bit, but no more so than some the blog posts I have seen regarding a single persons clear acts against Scripture used as an attack against all of Christianity. You know exactly what I am talking about SI, but I don’t ever see you calling them on it."
So, if I get this right: You think it's perfectly ok to lower yourself to the level of your opponent, instead of maintaining the moral high ground?
If there really was a God with a son called the Christ, especially one who does answer prayer and performs miracles today,
one would think He would take some interest in what his followers do.
How Christianity's reputation is being tainted by the followers that do stray from the path by being hypocrits, liars, or sexual perverts (any or all of the above and then some) should be the concern of Good Christians as well as God Himself.
How did that verse go? "Take the beam out of your own eye before removing the splinter from your neightbour's eye"?
After 10 years in the church as a born-again Christian, I left because I grew tired of watching Christians preaching but not living what they preached.
Regards,
Dr. Mabuse
Rebuke taken Dr. Mabuse.
But, I must ask:
You write:
"After 10 years in the church as a born-again Christian, I left because I grew tired of watching Christians preaching but not living what they preached."
As a born-again Christian for 10 years, were you living what was being preached or merely watching others not live what was preached?
I asked because I fail to understand how a Christian would leave Christianity (unless you meant you just left one church to go to another) by the actions of other Christians, if they themselves had a personal relationship with God through Christ.
Tim
“Is this the next step for mankind in evolution?” since the Darwinists suggests “survival of the fittest” within evolution as “natural selection.”
This is what I call taking issues completely out of context.
If a physicist suggests that gravity exists, should he jump out of a building to prove his words?
The Darwinian theory is not a belief system, although Christians like Tim love to expound on this moronic lie. It is a theory that deals with the changes in species and the mechanics of natural selection.
Beast
SI,
"he describes himself as a social Darwinist, not an atheist."
UPDATE: "In rambling text posted on the site two weeks before the shooting, Auvinen called himself "a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist.""
Tim
God-like Atheist? The Shooter is stark mad!
I'd smell a rat if someone calls himself a moral Christian........how can Christians be moral????
Beast
Beast,
This murderer was acting upon this theory of "survival of the fittest" (aka natural selection), whether you agree or disagree with his actions.
We may claim he was completely taking it out of context, but it remains true that he was "inspired by the principle of natural selection, postulating that those who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit."
Tim
Tim
This is a preposterous claim, one underlined by the fact that neither Darwin, the man who expounded the origin of species, nor any other biologist, would lay claim to or lend support.
Clearly, you lack understanding even in the most basic of english.
Read carefully what the shooter means:
"cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist."
An anti-human humanist? An "anti-social" Social Darwinist? And the worst part: Have you heard of a realistic idealist? How about a square circle for a change?
The shooter himself is either expounding on the subject of oxymorons, or is simply out of his mind. And you, Tim, simply was too damn lazy to even bother to read a little bit deeper.
I rest my case.
Beast
I did read:
"I am prepared to fight and die for my cause," Sturmgeist declares, "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.""
I agreed that we can assume that he is crazy, and may be using the theory out of context, but he is clearly using the idea of natural selection none the less.
Tim
Tim
The bugger was simply out of his mind. He could have claimed that he killed for a cosmic teapot, and we aren't going to take his words seriously. That is because his words are simply incoherent to be held seriously, unless, of course, people like you who wish to extend your own version of your own hate-sprouting, anti-Scientific and non-intelligent propaganda.
Unfortunately, all you did was throw egg all over your face, and I for one will always love the way you trip all over trying to cover up your mistakes.
Good going, Tim. Try harder next time.
Beast
So when a nut does an act of violence and claims they are a Christian or God told them to do it, it is a strike against Christianity and more reason we Christians are to be considered all delusional, yet when a nut does an act of violence claiming natural selection, atheism, and social Darwinist we are just to assume they are crazy without linking them to their claims?
The Answer: YES
If you happen to study the biblical texts, both OT and NT, references to violence against women, children and the subjugation of human rights are taught as standard fare by their ancient scribes. Because of this, any nutcase who happens to read the bible and pick them up will definitely use them as a source of moral inspiration. Of course, not all Christians will do that, for they are good at picking and nixing.
Social Darwinism is a study of social behavior from a evolutionary point of view. It is not a moral text that teaches any form of codified behavior. To claim that a person can kill because of social darwinism is no more different than using the excuse that a person can kill because of his knowledge of quantum physics. It doesn't add up.
As for this case, it is evident that the guy was simply rambling nonsense. It was pretty plain to me, so I find it almost criminal for you to completely turn a blind eye to evidence and proceed to tear down Science without batting an eyelid.
Beast
Point of Note:
If a person kills and uses "agnostic Christianity" as an excuse, I'd be cynical too.
That's just playing fair.
Beast
Silver, you claim that the murderer acted on the theory of natural selection. How does one act on a theory? I do believe in a great number of theories, and I wouldn't want to think that I'm failing to act appropriately, but I don't see how it can be done. Clearly you understand more of these matters than I do, so please give me some examples.
- How do I act on the theory of universal gravitation? Do I have to jump off towers?
- How do I act on germ theory?
- How do I act on the Maxwell's theories?
- How do I act on the special theory of relativity? Do I need to spend a lot of time on trains?
Come on Petter,
You know exactly what I am saying...
Within the evolutionary idea of natural selection (survival of the fittest), some organisms are allowed to live and move forward, while others are eliminated. Who/what decides which live and which die? Natural selection.
Thus, this murderer [1] calls himself "a natural selector", and [2] went about to "eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection."
Yes - we may all call him a nut - but his mindset still appears to be wrapped in the idea of natural selection (survival of the fittest), which is not Christian, but a theory of Darwin.
So as natural selection uses the "phenotype" (quality) of an organism to determine whether the organism should or should not live, this murderer has done exactly the same principle.
Again, surely Darwin did not note in his book we should go about using his "natural selection" ideas as reasons to murder other persons, but this guy has done so none the less.
Tim
Come On, Tim, Stop Making a fool of yourself:
"Within the evolutionary idea of natural selection (survival of the fittest), some organisms are allowed to live and move forward, while others are eliminated. Who/what decides which live and which die? Natural selection."
This is not a man-made phenomenon. It is a natural phenomenon, as Mother Nature dictates it as such, and what is more, it is an observable phenomenon.
If a murderer watches a lion immolate a gazelle live on National Geographic, are you going to blame it on National Geographic too?
Beast
Natural selection is not about decisions. That's precisely the point of the designation ‘natural selection’—no one needs to decide; things happen as they will.
My point is that there is no such thing as deriving morality from a scientific theory, although (as has been pointed out) there is such a thing as deriving morality from, say, Christian scripture (not necessarily good morality, especially if the Old Testament is drawn upon). It makes sense to derive morality from religion (semantic sense—it may not be rational), which provides rules on how you should behave and what things should be like.
It makes no sense to even speak of deriving morality from a scientific theory, as I hope my examples highlighted. This is why I find the title and topic of this blog post so needlessly inflammatory and misleading. Even a murderer truly committed to a cause of ‘social Darwinism’ does not do so because he realises that evolution is real. He does so because he has an ideology wherein he considers it morally appropriate for ‘stronger’ people to kill ‘weaker’.
Please tell me that you can at least see the sharp disconnect, and the difference between scientific theory and religious doctrine in these matters…?
Beast,
You are completely missing what I am saying...
Did I blame his killing on natural selection (whether real, fake, natural, or man-made), or did I say, "This murderer was acting upon this theory of "survival of the fittest" (aka natural selection), whether you agree or disagree with his actions?"
You write, "If a murderer watches a lion immolate a gazelle live on National Geographic, are you going to blame it on National Geographic too?"
How many times do you bring up the OT verses out of context, and dismiss the entire NT to claim the Bible is at fault when persons claim Christianity and/or God told them to do something terrible?
How many times is television and movies blamed for the reason people act out terrible things?
If it is not natural selection (science) which has made this murderer claim what he has, while committing this act, then it isn't the Bible, God, nor is it television or movies in other cases. Can we agree here?
The problem comes when persons take them out of context, choose to arrange them within their minds, and act upon them, leading them to perform acts which the original thinkers did not have in mind.
As previously said, over and over, this individual clearly claims he is acting as "a natural selector" to "eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection."
I have not blamed science, but that this person is acting unrighteously upon his ideas of a theory of science, so labeled "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest."
Tim
Petter,
"It makes no sense to even speak of deriving morality from a scientific theory, as I hope my examples highlighted."
This is why people will label the murderer as crazy.
"He does so because he has an ideology wherein he considers it morally appropriate for ‘stronger’ people to kill ‘weaker’."
Which sounds like "survival of the fittest" to me.
When there is no standard of morals, every man does what is right in his own eyes, drawing from wherever they choose, whether consciously or subconsciously.
Tim
Do you honestly mean to say that you cannot see a difference between “This is the way it happens to be” and “This is the way it should be”?
I do "see a difference between “This is the way it happens to be” and “This is the way it should be”."
I see this both inside and outside of Christianity, including morals, but not limited to.
Tim
OK. Do you also see how scientific theories are concerned strictly with what things are like, whereas religious doctrines include prescription—“Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk”, ”Kill the blasphemer who dares to gather sticks on the Sabbath”, and so forth?
Do you not see that scientific theory says "natural selection" happens, and this persons has acted as "natural selection" mimicing the theory?
As your previous comment:
It should be this guy should not have claimed to be a natural selector, elminating the unfit and disgraces in his eyes, but it happens to be he did.
Thank you for making my point—he did indeed mimic natural selection, but he did not ‘act according to’ it—there is no such thing.
You also haven't presented an argument why we should not blame Sir Isaac Newton for the deaths of people who fall out of high windows. Personally, if some villanous cad came along and said “We should push people out of windows so that, according to Newton's theories, they will fall to their deaths”, I would blame that fellow rather than trying to fault either Sir Isaac or his theory of gravitation.
I'm glad to see that Beast and Petter have pointed out the ill logic in your post, Tim. I hope you re-read the comments, re-analyze your thinking, and come to the same conclusions. Your original post is a good example of lying for Christ. It does no service to your religion to do so.
Tim:
Before you start heaping accusations at me for "misinterpreting" the bible, perhaps you might want to recall the Noah's Ark fracas - You mistakenly said that Noah didn't bring food on board.
And if you are so damn confident that I have made drastic errors, why did you not point them out to me when I post all those evil verses on my blog?
Beast
SI and Beast,
You guys are killing me here. Clearly making a mountain out of a mold hill.
Let’s review my post:
1. I note how he describes himself as a “social Darwinist.”
2. I quote his own words of thinking of himself as a “natural selector,” going about mimicking the theory of “natural selection” (aka “survival of the fittest”) by his claim he “will eliminate all who [he] see[s] unfit.”
3. I give simple facts.
4. I give a quote from the article.
5. As noted already to SI, I added some pun with the idea of “evolution”, since the individual claimed “social Darwinism” and “natural selection” in his pre-testimonies.
6. I noted that this story brought to mind the postings at another blog.
7. I ask “can we also say we can know the atheist or Darwinist by his deeds also?”
8. I ask “Should we judge all Darwinists by this one’s deeds?”
9. I later posted an update of more definitions this person gave themselves.
10. Thus, since Darwin is directly connected to “natural selection”, and this individual connects himself with “natural selection,” I decided upon the title. I did not say Darwin or “natural selection” made him do it, or that Darwin and “natural selection” should be blamed for him doing it.
So SI, as for the comment, “lying for Christ”, where then is the lie you claim exist?
Beast, as for you continual remembrance of your Noah’s Ark piece, I fail to see the relevance. So I make a mistake, admit and correct it, and this means that you cannot be wrong in your biblical interpretation? That is not logical or rational thinking. Sometimes people don’t comment to other’s posts simple because they don’t feel like discussing or arguing about it. I know I have covered your continual misuse of OT Levitical law, written for the law and government of the children of Israel. Your double-bladed idea that everyone should be adhering to the Levitical law, yet claim the Levitical law is no good is just plain silly and surely meant as a mockery on both fronts and not a genuine conviction.
I realize it must be difficult to see a mass killing by one using words as Darwinist, natural selection, humanist, and atheism. But he did, yet he is still to blame.
Next time you read an article that claims God told them to do it, or that they are just obeying the Bible, remember what you have written here.
Tim
Tim
You are the one who is not logical, and plain stubborn. You deserve to be killed for your ignorance:
"I know I have covered your continual misuse of OT Levitical law, written for the law and government of the children of Israel. Your double-bladed idea that everyone should be adhering to the Levitical law, yet claim the Levitical law is no good is just plain silly and surely meant as a mockery on both fronts and not a genuine conviction."
If that is true, why are these laws still considered valid under the Canon? And why no disclaimer saying that it isn't applicable today?
The truth is, it is just pure conjuncture on your, and the part of other Christians, quite akin to the "nicking and pixing" syndrome I so very often allude to.
The Noah's Ark is just one example of how you misconstrue the writings of others and even your bible. Your interpretation of Pascal's wager is also flawed, as I have also pointed out. In fact, I will venture to say that much of what you write can be refuted easily, and I believe I have spared no effort in doing that.
Simply alluding to Darwinism and atheism doesn't really mean anything, Tim. Atheism has no codified law, unlike the stupid babble. And as I have pointed out earlier (which you obviously missed), words like "anti human humanist" simply don't mean anything, unless you can decipher the meaning of square circles. Obviously the meaning of "oxymorons" doesn't appear in your dictionary.
Quit complaining, Tim. I am not against you because you are a Christian. Ask Akiwiki bear how I treated him with the same respect as an atheist.
Beast
Beast
I know this
You deserve to be killed for your ignorance:
was meant tongue in cheek, but it's the kind of thing they will take the wrong way, and point to for generations to come, as evidence that atheists just want to kill Christians. Be careful what you write.
Tim
Despite that, I agree with Beast, when he points out that the killers use of Darwinian phrases is not a valid condemnation of Evolution, which is the only reason you posted that. Your intent was to tie mass murder with Darwin, and that is cheap.
That poor, mentally ill individual was just as ignorant of what he spoke as you are. Neither of you understand, even remotely, what natural selection is. If anything, the fact that you and he share this common ignorance allows me to tie your Christianity with his mass killing with far more validity than your attempt to tie it to Darwin.
Spanish Inquisitor:
Yes, I meant it in a tongue-in-cheek way, since Tim thinks that we are "killing" him (I assume that to mean that his arguments have been killed).
In any case, Tim has failed to read many of the links he merely cuts and pastes at his own childish whim, so it is prudent that we put him in his place, lest he thinks there are no people outside his little church that are smarter than he is.
Beast
http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2007/11/those-murderous-darwinists.html
My rebuttal against your post.
Beast
Tim: "...since the Darwinists suggests “survival of the fittest” within evolution as “natural selection.”
Darwinists do not. The term "survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin and was not part of his theory. Modern evolutionary biologists are loathe to use the term "survival of the fittest". The term was actually coined by Herbert Spencer...a philosopher.
"This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." - Herbert Spencer
That's Spencer's philosophical take on Darwins scientific theory.
Yes, and Spencer was probably the first Social Darwinist.
Social Darwinism is what the nut case in Finland was trying to emulate, not biological evolution.
In the process of carrying out his concept of natural selection, he actually removed his genes from the gene pool. Ironic, isn't it?
Lol Tim. After so many months, reading this article of yours still makes me laugh....hard.
I wonder how much you have learned from your stupidity......for each and every attempt you make to discredit Science, it seems to fly back straight in your face.
Beast FCD
Post a Comment